[recycled material - first appeared here]

Evolution has been, and still sometimes mistakenly is, portrayed as a grand parade to the new, the better, the more complex. But two things, at least, make this flatly untrue.

First, the failures are an undeniable yet indispensable part of the parade. Sure, they tend to be fleeting and thus partly invisible -- joining the parade for a mere half block before veering off to nowhere -- but to overlook them is sheer folly. The numbers, were we to count them, are staggering.

Second, there is no force pushing evolution inextricably toward the bigger and the better. None that seems more than a human projection, in my opinion. Consider this recent science news headline:

Male Sex Chromosome Losing Genes By Rapid Evolution, Study Reveals.

That's right, the male "Y" has been losing size (and hence complexity) over time. It's shrinking. And not due to immersion in cold water.

With evolution, whatever works in one form or another, persists. Whatever doesn't, disappears. Sometimes. If we are talking organisms, that is absolutely true. But non-working (non-functional) characteristics of organisms can persist if there is no cost the selective pressures can subtract. Sometimes.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so don't take my word for it. I also wouldn't advise taking any single thinkers word for anything. I suggest aiming for a deeper education.

A new study conducted on macaques has generated this proclamation:

Oxytocin, the "love hormone" that builds mother-baby bonds and may help us feel more connected toward one another, can also make surly monkeys treat each other a little more kindly. [article source]

In the experiment, macaques in the experimental group were administered oxytocin--a hormone we humans share--via an inhalation mask. Relative to the control group, these monkeys displays greater pro-social behavior, as gauged by their willingness to give some sweet juice to their cohorts.

I wonder: would outfitting automobile air conditioners with an oxytocin injector eliminate road rage?

You might say that chimpanzees are a xenophobic species.  They notice unfamiliar individuals and go on alert mode.  They recognize a “them,” and appropriately don’t trust the foreigner.  Not initially, it's too dangerous.  Chimpanzees will threaten, chase and fight strangers.  Not because they like to.  But because unaffiliated-with-us individuals pose a real threat to resources: to mates, to infants, to territory, to food.

So deep runs this propensity to be alarmed by the strange that chimpanzees will attack members of their own group who merely act strange.  For example, during a documented polio epidemic – yes, chimpanzees share that with us as well – a few chimpanzees became partially paralyzed and consequently started moving differently.  Strangely.  They were subsequently attacked by their own group members.(8)  Unfamiliarity, alarm, and fear can do that.

Among humans, in-group members tend to behave similarly.  Speech is a form of behavior. Whether an American male is more likely to use the word dude or sir while addressing another male reflects their current and past social group.  Group members also often share dress, customs, diet, and more.  How else can you recognize an “us”?  “Them,” on the other hand, have foreign ways; they act strangely.

Pants cinched well below the waist, visible tattoos and piercings, long, untrimmed beards – these are strange only relative to a particular audience.(9)  If a non-idiosyncratic behavior strikes you as strange, chances are it ‘belongs’ to an outsider.  Where behaviors are different, it is easy for the human mind to conclude “stranger.”  Yet the “to me” goes unsaid.  When there is more than one stranger with shared qualities, we can designate a “them.”

The types of ‘thems’ human beings are capable of perceiving is quite varied.  Here is a short list of potential us/them categories: ethnic, linguistic, racial, sex-based, sexual orientation-based, national, political, age-based, and even sports team-based.(10)(11)

To reinforce the boundary between "us" and "them," outsiders get painted with less noble traits, insiders more noble.  This psychological tendency is the likely wellspring of ethnocentrism.

Us/them distinctions go deeper than idle opinion and abstract thought.  As evidence, consider the results from a psychological experiment published in the journal, Evolution and Behavior.  Pairs of men were made to compete in a ‘friendly' game.  When competing, there was a measured rise in their testosterone and cortisol levels.  The increase in hormone levels was more pronounced when the competition involved between-village contestants than within-village contestants.(12)

Turning to the Bible now, a revision in how the us/them boundary is drawn around believers can be seen to progress through its books (reflecting the time written and the corresponding social context).  In Exodus there are many references to  “the God of Abraham.”  Oh, that god.  Are you a member of the group that worships that god, are you one of us?  In Exodus we read references to the god of the Hebrews.  In Kings and Chronicles and many other books of the Old Testament, the most high god is frequently referred to as a god of Israel. Other religious-identity references include “the god of” David/Jacob/your-fathers.  In the New Testament books the most high god is spoken of a number of ways, including: the god “of your ancestors,” “of Israel,” “of your fathers,” and there are also those few mentions “of Jew and Gentile.”

I am the God of your father Abraham.(Genesis 26:24)
This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go.  (Exodus 9:13)
This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says…(1 Kings 11:31)
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him. (Romans 10:12)

In a practical sense, the god of a specific people has become the supposed god of all people.  Some maintain that this god was always the god of all.  I suspect it is because they do not want to recognize the tribal nature of gods.  Whether or not you include everyone as part of your tribe, that nature remains.

 ---

(8) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 330
(9) As a tangent here, I imagine that suburban white boys adopt the ways of ghetto blacks to make themselves mildly alarming to others.  By dressing and acting in a foreign fashion, they draw attention to themselves and perhaps feel dangerous and more potent within their own group.  Their novel dress with fox-in-the-henhouse overtones (unpredictable outsider) may slightly alarm others.  And that is the point.  Strangers are alarming because the strange alarms us.  When the potential to attract attention and put others on notice completely wears off, this type of behavior wanes.  It brings to mind the image of a juvenile or perhaps mid-status-level chimpanzee walking around with it's shoulder fur in a state of semi erection.  "Look out, I could be dangerous, give me room" (to move up in status). 
(10) Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Houghton Mifflin, NY, 1996, p.196
(11) I imagine that cultures in which there is a significant difference in the appearance and behavior of the sexes, members of the opposite sex are more likely to be perceived as a “them.”  Or maybe another species altogether, for they have really strange ways. At least according to the audience of my sex and our customary behavior.  Maybe each sex could even perceived to be from different planets altogether.  You think?
(12) Wagner, J. D., Flinn, M. V., & England, B. G. “Hormonal Response to Competition Among Male Coalitions,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 23, Issue 6, November 2002, 437-442.

You might say that chimpanzees are a xenophobic species.  They notice unfamiliar individuals and go on alert mode.  They recognize a “them,” and appropriately don’t trust the foreigner.  Not initially, it's too dangerous.  Chimpanzees will threaten, chase and fight strangers.  Not because they like to.  But because unaffiliated-with-us individuals pose a real threat to resources: to mates, to infants, to territory, to food.

So deep runs this propensity to be alarmed by the strange that chimpanzees will attack members of their own group who merely act strange.  For example, during a documented polio epidemic – yes, chimpanzees share that with us as well – a few chimpanzees became partially paralyzed and consequently started moving differently.  Strangely.  They were subsequently attacked by their own group members.(8)  Unfamiliarity, alarm, and fear can do that.

Among humans, in-group members tend to behave similarly.  Speech is a form of behavior. Whether an American male is more likely to use the word dude or sir while addressing another male reflects their current and past social group.  Group members also often share dress, customs, diet, and more.  How else can you recognize an “us”?  “Them,” on the other hand, have foreign ways; they act strangely.

Pants cinched well below the waist, visible tattoos and piercings, long, untrimmed beards – these are strange only relative to a particular audience.(9)  If a non-idiosyncratic behavior strikes you as strange, chances are it ‘belongs’ to an outsider.  Where behaviors are different, it is easy for the human mind to conclude “stranger.”  Yet the “to me” goes unsaid.  When there is more than one stranger with shared qualities, we can designate a “them.”

The types of ‘thems’ human beings are capable of perceiving is quite varied.  Here is a short list of potential us/them categories: ethnic, linguistic, racial, sex-based, sexual orientation-based, national, political, age-based, and even sports team-based.(10)(11)

To reinforce the boundary between "us" and "them," outsiders get painted with less noble traits, insiders more noble.  This psychological tendency is the likely wellspring of ethnocentrism.

Us/them distinctions go deeper than idle opinion and abstract thought.  As evidence, consider the results from a psychological experiment published in the journal, Evolution and Behavior.  Pairs of men were made to compete in a ‘friendly' game.  When competing, there was a measured rise in their testosterone and cortisol levels.  The increase in hormone levels was more pronounced when the competition involved between-village contestants than within-village contestants.(12)

Turning to the Bible now, a revision in how the us/them boundary is drawn around believers can be seen to progress through its books (reflecting the time written and the corresponding social context).  In Exodus there are many references to  “the God of Abraham.”  Oh, that god.  Are you a member of the group that worships that god, are you one of us?  In Exodus we read references to the god of the Hebrews.  In Kings and Chronicles and many other books of the Old Testament, the most high god is frequently referred to as a god of Israel. Other religious-identity references include “the god of” David/Jacob/your-fathers.  In the New Testament books the most high god is spoken of a number of ways, including: the god “of your ancestors,” “of Israel,” “of your fathers,” and there are also those few mentions “of Jew and Gentile.”

I am the God of your father Abraham.(Genesis 26:24)
This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go.  (Exodus 9:13)
This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says…(1 Kings 11:31)
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him. (Romans 10:12)

In a practical sense, the god of a specific people has become the supposed god of all people.  Some maintain that this god was always the god of all.  I suspect it is because they do not want to recognize the tribal nature of gods.  Whether or not you include everyone as part of your tribe, that nature remains.

 ---

(8) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 330
(9) As a tangent here, I imagine that suburban white boys adopt the ways of ghetto blacks to make themselves mildly alarming to others.  By dressing and acting in a foreign fashion, they draw attention to themselves and perhaps feel dangerous and more potent within their own group.  Their novel dress with fox-in-the-henhouse overtones (unpredictable outsider) may slightly alarm others.  And that is the point.  Strangers are alarming because the strange alarms us.  When the potential to attract attention and put others on notice completely wears off, this type of behavior wanes.  It brings to mind the image of a juvenile or perhaps mid-status-level chimpanzee walking around with it's shoulder fur in a state of semi erection.  "Look out, I could be dangerous, give me room" (to move up in status). 
(10) Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Houghton Mifflin, NY, 1996, p.196
(11) I imagine that cultures in which there is a significant difference in the appearance and behavior of the sexes, members of the opposite sex are more likely to be perceived as a “them.”  Or maybe another species altogether, for they have really strange ways. At least according to the audience of my sex and our customary behavior.  Maybe each sex could even perceived to be from different planets altogether.  You think?
(12) Wagner, J. D., Flinn, M. V., & England, B. G. “Hormonal Response to Competition Among Male Coalitions,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 23, Issue 6, November 2002, 437-442.