We kill the weaker! Will it ever stop?

I am wondering if each of our ancestors were killed off by their own predesseors. I was watching a documentary where it showed the homo-erectus killing off the neaderthals until there were none left. It got to wonder, considering we had so many ancestors (see below) that are no longer around. Did each predessesor kill their off their previous reletive? If so, now that only homosapiens are left, we now have shifted to killing thoughs that are of different religious heritage. Is it embedded in our DNA to fight what is different? (College football game riots, school pride, new kid at school, etc...).

Now I ask, is there an new kind of homosapien slowly being introduced into nature as we debate on this forum that will eventually kill all of the homosapiens off. To me, this cycle seems as evodent as night and day.

* Australopithecus ramidus (mid-Pliocene, 4.4 Ma) -- A recently discovered very early hominid (or early chimp?), from just after the split with the apes. Not well known. Possibly bipedal (only the skull was found). Teeth both apelike and humanlike; one baby tooth is very chimp-like. (White et al., 1994; Wood 1994)
* Australopithecus afarensis (late Pliocene, 3.9 Ma) -- Some excellent fossils ("Lucy", etc.) make clear that this was fully bipedal and definitely a hominid. But it was an extremely ape-like hominid; only four feet tall, still had an ape-sized brain of just 375-500 cc (finally answering the question of which came first, large brain or bipedality) and ape-like teeth. This lineage gradually split into a husky large-toothed lineage and a more slender, smaller- toothed lineage. The husky lineage (A. robustus, A. boisei) eventually went extinct.
* Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene, 3.0 Ma) -- The more slender lineage. Up to five feet tall, with slightly larger brain (430-550 cc) and smaller incisors. Teeth gradually became more and more like Homo teeth. These hominds are almost perfect ape- human intermediates, and it's now pretty clear that the slender australopithecines led to the first Homo species.
* Homo habilis (latest Pliocene/earliest Pleistocene, 2.5 Ma) -- Straddles the boundary between australopithecines and humans, such that it's sometimes lumped with the australopithecines. About five feet tall, face still primitive but projects less, molars smaller. Brain 500-800 cc, overlapping australopithecines at the low end and and early Homo erectus at the high end. Capable of rudimentary speech? First clumsy stone tools.
* Homo erectus (incl. "Java Man", "Peking Man", "Heidelberg Man"; Pleist., 1.8 Ma) -- Looking much more human now with a brain of 775-1225 cc, but still has thick brow ridges & no chin. Spread out of

* Archaic Homo sapiens (Pleistocene, 500,000 yrs ago) -- These first primitive humans were perfectly intermediate between H. erectus and modern humans, with a brain of 1200 cc and less robust skeleton & teeth. Over the next 300,000 years, brain gradually increased, molars got still smaller, skeleton less muscular. Clearly arose from H erectus, but there are continuing arguments about where this happened.

* One famous offshoot group, the Neandertals, developed in Europe 125,000 years ago. They are considered to be the same species as us, but a different subspecies, H. sapiens neandertalensis. They were more muscular, with a slightly larger brain of 1450 cc, a distinctive brow ridge, and differently shaped throat (possibly limiting their language?). They are known to have buried their dead.
* H. sapiens sapiens (incl. "Cro-magnons"; late Pleist., 40,000 yrs ago) -- All modern humans. Average brain size 1350 cc. In Europe, gradually supplanted the Neanderthals

www.talkorigins.org...

(mod edit to add source for quoted text)

[edit on 1-10-2005 by pantha]

It isn't hard to believe.

Do we not already kill ourselves off over simple things such as religion or more land?

We kill for fun, out of fear, out of need and for greed.

Any of the above could fit in to the above list you gave.

Oduim, I hear alot about Indigo children here. I guess my real question wasn't clear. I want to know if there is another form of human being introduced to nature that we wwould only realize in retrospect. Perhaps these indigo children? A more conscious race perhaps?

Indifference to the poor, weak, physically disabled, mentally disabled..Seems its just as prevalent today as yesterday and that is really sad.

I personally would always go after the biggest and baddest in school.
I tend to do the same today in a different way. Firing off e-mails to big wigs in corporations and government that most wouldn't do.
Whats the worse thing that could happen anyways,,,die or end up in prison?

magnito,

Perhaps that is your purpose... Change the balance of acceptance..?

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
magnito,

Perhaps that is your purpose... Change the balance of acceptance..?

Maybe I will tell you some day what I did to someone in high position that became indifferent to the weak and down trodden. It is too early to determine just yet.

Trust me, it has nothing to do with violence. That is the old way and it no longer works and really never did.

I was watching a documentary where it showed the homo-erectus killing off the Neanderthals until there were none left.

I’m assuming you mean Homo sapiens, since there is no chance that Homo erectus could have successfully killed off the Neanderthals, given that the Neanderthal fossil record is more recent than that of Homo erectus and the fact that the two species did not co-exist. Homo erectus became extinct approximately 400 000 years BCE (Reference), whereas Neanderthals evolved approximately 230 000 years BCE and died out approximately 29 000 years ago (Reference).

As for whether or not each successive human species killed off its predecessor, I think it would be an over-simplification to state that this is exactly what happened, or to draw links between the extinction of obsolete humanoid species and inbuilt aggressive tendencies.

The debate over whether or not Homo sapiens (in the form of Cro Magnon Man) violently eradicated the Neanderthals has been ongoing for some time and continues to generate arguments on both sides. I personally find it extremely unlikely that Homo sapiens engaged in any form of large-scale eradication of the Neanderthals and feel it is far more likely that Neanderthals were simply unable to adapt to changing environmental conditions and were out-competed for natural resources by the more capable Homo sapiens. Neanderthals were ideally suited for life during the harsh Ice Age, but when the environmental conditions began to change to a warmer climate, these same adaptations made it difficult for the Neanderthals to quickly adapt to the changes. As a result, it is extremely probable that they would have become extinct even without the presence of Homo sapiens. It is also likely that at the time when Homo sapiens first encountered them, the Neanderthals were already in decline, due to their inability to adapt to the end of the Ice Age for which they were so well adapted.

Homo sapiens, though less physically durable than the Neanderthals, were far better adapted to both sudden and unexpected drops in temperature, as well as the gradual change from Ice Age to a more temperate climate. This in due in large part to superior technology in the form of better clothes, superior hunting tools, better use of fire and probably better shelters (Reference). Lacking these advantages, the Neanderthals would have been less capable of adapting to shifts in their environment and would have faced a prolonged death as they were out-competed for scarce resources by Homo sapiens. Although conflict may have occurred, I am of the opinion that it would have been isolated and localised, say if the two groups were in direct competition for a specific resource, rather than an organised extermination of the Neanderthals. There would simply be no need to wipe the Neanderthals out directly when nature was wiping them out rather effectively with no Homo sapien involvement.

Is it embedded in our DNA to fight what is different?

I don’t think so. I would point to the many places on Earth where people of different religions and cultures live quite peacefully. I live in Brisbane, a city on the east coast of Australia. Brisbane is a very multicultural city and, although racism and religious prejudice are present, they are very definitely the exception and not the norm. However, competition certainly is an aspect of Homo sapiens psychological makeup, even if it is not genetically encoded. Competition can be a good thing – it has inherent survival value. I do not think that we are any more violent or aggressive than any other human species that has come before us. I just think that we are more aware of our violence and aggression than those species would have been, due to our ability to think rationally and to employ abstract thought and complex reasoning. In the past, hominid species would have killed and fought over access to resources. We continue to do so, but we have since developed complex concepts such as religion, which give us more things to fight over. It doesn’t make us more violent, it just means that the focus for violence has shifted and even this can be argued. I feel we need to consider, however, that in many places on Earth, violence and killing are seen as wholly unacceptable. Our ability to think morally and develop ethics sets us apart from our predecessors and goes some way towards demonstrating that we are not built solely for violence.

Now I ask, is there an new kind of homosapien slowly being introduced into nature as we debate on this forum that will eventually kill all of the homosapiens off. To me, this cycle seems as evodent as night and day.

This is extremely unlikely. If a new species were being introduced, they would not be Homo sapiens, just as we were not Neanderthals or Homo erectus. They would be a new hominid species and they would stand out. Based on the progression of human evolution as gleaned from the fossil record, a new species would be significantly taller than us, with larger, more complex brains and would be capable of thinking and communicating in ways which were wholly alien to us. Even if these less tangible aspects were hard to observe, the physical differences would be extremely obvious. Simply put, any next step on the evolutionary ladder would be easily observable, since a new species would be radically different from us physically. Although it is inevitable that Homo sapiens be usurped, there simply is no evidence that this is currently taking place. Every step in human evolution has been a profoundly physical change. The next one will be too and it will be clear for all to see.

its nature every animal in existance has always gone after the weakest first weather its a wolf killing the sick dear not the strong moose or a human bully's picking on the smallest kids

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Oduim, I hear alot about Indigo children here. I guess my real question wasn't clear. I want to know if there is another form of human being introduced to nature that we wwould only realize in retrospect. Perhaps these indigo children? A more conscious race perhaps?

We have to separate "magical thinking" from "science" here in order to answer the question. Indigo children is a form of "magical thinking" that says that children born since 1980 are a special breed of person.

Why is this "magical thinking" rather than science? It says that suddenly the people of the Earth just started breeding this kind of child. There's no explaination as to heritage... it just "kerpoof" happened.

Species don't just show up with a loud "kerpoof" as the deity of your choice inserts the into the world. I have a moderately rare breed of cat (a Birman, rescued from the local pound) -- there wasn't a time in the past 50 years when cats all over the world suddenly started producing litters of Birmans. They have a genetic lineage and come from a known pair of cats (the last survivors of a much older breed.)

You can produce something that LOOKS like a Birman (breed a Persian with a Siamese)... well, eventually... but you can't get one from just any old tabby you find wandering around your yard.

So, if Indigo Children were true, we would have seen genetic changes and these traits stretching back through time to a specific set of parents. They would have definable differences (not subjective ones like "does your child have very old, deep, wise-looking eyes"... ANY eyes, including that of a porcelain doll, can look "wise." Heck, my cat's eyes look wise and I can tell you that in spite of that he's a real ditz.) in body -- like "pronounced epicanthic fold" or "long pointy ears like Mr. Spock" or "knobbled forehead like a Klingon."

I don't doubt that humans will evolve into a stage beyond homo sapiens. BUT... it will be done with a definite lineage and a definate definable objective difference (like six fingers on each hand) rather than some vague subjective measure like "Is your child a daydreamer?"




(on the last point, daydreaming, studies show that we all have a need for daydreaming. It's one of the psychological traits that helps us learn (running "what if" scenarios) and helps us make sense of the world.)

[edit on 2-10-2005 by Byrd]

Oh.. and on "killing the weaker"... may I suggest you go back and look at human history?

Humans used to abandon babies with any obvious birth defect. They also used to kill children that were born as twins or children whose teeth emerged in the wrong order (still done in some areas of Africa. In India, in provincial areas they do "dog marriages" to remove the curse.)

Perhaps you haven't gone into any hospitals to see the people (like premature babies) who live and thrive but once would have been set out to die. And perhaps you haven't met any people in wheelchairs who have cerebral palsy or other debilitating diseases. Once they would also have been killed.

More of the physically handicapped survive than ever before. Go look.

Nature has defense mechanisms designed into it.

The mechanism you speak of is not so much "Kill the weaker", as it is "Kill the threat" or what I call the "Cut the fat"

The first, is that we attack that which we perceive as a threat. We feel threatened by things we fear, and we fear that which we do not understand. (This being the source of most of the worlds racism, hatred, and intolerance)

The other, is also natural. It sounds inhumane to say that a birth defect baby is left to die, but in those days, it was necessary. However, take a look at a herd of gazelles being attacked by lions or some other animal. Which gazelles get picked off? You guessed it, the sick/weak/injured. That's just how nature works. Even though the gazelles may not 'want' their sick mommy/daddy to die... nature does, or it wouldn't have created lions with the intelligence to pick off the weaker, ensuring only the strong pass on their genes.

My .02