The Origins Of Conspecific Care Essay

“In their natural homes in the wild, chimpanzees humans’ closest living genetic relatives”, who are more like us than they’re like gorillas are never separated from their families and troops . “Profoundly social beings, they spend every day together exploring, crafting and using tools to solve problems, foraging, playing, grooming each other, and making soft nests for sleeping each night” . They care deeply for their families and forge lifelong friendships . Chimpanzee mothers are loving and protective, nursing their infants and sharing their nests with them for four to six years . They have excellent memories and share cultural traditions with their children and peers . They empathize with one another and console their friends when they’re upset . They help others, even at a personal cost to themselves . When one of another

Primates are one of the most interesting mammals on earth, not only because of their complex social structures, but because they hold so many similar characteristics to humans. Primates are often cited as our closest living relatives and on two separate occasions I observed four separate species of primates at the San Diego Zoo that can justify their use of their physical characteristics and behaviors that may be similar as well as different to the other primates and ours.

Despite a lack of scientific academic education, Jane Goodall’s work on the chimpanzees made revolutionary breakthrough in the field of understanding chimpanzee behavior. It was all made possible by her firm belief on her unconventional methods which academics in the field eyed with cynicism and felt was pointless. Such pessimistic outlook on her efforts from established academics did not blight her morale; instead she carried on with her methods of analyzing the chimpanzee population with full enthusiasm and self belief.

Within this essay, we will study more in depth the behavioral as well as physical traits of two primates at a zoo from their interaction with their peers to their place in the group. This observation would enable us to further understand the possible existing correlation between humans and primates. First, I studied a female chimpanzee with her baby, and then, a dominant male gorilla, in San Francisco Zoo at about noon, on May 23, 2015, for an hour each. Even though they share some similarities such as having a large brain, living for a long time, and being bored in their enclosure, they are still different; when gorillas are the largest, chimpanzees are the smartest. In fact, chimps use tools to catch food, they would not be able to reach

1. The social structure and behavior of chimps in their communities or troops suggest many questions. What research questions might Dr. Hahn and her associates ask?

Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted for well over 100,000 years.  Then suddenly Homo neandertalensis began to die out and surrender the earth to Homo sapiens.  Paleontologists and anthropologists have entertained several possibilities to the causes of this event: interbreeding among Neanderthals and humans, competition for natural resources, and Darwin’s theory of “survival of the fittest.”  What the real cause has been has plagued scientists for years. Now, due to an international research team from Germany, those possibilities have been even further deduced, making it easier to pinpoint the exact reason Homo neandertalensis became extinct.

Precise information is derived from these observations due to the scientific fact that infant monkeys and human infants “exhibit no fundamental differences“. Harlow’s research primarily revolved around the study of infant rhesus monkeys and their level of desire to bond with surrogate mother monkeys. Two surrogate mothers were equally available to each baby monkey. Observation of tolerance was recorded as each monkey passably chose between a welded-wire surrogate mother and a surrogate mother covered with terry cloth. Results showed that an equal number of monkeys fed from each of the surrogate mothers, however, they spent more time with the cloth mother as they would climb and cling to her. These results significantly disclose the resemblance between humans and monkeys because human infants also covet soft and cuddly toys, blankets, apparel, stuffed animals, etc.

Kavanagh, M. & Morris, D. (1983). Complete guide to monkeys, apes and other primates. London: Viking Press.

Even though Neanderthals have many differences compared to Homo sapiens, they should be considered humans because of their ability to reason and have a conscience. Through scientific research, we have learned that Neanderthals organized the bodies of their dead and they buried their dead as well through. Through this act of sympathy for their fallen counterparts, we can see the compassion and sympathy shown from the Neanderthals’s concionse and ability to reason. From this act of burial we can see that from the U.N.’s decleration of human rights Neantherthals should be considered human.

While it is important to understand the significance of each hypothesis, the questions surrounding the Neanderthal extinction takes on assorted factors that are not mutually exclusive. Numerous studies have been conducted focusing exclusively on climate, competition or disease as a function of Neanderthal extinction. However, conflicting conclusion suggest that there are several factors involved that overlap and/ or arising from one another. This paper will attempt to better understand how climate, competition, and disease might operate together to account for Neanderthal extinction. First by summarizing each argument of the three arguments and identifying the potential implications for father research. Secondly, aim to develop a framework that will include the most relevant hypothesis.

Decoding Neanderthals is an analysis of the Neanderthal genome shows that modern humans and Neanderthals had interbred some 60,000 years ago. It all started with our ancestors making their way from Africa to Europe. The ones who were in Africa evolved into humans and the ones who went to Europe developed into Neanderthals. They were also known as “Cavemen”. People saw them as some type of weird specie but the more you learn about them the more you start to realize that they are a lot like us humans.

Throughout the documentary “Decoding Neanderthals” there was a push of research to push the human view of Neanderthals. Over the year’s research showed that we coexisted with Neanderthals and out beat their species. Many believed that Neanderthals where like the stereotypical unintelligent and wild caveman. With new technology, enhanced research, and the exposing documentary “Decoding Neanderthals” pushed the boundaries of these past ideologies. Through this we have learned how intelligent, symbolic, and closely related this species is to homo-sapiens species. This research proved that the Neanderthal may have not became extent due to in ability to create weapons but, due to inter breading with humans

As a result Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted for thousand of years both in Europe and in Asia, sometimes populating the same caves at different times, before Neanderthal extinction. Even though the prehistoric population density of Neanderthals and humans were probably very low and potential encounters could have been quite rare (Shea, 2007), their concurrence raises question about the type of interaction that must have happened between the two different populations and the possibility of interbreeding (Shreeve, 1995).

Research by Yamamoto, Humle and Tanaka in 2009 concluded that chimpanzees show altruism only when prompted or pressured rather than voluntarily [5]. This particular empirical research challenges the evidence proposed by prior researchers and tests the limits of chimpanzee’s altruistic nature. Using colour-coded tokens, one of which allowed for a partner to share the reward with the test subject and one of which gave the test subject all of the reward, several chimps were tested as to their response. Results showed a tendency for the chimpanzee to take the prosocial option in situations both with and without peer pressure. Abnormally results showed that pressure or harassment from partners reduced the chimpanzee’s inclination to take the prosocial option. Although these results challenge prior research [5] they are limited as they are not conclusive and raise questions of their own to reach a complete understanding. These research results are significant in challenging an already established understanding of chimpanzee’s altruistic traits and acts as a good contrast to other references. This resource stands out as it does not make conclusive statements out of abnormal results but rather opens up a reader’s opinion and presents issues further

The next study regarding primates was seen in 2010 while observing wild chimpanzees in Uganda, with cultural differences between two populations in different areas. The chimpanzees displayed different ways of utilizing tools around them to retrieve honey within the fallen logs around them. The Kibale Forest chimps used sticks while the Budongo Forest chimps utilized leaves sponges that were made from chewed leaves. To study the differences, researchers provided the monkeys with a task to retrieve honey out of an apparatus. Each group resorted to behaviors that they had been familiar with in the beginning, those from Kibale using sticks and Budongo resorting to leave sponges (Cell Press, 2010). Klause Zuberhuler (Cell Press, 2010) from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland noted that the reason for the differences in tools ‘was that chimpanzees resorted to preexisting cultural knowledge in trying to solve the novel task’ and that ‘culture helped them in dealing with this novel problem.’ The behaviors were specific to each population that they developed through social