Another 'What Came First' Question

[Zinjanthropos]

After reading this interesting tidbit on Cholera I got to wondering.... in the history of life on Earth what evolved first....stealing or killing?

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/...steal-dna/

[C C]

"Highlander" is an apt analogy for its behaviors.

[Zinjanthropos]

"Highlander" is an apt analogy for its behaviors.

Casually speaking, the following is only my opinion:

They are nasty. Cannibalism like this at the microscopic scale is much more meaningful. People have been known to eat others thinking they're obtaining the main course's positive attributes. Mostly we cannibalize to stave off hunger unless you're completely psycho. What the cholera are doing is the ultimate in evolutionary design. These little buggers are geneticists in some way. Improving the species via gene manipulation. Anyways it got me to thinking, the cholera are killing for the betterment of their species but I suppose they could also be accused of stealing. (I wonder if the spears they possess were originally intended for defensive measures).

Is it easier then to kill first and steal later? I'm thinking food was probably the first thing ever stolen. So at some point it was easier to take than kill but who really knows? If one wanted to steal then perhaps size and brawn were the most important characteristics to possess at first, followed later by stealth, cunning and intelligence. 

Naturally the victims of theft would evolve a method to counter a would be thief. This would include physically resisting I would think. Eventually the thief's strategy would have to become lethal to overcome the resistance thus killing your intended target would have to be dealt with first. I keep thinking of 2001 Space Odyssey's obelisk and apes with clubs when I write this.

[Secular Sanity]

My old neighborhood was rife with information.  There was a professor of anthropology.  He and his wife were Seventh Day Adventists.  They served as missionaries in Africa.  They insisted on frequent neighborhood gatherings.  We had a crazy, talented artist, a physical therapist, two builders, owners of a winery, and one a trucking company.  There was an orthodontist, whose wife worked for the United Nations.  Her two boys were autistic.  They were born during the vaccine hype. Their pediatrician lived right next door.  She became an anti-vaccine activist.  He was very intelligent and very condescending.  You could cut the tension with a knife. 

One of my favorites though, was a professor of endocrinology.  His wife had died from SARS.  He loved teaching, and he never held back, or lost his patience.  I learned what I could about the endocrine system from him.  He used to tell me that a cure for autoimmune disease would most certainly provide a cure for cancer.    

At the time, I remember reading about current work and future possibilities of using viruses as anti-cancer agents.  I thought an osmotic mechanism would be ideal.  I’ve lost interest in biology but occasionally I stumble onto something interesting.  If I had to guess, I’d say that killing came first.  Is there a way for them to extract the DNA without killing them?

[Zinjanthropos]

My old neighborhood was rife with information.  There was a professor of anthropology.  He and his wife were Seventh Day Adventists.  They served as missionaries in Africa.  They insisted on frequent neighborhood gatherings.  We had a crazy, talented artist, a physical therapist, two builders, owners of a winery, and one a trucking company.  There was an orthodontist, whose wife worked for the United Nations.  Her two boys were autistic.  They were born during the vaccine hype. Their pediatrician lived right next door.  She became an anti-vaccine activist.  He was very intelligent and very condescending.  You could cut the tension with a knife. 

One of my favorites though, was a professor of endocrinology.  His wife had died from SARS.  He loved teaching, and he never held back, or lost his patience.  I learned what I could about the endocrine system from him.  He used to tell me that a cure for autoimmune disease would most certainly provide a cure for cancer.    

At the time, I remember reading about current work and future possibilities of using viruses as anti-cancer agents.  I thought an osmotic mechanism would be ideal.  I’ve lost interest in biology but occasionally I stumble onto something interesting.  If I had to guess, I’d say that killing came first.  Is there a way for them to extract the DNA without killing them?

I can tell you that around these parts, your kid doesn't go to school unless vaccinated. Wasn't it some movie star who started the vaccine/autism hype?

Cholera also scavenges and in the presence of chitin it can loosely pick up DNA that's just floating around in their environment. What I can't figure out is if other equally equipped cholera bacteria also become victims and engage in war or do only some possess the weaponry?

[C C]

Is it easier then to kill first and steal later? I'm thinking food was probably the first thing ever stolen. So at some point it was easier to take than kill but who really knows? If one wanted to steal then perhaps size and brawn were the most important characteristics to possess at first, followed later by stealth, cunning and intelligence. 

Naturally the victims of theft would evolve a method to counter a would be thief. This would include physically resisting I would think. Eventually the thief's strategy would have to become lethal to overcome the resistance thus killing your intended target would have to be dealt with first. I keep thinking of 2001 Space Odyssey's obelisk and apes with clubs when I write this.

In terms of early-stage complex animals that were around long before those with clear-cut territorial and possessive circumstances and tendencies... The question might be what would there be available to steal?

Did any Ediacaran fauna come close to depositing eggs or releasing reproductive vessels of any kind that would be thief-worthy? Would "munching" on bits of a life form in any remote and primitive semblance of such, without killing and utterly consuming the victim, qualify as stealing instead of feeding? (The emergence of "grazing" is usually something attributed to the later Cambrian.)

Ediacaran biota are often construed as pre-predatory organisms (that's "predatory" in just a carnivorous context minus marauding / pillaging). But there are signs of predation occurring during that era -- it just wasn't as prevalent, mobile, and sophisticated as with the later Cambrian biota.

So apparently we can't automatically say that thievery was first with multi-cellular life simply due to (or if) certain other species interactions being absent. Also, "killing" could result in ways which don't involve carnivorous motive / function. Like competing for limited resources in an area, with the victors starving out the losers or swamping the latter with their procreative success.

[Syne]

Wasn't it some movie star who started the vaccine/autism hype?

Yeah, Jenny McCarthy. But since people had to claim a religious exemption to be allowed in public school, many people think this nonsense originated with religious people.

[RainbowUnicorn]

death

[Secular Sanity]

In the article that you posted, the author used the Highlander film series, in which Connor MacLeod did not win the "Prize" sought by all mortals.  Vibrio cholera do gain the prize, though.  Maybe he should have eluded to the 1986 film instead.  The prize is vast knowledge and the ability to enslave the world.  In the film, he wins it.  It’s the awareness of people's thoughts around the world.  He promises to use his gift to encourage cooperation and peace in mankind.

You’re a Sci-Fi critic with a good sense of humor and you’re good story teller.  How 'bout instead of "the chicken and egg", we switch it up with "the moral of the story" ?  I’ll leave you with this little tidbit, and then perhaps, you’d be kind enough to sift out a moral or two.  Maybe even add a little twist.

Cannibalism and Fratricide

From an evolutionary perspective, taking up DNA from close relatives and siblings appears more beneficial, since it provides bacteria with templates for the repair of damaged chromosomal DNA.  Our finding that V. cholerae also takes up DNA from distantly related bacterial species, such as B. subtilis, seems to be contradictory in this context. However, instead of discriminating between self and foreign DNA at the level of DNA uptake, V. cholerae limits its competence state to occasions when it is surrounded by high numbers of other Vibrios. This is achieved through coupling the regulation of natural competence to the sensing of the species-specific cholera autoinducer-1 (CAI-1), as has been shown by Suckow et al. Competence induction requires sufficiently high concentrations of secreted CAI-1, which is only produced by certain Vibrio spp. and therefore maximizes chances of DNA uptake from close relatives or siblings, despite the fact that the DNA uptake process itself is not species-specific.

Why is cell death in a fraction of the population beneficial to all? Bsu sporulation requires energy; spores are hard to germinate and are committed; Spn needs new traits under stress conditions, and the whole population might die if none were to be obtained. However, competent cells are not committed. In both cases, a part of the population benefits due to the altruism of the other.

As a result of these studies, bacterial chemical warfare takes on a broader meaning. Bacteria exhibit: (1) selfish versus altruistic behavior and (2) suicide for the benefit of other members of the community. They form a social community where the individual is of little importance (as for social insects such as bees). It is analogous to humans who sacrifice themselves so their children or a loved one can live or prosper as a result of the sacrifice. This behavior may also apply to different pherotypes: slightly different strains of the same species with different pheromone production or response patterns.

Evolutionary Functions and Consequences of Competence

The moral of the story is…

[Zinjanthropos]

The moral of the story is: All that's required to remove a nice pair of genes is one little prick. 

When you think of it, one bacterium equipped with a little spear used to transfer DNA, it sounds a lot like sexual reproduction. Perhaps what we are witnessing is the evolution of the male and female of a species or how sexual reproduction originated.