Cognition

[john]

We aren't all that special. Apes with atomic weapons, hats, and overblown egos.

The one abhorrent trait that is prevalent in humans......and not found in other animals.

The ability and willingness to do wholesale slaughter.

EDIT: with that said....who is more evolved we humans or other animals?

Zan -

How 'bout the various species of Army Ants?

Or the well-recorded feeding frenzies of Sharks?

Or the meta hodos of various pelagic predator fish, various species,

Who corral baitfish into a tightly compressed "bubble"

Then go in for the slaughter?

And then we have Frank Dobie, who, in "The Voice of the Coyote"

Recorded multiple instances of mass kills of sheep, both penned

And on the open range.

Tens or hundreds were killed, and only a small portion of a few

Individuals were eaten.

Then there are the Anteaters, who rip apart ant colonies to feed.

To the ants, this is definitely wholesale slaughter.


As to the question of who is more evolved, if any,

Are you referring to the physical construct

(Certain shrews live their lives in a matter of months, certain

Tortoises, centuries. There is a huge underground fungus colony

Located in Wisconsin, I believe, which has been described to be

Not only the largest living being in the world, but also the oldest),

Perceived cognitive abilities,

Length of existence as a species in geological time

(In which case the cyano bacteria seems to win hands down)

Or?

In other words,

What are your parameters for the definition of

More - or less - evolved?


hoka hey

john

[Minimalist]

Or the well-recorded feeding frenzies of Sharks?

Sharks stop when they've eaten, John.



http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaste ... dieval.htm

"The Crusaders spent at least that night and the next day killing Muslims, including all of those in the al-Aqsa Mosque, where Tancred's banner should have protected them. Not even women and children were spared. The city's Jews sought refuge in their synagogue, only to be burned alive within it by the Crusaders. Raymond of Aquilers reported that he saw "piles of heads, hands and feet" on a walk through the holy city. Men trotted across the bodies and body fragments as if they were a carpet for their convenience. The Europeans also destroyed the monuments to Orthodox Christian saints and the tomb of Abraham. ... While the slaughter was still going on, many churchmen and princes assembled for a holy procession. Barefoot, chanting and singing, they walked to the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre through the blood flowing around their feet."

Three Christians with the Crusader army described the events as follows:

"Both day and night, on the fourth and fifth days of the week, we made a determined attack on the city from all sides. However, before we made this assault on the city, the bishops and priests persuaded all, by exhorting and preaching, to honor the Lord by marching around Jerusalem in a great procession, and to prepare for battle by prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. Early on the sixth day of the week we again attacked the city on all sides, but as the assault was unsuccessful, we were all astounded and fearful. However, when the hour approached on which our Lord Jesus Christ deigned to suffer on the Cross for us, our knights began to fight bravely in one of the towers - namely, the party with Duke Godfrey and his brother, Count Eustace. One of our knights, named Lethold, clambered up the wall of the city, and no sooner had he ascended than the defenders fled from the walls and through the city. Our men followed, killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles....

[Ishtar]

John - I think mainly what you're describing are just the natural cycles of predatory activity - although I admit it can get a little gruesome and even disturbing, especially when you see killer whales tossing live baby seals around to each other in a seemingly-macabre game of catch and even piggy-in-the-middle before eating them. But even that may not be a game. Maybe they're tenderising them?

But possibly Zan is referring to this: I think I'm right in saying that we don't see wars for territory between those of the same species. What you do see is one male trying to unseat the existing head of the herd, and if he succeeds, then killing all the cubs of the old chief. This nstantaneously kills two birds with one stone, a) he rids himself of his old rival's descendants which b) instantly brings the females into heat so that he can start creating some descendants of his own.

But this fighting is one on one - the young Pretender unseating the ageing incumbent that is no longer strong enough to lead the herd. It is not warfare. You don't see hundreds of lions backing the young Pretender and fighting with the existing lions of the pride.

Or has anyone seen an example in Nature of this? I'd be interested to know.

I must say, it would have been infinitely preferable to see Bush go into unarmed combat with Hussein - it would have saved a lot the lives of a lot of innocent civilians, almost 100,000 at the last count.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[Cognito]

Cog;
Doesn’t species interbreeding usually produce sterile offspring?
(Horse/Donkey = Mule)
(I think we have talked about this before and someone brought up the fact that mules are not 100 percent sterile. But the percentage was so low that even in a controlled breeding environment you could not produce a mule/mule offspring.)
So, if you did have a half-breed, or hybrid, in an uncontrolled environment, what would be the chances of it passing on any traits?
Any interbreeding would just be another dead-end.

The math gets to a point that no bookie would touch.

The Horse/Donkey = Mule example is not applicable in this case according to M. Wolpoff et al since, at least at the nuclear DNA level, the differences between H erectus and its offspring (H sapiens and/or H neanderthalis) was never very pronounced in the first place due to a continuous mixing of the genetic pool. In other words, they never isolated long enough to speciate.

Wolpoff is saying that early humans traveled the landscape far more than anyone ever imagined. The artists' renderings I see picture ancient humans hiding out in caves and never wandering very far. The fossil record totally contradicts that paradigm.

Multiregionalists argue that the unique geography of Eurasia/Africa allowed for steady and continuous gene flow up until about 50,000bce when OOA made its final pulse (the last of at least three pulses), overruning all other areas. The traces of archaic DNA show up in the nuclear genome, not mtDNA. Also, the historical saga of most humans can be derived from their "junk" DNA residing in the nuclear genome. Just because we haven't interpreted its function doesn't mean it is junk. A tremendous amount of archaic viral and bacterial information resides there in addition to archaic genetic material.

Since H erectus apparently preceeded us, how can we tell what is Hss and what is H erectus in the genome in the first place? That is what mutation rates and genetic clocks are all about. It is not an exact science, but a genetics lab can determine the age of a gene variant within an acceptable range to tell you who was two-stepping on Mother Earth when the gene first took on its current form. If it is 1 million years old (+/- 100,000 years), then it began with H erectus and further, should be found in Hss as well as H neanderthalis since they split their lineage after that time.

The science community goes bonkers when someone like Bruce Lahn states that the Brain D Allele came into the Hss genome about 37,000 years ago, implying that we acquired it from Neanderthals. Another surprise was the FOX2P gene being included in both the Hss and Neanderthal genome, implying inheritance from H erectus. What? H erectus had language? Next thing I know, you're going to tell me that they made use of boats!

[Cognito]

I must say, it would have been infinitely preferable to see Bush go into unarmed combat with Hussein - it would have saved a lot the lives of a lot of innocent civilians, almost 100,000 at the last count.

Now, that would be a contest the entire world would pay to see. The marketing take could go into the billions by the time it's all done. This would have been the biggest moneymaking event of all time! Just the economic stimulus we need to exit this worldwide recession.

Well, since Saddam's neck was stretched to the limit; how about Bush versus Bin Laden, the Movie?

Bush can be played by this guy:


Bin Laden can be played by this guy:

[zan]

Well, I do.

Please show me where

[zan]

Zan -

How 'bout the various......

Most of what you cited involves the natural act of eating therefor no acts of malice

Recorded multiple instances of mass kills of sheep, both penned

And on the open range.

Tens or hundreds were killed, and only a small portion of a few

Individuals were eaten.

Not familiar with what you are talking about if you can show me.

In other words,

What are your parameters for the definition of

More - or less - evolved?

Why does man kill man...differences in opinion...ideology....differences in skin color (<not the best example)...speak a different language?

[zan]

I must say, it would have been infinitely preferable to see Bush go into unarmed combat with Hussein - it would have saved a lot the lives of a lot of innocent civilians, almost 100,000 at the last count.

You don't know how many times over the years I have said this very thing

[john]

Zan -

How 'bout the various......

Most of what you cited involves the natural act of eating therefor no acts of malice

Recorded multiple instances of mass kills of sheep, both penned

And on the open range.

Tens or hundreds were killed, and only a small portion of a few

Individuals were eaten.

Not familiar with what you are talking about if you can show me.

In other words,

What are your parameters for the definition of

More - or less - evolved?

Why does man kill man...differences in opinion...ideology....differences in skin color (<not the best example)...speak a different language?

Zan -

I admit to setting you up a bit -

You used the word "slaughter"

And not (I think what you intended) "war."

My point is, that from the viewpoint of the victims

There are plenty examples of slaughter in the natural world,

And as you and others correctly pointed out, they

Are related to feeding activity.

Warfare, or "malicious slaughter"

(Your use of the word malicious in your reply fits perfectly)

Is unknown outside of the various subspecies of humans

As far as I know.

Note: Still have to track down a vague memory of organized

Aggression among Baboons which I read about 99 years ago.

Anyway, "Old Crip."

Context: A rancher buys a sheep ranch in 1943, and proceeds,

As was standard in those days,

To clean out the coyotes by shooting and trapping them.

He trapped a coyote he named "Old Crip."

She chewed her trapped foot off and continued to kill.

" Within thirty days the stub had healed and she was killing sheep again.
She killed sixty lambs within a month's time. She went from one pasture
to another and killed $3000 worth of sheep during the fifteen months
and five days I kept after her. I didn't let up for a day. Her track was unmistakable and her habits were individual.

She killed often for sport. Any killing leaves plain signs. But Old Crip
never seemed boastful and reckless in her killings like some coyotes.
One night four bold ones came into a clean pasture, killed sixteen lambs,
gorged, went on, met a skunk, killed him, tore him up and rolled on
without taking a bite of his flesh, went on, met a big fat possum, killed him. and left him untouched beside the trail. These coyotes were out to
shoot up the town. Old Crip would slaughter sheep right and left; then
she was gone. When a coyote with any sense kills a sheep, he knows
he is in danger. He eats in a hurry. He takes one gulp and then looks up.
As soon as he is full, he makes tracks - no lying around the carcass for him. This was the way of Old Crip. She killed without reason at times, but was always on the alert. After the killing was over, she never seemed to be playful or loggy. She stayed unceasingly careful."

- Related by Luke Stillwell to J. Frank Dobie -

From "The Voice of the Coyote"
by J. Frank Dobie
Copyright 1949
The Curtis Publishing Company

And by the way, Mr. Dobie is/was a luminary among the historians
Of Western America

There is a fair amount of documentation of "thrill killing" by coyotes;
This one just happened to be the nearest at hand.

I leave this for you to ponder.

Next: "Why does man kill man?"

Here are some rough categories -

Accidental deaths while hunting with weapons

Murder

Cannibalism, whether ritual or for survival

Raiding

Defensive response to being attacked

Full blown organised warfare

And in our wonderful modern world, we have

Psychosis

Road Rage

Domestic Violence

Robbery

Criminal Cartels

And the list goes on damn near forever


So, my first cut at this is

Are we genetically hardwired to kill each other, or is

This a learned cognitive, behavior set

Passed from generation to generation?


hoka hey

john

[zan]

Hey John
Niisistowahsin I'nákohtssi

You used the word "slaughter"

And not (I think what you intended) "war."

Perhaps I could have used "war" instead but 'slaughter' still applies.
As in needless killing?

My point is, that from the viewpoint of the victims

Victims...
worship different a god/gods
belong to a different tribe/clan/country
had straight hair instead of curly hair

I can make this list long but I hope you understand where it is leading.

The point I am trying to make is....how can we call ourselves evolutionarily advanced if we kill fellow man over things that are not of a survive (life survive) or die nature.

Note: Still have to track down a vague memory of organized

Aggression among Baboons which I read about 99 years ago.

Ah that struck a note. I don't remember what the experts said about it but it could have been a hunting territory dispute.
But like I said...not sure.

From "The Voice of the Coyote"
by J. Frank Dobie

One of the reviews on this book:

“Deftly blends the natural history of the coyote with the anecdote, tall tales, and legend gathered from the author''s wide reading and personal experience in his native region.”—New York Times Book Review
amazon.com

EDIT: The book is part fiction, part fact

Is that behavior consistently observed?

---------------------------------
And so do not forget.Every Dawn as it comes is a holy event and everyday is holy, for the light comes from "WAKAN-TANKA" And Also you Must remeber that the Two-leggeds and All other peoples who Stand upon this Earth are Sacred and Should be Treated as Such
"White Buffalo Woman" Sioux Sacred Woman, quoted by Black Elk , (Oglala Sioux)1947.

BTW: Are we getting way off topic?

[Minimalist]

Another surprise was the FOX2P gene being included in both the Hss and Neanderthal genome, implying inheritance from H erectus.

I saw a re-run of Neanderthal Code last night and they seemed to give that idea a great big leaving alone. They suggested that the only way that HNS and HSS could have the same gene was for one to pass it to the other.

They suggested ( 'concluded' would be too strong a word!) that because Neanderthal was hunting in woods instead of open plains that language would be more important to them. Therefore, language developed among HNS and was passed to HSS.

They completely failed to address the far more reasonable idea that both inherited FOX2P from HE.

[Ishtar]

BTW: Are we getting way off topic?

No .. anyway, it doesn't matter if we are. We don't bother too much about such niceties here. And it's wonderful for me to read some of the stuff you're putting up here, particularly the quote from Black Elk who we are honoured to have on this board.

[john]

zan -

EDIT: The book is part fiction, part fact

Is that behavior consistently observed?


I have read all of his books.

He is consistently meticulous about tagging

Fiction/Myth vs. fact.

And says so, within the context of each of his books.

A latter day Thucydides.

He records the actual observances of the people

Who lived, exactly, that time.


hoka hey

john

[zan]

I admit I have not read any of his books.

He is consistently meticulous about tagging

Fiction/Myth vs. fact.

And says so, within the context of each of his books.

To give the reader an informative view does he "tag" the myth/fact in the book or at the end?
If at the end there is chance for the reader to lose perspective as to the content: reading myth as facts.

[Ishtar]

... there is chance for the reader to lose perspective as to the content: reading myth as facts.

And we all know what sort of trouble that can lead to. .... 2000 years of trouble.