Study reveals clues to how humans became sociable
(PhysOrg.com) -- Humans have evolved to become the most flexible of the primates and being able to live in lots of different social settings sets us apart from non-human primates, suggests research by University of Oxford and the University of Auckland.
A research paper, published in the journal Nature, has provided important new clues to how humans network and socialise today by exploring the evolutionary history of social groupings among primates. The study analysed patterns of social groups among living primates, as well as examining the the root of the family tree, in 217 primate species. The researchers then used Bayesian data modelling to reconstruct the most likely explanation for how the grouping behaviour of primates evolved over 74 million years.
Their key finding is that the main step change in social behaviour occurred when primates switched from being mainly active at night to being more active during the day. Primates started out as solitary foragers as by night they could survive by moving quietly on their own in the dark. However, once they switched to daytime activity, they could be seen and were more vulnerable to attack by predators unless they could show strength in numbers. This research paper provides evidence to show that this switch in activity coincided with a significant change in social behaviour as primates started to gang up for the first time. The researchers conclude that social bonding began as a way of adapting to a new threat.
The paper also suggests that primates went directly from being solitary foragers into large, mixed-sex groups where group members were loosely bound together. Members could come and go as needed, suggests the research, which is a behaviour still observed in some primates, like lemurs, today. The emergence of more stable groups of primates, in which individuals formed clusters that were smaller in size and maintained close social links, is likely to have developed much later says the paper.
These findings are significant as they throw into doubt previous theories about the evolution of primate social grouping patterns. Previous studies have suggested that complex primate social groups were composed of smaller units that stacked up rather like building blocks. Others have suggested that the bond between a mother and daughter later extended to include other related females, and it was this network of relationships that underpinned the social grouping patterns of mammals.
The data, studied by the research team, included a huge range of social grouping patterns: solitary individuals, family- bonds, pair-bonds, harems, multi-male and multi-female groups. The researchers discovered that the bonding behaviour of primates was strongly determined by their ancestors, with closely related species having very similar social behaviour.
Once the transition from individual to group living took place 52 million years ago in the ancestral line that gave rise to humans, and later in another branch of the primate family tree no shift back to solitary behaviour ever occurred. Primate ancestors that subsequently began living in pairs did not switch back to group living, whereas those that began living in harems could transition back and forth with large groups. There was never a transition directly from pair to harem living or vice versa.
The researchers conclude that only humans have had the flexibility to live in a range of different, complicated social settings. Throughout history, humans have lived in monogamous and polygamous societies; in nuclear family and extended family groups. Beyond the home, they have socialised in different work settings, as well as being part of the complicated social structure of wider human society.
Lead author Dr Susanne Shultz, from the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology at the University of Oxford, said: There is an amazing flexibility in the way humans have managed to socialise, network and live together, both in groups and wider society. We have a huge variety of social settings to cope with, according to the different cultural practices and customs. This flexibility in the human lineage has not evolved to anything like this level in other primates. Our findings support previous studies that suggest that more brain power is needed for groups that have a more complicated social life.
Co-author Kit Opie, also from the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, said: These analyses allow us to look back in time to understand major step changes in social evolution amongst our closest relatives. We now understand why primate sociality is inherently special, as bonded social groups are unusual in mammals, yet the norm in primates.
More information: Stepwise evolution of stable sociality in primates, http://www.nature. … re10601.html
Provided by
Oxford University
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
What would stain as translucent on light-coloured fabric?
May 26, 2012
-
How do I identify different bacteria on culture plates?
May 26, 2012
-
Why Do Dogs do Strange things...
May 25, 2012
-
What does exophillic and endophillic mean in terms of mosquito and their control?
May 24, 2012
-
Semen stains glows under black lights (uv light)?
May 23, 2012
-
Question on Human Chromosome 2
May 23, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Biology
More news stories
Manufacturing genes to attack flu virus
An international research team has manufactured a new protein that can combat deadly flu epidemics.
7 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
|
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
May 26, 2012 |
3.5 / 5 (20) |
93
More plant species responding to global warming than previously thought
(Phys.org) -- Far more wild plant species may be responding to global warming than previous large-scale estimates have suggested.
May 22, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (14) |
18
|
For monogamous sparrows, it doesn't pay to stray (but they do it anyway)
It's quite common for a female song sparrow to stray from her breeding partner and mate with the male next door, but a new study shows that sleeping around can be costly.
May 22, 2012 |
5 / 5 (2) |
8
|
Thousands of shellfish found dead in Peru
Thousands of crustaceans were found dead off the coast of Lima following the mystery mass death of dolphins and pelicans, the Peruvian Navy said Friday.
May 26, 2012 |
4.7 / 5 (7) |
7
Stunning image of smallest possible five-ringed structure
Scientists have created and imaged the smallest possible five-ringed structure about 100,000 times thinner than a human hair and you'll probably recognise its shape.
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if it will be an expensive undertaking.
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.
Nov 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Nov 10, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
(ROFL @ EVOLUTION)
Nov 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Nov 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Before language, you had associations in your mind that existed without labels or language. You experienced all your senses without the labels or language used later to describe the experiences your senses provided you.
What is meaning of this stage of life and existence described in the above paragraph?
One meaning for this is to conjecture during this stage of life and existence there was no source of conflict arising from labels and language. Nothing was inconsistent as far as labels and language were concern because labels and language did not exist for you at that time.
The 'language' of your senses provided no source conflict. There was no measure by which senses cast doubt. You had no doubts.
Back to the article with a 'twist' to the above statements:
The greater your social settings, the greater the need for language beyond your senses.
Nov 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Nov 10, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
As far as "complicated," would that be Hollywood Producers? Pentagon Officials? White House Officials? Google Officials? Kardashians?
@Pirouette, totally agree w/ya...
Nov 10, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (2)
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
If you believe in evolution, then you will harbor or imagine a world of humans without, (unfortunately under-researched), what is labeled by humans, aggression.
Dunno, nigmatic10. "The next best step" is the step Nature took that coincidentally coincided with your comfort.
Information theory states no information is created or destroyed. Retention loses meaning. "Enhancement" and "survival" are in conflict (contradictory) to the word "death". Unless you assert the goal of evolution is immortality.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
The language kevinrtrs uses - regardless of his awarness - is a language that actually self corrects conflicts.
The conflict is God and no God. If kevinrtrs continues to use the language, the language will prevail:
The 'evolution' of language is simultaneously the 'evolution' of kevinrtrs.
All beliefs under this language become superseded or obsolete - that is what humans label 'evolution'. That thought alone comforts all humans.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I think he would first need to understand what 'argument' means. Ignorance seems to come natural to him.
As for the article: I was thinking on how to construct a self-repairing robot and the problem that it can't reach all its own parts (including the problem that if one part is damaged - e.g. the manipulator itself - then the problem becomes even worse)...but a 'social' robot could (i.e. where a group of robots can repair each other)
This was sparked by the picture above which shows monkeys fleecing each other for lice. Social groups could be much less subject to parasites as they have a way to get rid of them through mutual grooming.
Maybe study the appearance of a particular type of parasites as it relates to apes becoming social?
...just a thought.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I have no idea why pathogens must exist to assist natural selection. To promote social behavior beneficial to a species?
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Any yet you have not one shred of proof from this 5 million years of " human evolution" Wake the hell up monkey boy! Show me 1 half human half ape or ANYTHING , In these in between stages. Theirs nothing. Now type away with your angry little evolved keyboard fingers and make me happy with your ignorant following of your religion Atheism.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Pathogens aren't 'bad' (only from the point of view of the species they are pathogenic to). They don't have a specific _purpose_ respective to their hosts' selection (only an effect upon it - two fundamentaly different things)
The pathogen itself plays the same game as any other species: It is adapted to thrive in a certain environment (which just happens to be another organism) - and hence subject to the same evolutionary processes as anything else.
A good example of this is syphilis. 2 centuries ago syphilis was lethal - horribly disfiguring and killing its host. From the point of view of the pathogen this wasn't optimal: The particular group of syphilis bacteria died with the host.
So only those strains that didn't kill the host got to jump to other hosts. Because of this syphilis is, today, comparably innocuous.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
How is an absence of a thing that thing?
Does not owning a home make you a home owner? No.
So how exactly does being an atheist make you religious?
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Any thought will prevent instinctive behavior.
In modern times even words/languages have the potential to kill.
All words and languages are premeditated. Premeditation is gradually replacing instinct.
This 'evolution' is too slow for me.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is at the genetic level.
Memes are an entirley different critter.
On the contrary. Premeditated murder seems to be very common. Ask any soldier.
I can see no relationship that would indicate having more language creates less murder (or killing if you want to make that distinctino). Quite the contrary.
Apes have been observed to patrol borders and send out raiding parties on nearby groups - to the point of killing individuals of other groups on sight. It seems that this behavior has been with us for a long time and hasn't been much affected by the use of language.
That we should find a way to curb that instinct is certainly true. But the ability to use language doesn't seem to be the key.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Of course 'evolution' is the wrong word. This is why I used
' '.
All military assures that instinct will never go extinct.
Without instinct no military can exist.
I am looking forward to the 'evolution' of language where the use of language effects human behavior more than today.
There is no time for thought in the instantaneous moment of a trigger pulled - the last thought and/or word before this is 'kill'. Pre- and postmeditation occurs all the time.
This is where cognitive science parts from your view of the 'ability' and 'capability' of language in use.
The cognitive sciences believes this to be the key.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I'm certain you have read Orwell's "1984".
"Change of language" does not automatically mean "change for the better". We have already a very disquieting tendency in language to make things more palatable ('friendly fire', 'collateral damage', 'enemy combattant', 'theater of operations', 'misremember', ... )
Why exactly not? It seems that a lot of premeditation goes into aiming and preparing a weapons system. I find no reason to believe that this awareness of what is one about to do suddenly ceases at the point when the final button is pushed. Can you provide a rationale for this idea?
Also our cognition is always slightly in the future (not in a temporal sense but our thoughts are always trying to anticipate the next tenth of a second - so we are never 'in the moment', anyways)
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Yes. All previously stated: the rationalizations.
Yes. The 'road signs to instinct.
What were you thinking the moment you pulled the trigger?
"Nothing", "I don't remember", "Don't recall"
What was your last thought before the trigger pull? Was this thought continuous during the trigger pull? What was the next thought after this 'continuous' thought?
You can pinpoint instinct. The acts of instinct are wordless.
Words fall short of describing instinct. You can't convey instinct in words adequately. That defeats the purpose of instinct. You can rationalize the before and after of instinct. Temporally pinpoint the inadequate for words event.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
The military discourages premeditation in its soldiers in the face of the enemy. There is simply no time to think or argue the point. After visual or aural stimuli, the association and recognition of the enemy are strictly instinctive and, under NORMAL reaction, instinct begs firing of one's weapon, since the instinct of self-preservation is the primary language and no other is required.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Self-preservation is evolutionary. The target of this instinct is to eat. The primary 'language' hunger.
You don't eat the victims of territorial disputes or rivalery.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
I digress no further on this. You have the last word.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
I'd say that those are simply statements that
a) you pulled out of your posterior end
b) if true were said by people who didn't want to incriminate themselves (killing in cold blood carries a lot higher sentence than pleading temporary insanity)
Soldiers know full well what they are doing when they pull the trigger. they are trained to.
Actually they are trained to NOT follow their instinct, since many people have at least some form of empathy for another human being. By demonizing or objectifying the target (e.g. done via symbols on aircraft HUD) is one way to do this.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
"""Self-preservation is evolutionary. The target of this instinct is to eat. The primary 'language' hunger.
You don't eat the victims of territorial disputes or rivalery."""
There have been cases in Africa of cannibalism during such disputes or rivalry, but you could argue that religion may have played a part in that act.
The instinct of self-preservation is characterized by not only hunger, but also of "fight or flight", to run in order to live to fight another day, depending on the situation. If the situation is favorable to winning a battle, the instinct of aggression takes over, otherwise, if in doubt, run like hell.
@anti. . . .soldiers in battle have no time to feel empathy for the enemy firing at them. It is mostly through an instinctive reflex that they understand that it's kill or be killed; any prior "training" in the language of instruction is merely to teach them the use of the weapon, but the actual killing is done at each soldier's discretion, by instinct.
Nov 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Once when I walked around the corner while in a big city, my hackles started to rise for some reason I could not understand. Upon turning the corner, I saw two huge men duking it out in front of a bar and one had what looked like a club in his hand. Since I had no weapon to defend myself with, after I sized up the situation, something told me to go back from whence I came, so I did. That was before cell phones. I always wondered about that feeling that came over me. Had I just turned the corner, I would have walked right into these two apes and either gotten injured, or killed. I think that it was my instincts that saved me.
Nov 13, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Nov 13, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
And I don't see why you expected any input. You presented it as a past event. The description seemed to have left out a lot. Sounds for instance.
Some people believe in astrology. Some think they saw a UFO and have fantasies about the contents a behavior patterns of the unseen aliens assumed to be inside. Such people are not considered good witnesses so there isn't much to comment on.
Sorry but there have been a lot silly comments about military training on this thread as well. I suspect none of you have been in the military. I have not either but I do a clue about modern training and it has changed since I was of draft age. Not one person even gave a clue they aware it changes over time.
Well it does. Its not instinct. Its training. Training to make behaviors that both use and override instincts.
Ethelred