Warfare shaping human evolution?

Have a look at this article relating to warfare and how it has shaped humans today! It seems that it developed as a result of human culture. There also seems to be some unanimity relating to this subject by anthropologists, archeologists, primatologists and psychologists. Could this be the result of cooperation and the ability to work towards a common goal?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026823.800-how-warfare-shaped-human-evolution.html

To test my idea I have decided to complete research of free ranging white-faced capuchins and whether they show evidence of laterality (handedness). In humans it is thought that right-handedness is dominant due to the development of language, or due to the the ability to manipulate objects requiring complex motor skills (throwing theory). There have been a multitude of experiments on both new (eg capuchins) and old world monkeys (eg chimps) showing mixed results. My idea is that there may be some propensity for handedness in the wild if given the right environmental conditions. So for those capuchin monkeys who are forced by pressures in their environment to use more manipulative skills - handedness will be apparent. Sounds easier than it actually is.... because only few instances of tool use have been observed in the wild (eg nut cracking, oyster eating, crab eating).

So my goal is to try and find instances of tool use in wild capuchins in Costa Rica! Pity I can't do a comparison of two populations in differing habitats as I think this will have a bearing on my results. See what we come up with!

I started this blog following a course on evolutionary psychology I took and my interest in pursuing a career in this field.  However, I have been disappointed with the lack of primate understanding by the psychological community.  How on earth can we postulate theoretical explanations in our relatives based on little understanding of their behavioural ecology?  How can we confidently say that experimental evidence supports theoretical paradigms lacking ecological validity?  I found it very hard to side with a lot of the evolutionary psychological ideology and hope that in future they will pay more attention to investigating issues from a grass roots perspective.  I agree that comparative analysis is indeed an valuable method of understanding analogous or homologous perspectives of behaviour, but this does not mean we can do so in a vacuum.  Are we trying to make psychology too scientific?  Are we missing the point as a result?  What can anthropology, primatology and archeology tell us about functiona adaptations the lab can't?  Is this another case of an egocentric ideology that cognitive traits are uniquely human?  These are all questions that I ask myself throughout the course.  As a result I have decided to do my bit and am going on a course on Behavioural Ecology in Costa Rica.  I hope to see in the future more anthropological field studies as a part of evolutionary psychology courses.  I hope this blog will generate some interesting ideas and will stimulate lateral thinking.  We don't all have to agree but constructive debate towards better scientific evaluative methods, may reveal small truths whatever these maybe.  In the process we may even help to conserve the relatively small population of our relatives while we are at it!