Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Origin of being social

  1. #1 Origin of being social 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    207
    Does anyone have any ideas on how any organisms grew to live in groups or is there an accepted theory iv missed. Im just curious because would it not require two organisms with similar mutations to get it started.


    just wondering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Can you be a bit more specific?
    Do you mean tight colonies like a communal coral, or a looser 'tribal' grouping like chimpanzees?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    171
    You don't necessarily need two organisms with similar mutations in order to form a symbiotic relationship, or to live together.

    There are bacteria in our gut that help us break down food. Without them we would not get as much nutrition out of our food as we do. They clearly are vastly different than we are, yet we have a symbiotic relationship with them. They help us get nutrition, and we provide them with a steady source of food.

    There are the little fish that live with sharks, I forget their name. They clean the sharks and eat little scraps the sharks leave behind. The sharks don't eat them because they help keep them clean, and the little fish like to stay by the sharks because they are less likely to be eaten.

    If you are talking more about groups of animals living together (humans, chimps, the shark example above) it is again not hard to imagine a situation. (This kind of thinking might be more complicated than an animal might reason out but possible) Two animals find that when they are together they are not attacked as often by predators, thus they hang around together more.

    Early humans find that when they work together as a group they can hunt larger animals and bring home more meat and skins for their people. They can also do this more safely. They see the benefits of working together and decide to stay together in a tribe in order to benefit everyone.

    I think it comes down to more of a how much benefit can I get out of putting up with you, situation than a genetic one, when dealing with animal groups.

    Your question was kind of vague though.
    Always minimize the variables.

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Is this a question about the emergence of new species, Zendra?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    207
    yeah sorry i meant in colonies like humans. i suppose my thinking was that one person(mutation) would try to help another instead of focusing on itself but Hassum what you say makes sense, thanks.
    just wondering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    During some of my more drunken stupors when younger, I've found myself occasionally wondering if the social aspects of life might somehow be informed by or related to the quote unquote "social" aspects of particles and atoms. Attraction and repulsion as physical concepts applied to particles and that which makes up all matter... EM and gravity as basic physical principles... perhaps not so separate or removed from the social cooperation and mutual benefit gained from more macroscopic organisms and their tribal groupings.

    Not sure it really holds water, but it's fun to toss about such thoughts and wonder so thought I'd share it here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Humans are product of a long line of social species. It would be a frikking miracle if we wouldn't be social.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum

    Early humans find that when they work together as a group they can hunt larger animals and bring home more meat and skins for their people. They can also do this more safely. They see the benefits of working together and decide to stay together in a tribe in order to benefit everyone.
    I think both wolves and Veloceraptor dinosaurs beat us to that punch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8
    Social is not just beneficial for the 'other', in order for it to occur it has to be even more beneficial or vital for the individual doing the cooperating. For example, in a 'barely enough' habitat it is better to specialize in one thing (hunt OR gather) and someone else specialize in the other. An individual could not support itself alone, but together the group can just make it. I do not think it requires a 'social' mutation. There may be certain requirements for it to be possible (high enough intelligence to communicate, mehcanisms for recognizing other individuals, etc.). Without these it can be impossible to be social. But for there to be that moment to go from nonsocial to social would not necessarily require any particular mutations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •