Predators 'drove human evolution'

[Maggy J]

Interesting theory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4729050.stm

The popular view of our ancient ancestors as hunters who conquered all in their way is wrong, researchers have told a major US science conference. Instead, they say, early humans were on the menu for predatory beasts.
This may have driven humans to evolve increased levels of co-operation, according to their theory.
Despite humankind's considerable capacity for war and violence, we are highly sociable animals, according to anthropologists.

[homealone]

Interesting, but the report mentions that chimpanzees didn't develop the same degree of altruism, while being presented with the same challenges - and still survived as a species.

Herd animals demonstrate the most developed use of 'unselfish' behaviour to ensure their survival - is this report suggesting we are closer to buffalo than baboons, in our social interactions??

[Stuart W]

We're closer to cows than chimps in our DNA, so I don't see why not

[BBKing]

We're closer to cows than chimps in our DNA, so I don't see why not

We are? I don't think we're particularly close to anything, considering the damage 2% of DNA can do, which is the difference between us and chimps. We really aren't very chimp like at all, and they're usually taken to be the 'closest'.

One predator that certainly operates very successfully in the human environment is, er, humans. We've certainly evolved to defend ourselves against ourselves, and no mistake. Sociability does allow several other useful attributes such as long gestation periods (equals offspring more likely to survive and allows us to grow bigger and nastier, which is all good if you're trying to carve out a niche). It also makes up for a our rather poor senses (two pairs of eyes might spot the lion that one misses), which allows us to devote more evolutionary time to enlarging the brain to balance it up.

[punky]

The popular view of our ancient ancestors as hunters who conquered all in their way is wrong,

Eh? I didn't know that was the popular view. I thought natural selection "survival of the fittest" was the popular view. That's where weaker of the species are more likely to become prey therefore, strengthing our genepool, and pushing evolution along, striving to no long be prey.

[basa]

Originally Posted by homealone

.........Herd animals demonstrate the most developed use of 'unselfish' behaviour to ensure their survival - .....

Hmm .. I always see the major reaction to a threat from herd animals is to 'leg it', not hang around to warn the herd & see if everyone is OK.

[homealone]

Originally Posted by basa

Hmm .. I always see the major reaction to a threat from herd animals is to 'leg it', not hang around to warn the herd & see if everyone is OK.

the point was that they do it as a group, it is the 'safety in numbers' approach, I meant. Often, even when 'legging it', the younger/weaker members of the herd are in the middle of the group & less likely to be 'picked off'.

- it is quite amazing how close a herd of, say, Zebra, will allow a predator to come, provided they can see it - but it is usually the strong, fit ones that do the 'facing', and once they decide to run, the rest of the herd have a head start.

[Maggy J]

The thing is we are not herbivores but are omnivores.Thus we are not naturally 'herd ' animals or solitary predators.

Somehow we have found the ability to 'group' together in a way that other animals do not.We can even care at a 'distance' hence all the aid to disaster sites thousands of miles away...I certainly think that the theory has some merit.

Mind thinking of the co-operation of gorillas and dolphins might knock that on the head.The former is herbivore and the latter is predator(though I'm sure dolphins are sometimes prey themselves).

I'd like to see if the research is taken further.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

The former is herbivore and the latter is predator(though I'm sure dolphins are sometimes prey themselves).

Although sharks do attack dolphins, the counter-attack that dolphins can, and do, mount can equally kill a shark.

[Xaccers]

Humans are predators, so are chimps.
We're pack hunters.
At some point in our past, our intelligence allowed us to realise that if we care for a sick member of our pack/tribe, we can prevent them dying, and thus prevent the loss of a valuable resouce.
Many other apes use "medicine" to care for sick members of their group.
I can't remember if it's chimps or gorillas who, when suffering from an upset stomach, eat a certain plant to treat it.

Tribal humans are still on the menu of beasts.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Humans are predators, so are chimps.
We're pack hunters.
At some point in our past, our intelligence allowed us to realise that if we care for a sick member of our pack/tribe, we can prevent them dying, and thus prevent the loss of a valuable resouce.
Many other apes use "medicine" to care for sick members of their group.
I can't remember if it's chimps or gorillas who, when suffering from an upset stomach, eat a certain plant to treat it.

Tribal humans are still on the menu of beasts.

We are omnivores not carnivores.We are opportunistic in our eating habits and will kill/scavenge and eat meat where possible but we also eat our veggies.Maybe this makes us what we are.I'm not too sure that there are many other omnivores species.

[patrickp]

In addition, we can survive and grow quite happily on a vegetable-only diet, whereas we cannot survive on a meat-only diet, as proper predators do!

Interestingly, the physiology that most closely matches ours is not any of the apes, but pigs. It's thought that this is because our natural diet is very similar to that of omnivorous pigs. That's why pigs are so often used for trials of drugs etc to be used for humans, and why pigs are mooted as potentially the best non-human bet for sourcing transplant material - size also has to do with this, of course.

My personal opinion is that, along with the benefits accruing from socialisation, tool use was what drove the evolution of our brains and nervous systems. Both language use and dexterity would be advantageous in developing these skills, so the development of the nervous system, plus that of the organs of manipulation and communication (mostly hands, voices and faces) would tend to produce the most successful individuals.

In fact, a chimpanzee, for instance, doesn't really posses comparatively more musculature than a human, but is considerably stronger. The reason for this is that a chimp's muscles are connected to its skeleton in ways that produce much greater leverage; at the same time, this means that a chimp has nowhere near the dexterity that a human has.

The fact is that humans, individually, make appallingly poor predators. What gives them their edge is social cooperation and the development of tools such as weapons. In other words, humans could not become successful predators until the development of communication and toolmaking skills enabled this. But then, while it was humans' evolutionary prowess that enabled them to be able to become successful predators, at the same time this evolutionary prowess laid the grounds for humans to become agricultural creatures, a way of life offering far greater opportunity to develop those skills of toolmaking and socialisation further, and offering much greater security for the future.

Specialising in predation has always been, essentially, a sideline for humans. While primitive societies may have had (and some still do today) individuals who have specialised in hunting, it's always been the skills of communication, toolmaking and farming that have taken these societies forward, and, probably, overspecialising in hunting that has held them back.