Were you raised by wolves and are now having monkey babies?

Onhell

Onhell

Infinite Dreamer
Ok, so I was talking with my gf today and she told me about this special on Feral Children she watched the other night (For more info on feral children go here.) and as it turns out in most cases the children were raised by wolves. This in itself made me ask a lot of question. Were Remulos and Remus Feral Children?  I know it's a myth but there are cases as early as C.E 250 in Italy (a boy was found with goats) so there could be some truth to the myth. Also, the saying "Were you raised by wolves"... Did it have it's origin with the Roman myth (even though our characters grow up to be fully functional adults, something not true of real feral children) or in the overwhelming cases of real children found with wolf packs. In the site there is a link to children raised by animals, most are raised by wolves or dogs, followed by monkeys. Odd cases like raised by bears and even Ostriches exist, yet mostly wolves. A leading theory is that a she-wolf that has recently lost her cubs (by whatever means, natural death, hunting or eaten by another predator) will steal human babies because she is being driven by her maternal insticts to care for a young.

The site gives more info. Anyway, while on the subject of being raised by animals she asked me, "Can humans have babies with monkeys?" I answered that there is no way to be sure. I've seen theoretical speculation going both ways, everybody agrees that ethically no one would actually try to go through with such an experiment and that's when I found this.


What do you guys make of both issues? I know it might be easier to discuss each seperately, but one kinda led to the other in our conversation, so I thought I'd share them in the same way.
 
As I recall, there are a few variations on the Romulus/Remus myth. They all allege some extent of being raised by wolves, but the extent differs from one source to another. I feel confident that Perun[sup]1[/sup] will chime in on this and provide futher illumination.


[sup]1[/sup]Our resident know-it-all.[sup]2[/sup]

[sup]2[/sup]Oops, did I say that out loud?[sup]3[/sup]

[sup]3[/sup] :P
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
As I recall, there are a few variations on the Romulus/Remus myth. They all allege some extent of being raised by wolves, but the extent differs from one source to another. I feel confident that Perun[sup]1[/sup] will chime in on this and provide futher illumination.
Click to expand...
Tough beans on Per, I got here first. :P

"The tradition goes on to say that after the floating cradle in which the boys had been exposed had been left by the retreating water on dry land, a thirsty she-wolf from the surrounding hills, attracted by the crying of the children, came to them, gave them her teats to suck and was so gentle towards them that the king's flock-master found her licking the boys with her tongue. According to the story his name was Faustulus. He took the children to his hut and gave them to his wife Larentia to bring up. Some writers think that Larentia, from her unchaste life, had got the nickname of 'She-wolf' amongst the shepherds, and that this was the origin of the marvellous story."
(Livy)
A note on the Latin: 'lupa' means 'she-wolf', but was slang for 'prostitute' (an English equivalent might be 'bitch').

Plutarch mentions a few differing traditions, but it's more about the twins' lineage. All the myths he mentions end with the babies being suckled by the she-wolf and being found and raised by a cow-herd Fastulus (altough in one tradition he is the servant who abandons the babies). A recurring detail also is birds putting bits of food in the children's mouths.

I hope that's clear. :smartarse:
 
The support of the Roman people for this story could also had something to do with totemism- a common belief within some ancient tribes, that identifys a certain animal as the tribe father, and attributes to it the protection of the tribe.
There are indications that many tribes-peoples went through this phase, and that it was a civilisational step towards more advanced society organisation.
 
Duke... this is not in the Madness forum, I'm seeking SERIOUS responses to both issues, I thought I could find them here since we are all fairly well educated and informed, and those who are not can benefit from those who are.

I know squat about biology beyond what I learned in high school, yet their are several scientists and well read individuals who can shed some light on the issue

And as for the Feral Children, I said most cases of those "raised" by animals were raised by wolves. But if anyone even bothered to check the link, Feral children are children that grew up in extreme isolation, and in many instances it was because of abuse by their parents (or at least one of them.) Like in the Case of Genie or the twins in Iran.
 
Onhell said:
Ok, so I was talking with my gf today and she told me about this special on Feral Children she watched the other night (For more info on feral children go here.) and as it turns out in most cases the children were raised by wolves. This in itself made me ask a lot of question. Were Remulos and Remus Feral Children?  I know it's a myth but there are cases as early as C.E 250 in Italy (a boy was found with goats) so there could be some truth to the myth. Also, the saying "Were you raised by wolves"... Did it have it's origin with the Roman myth (even though our characters grow up to be fully functional adults, something not true of real feral children) or in the overwhelming cases of real children found with wolf packs. In the site there is a link to children raised by animals, most are raised by wolves or dogs, followed by monkeys. Odd cases like raised by bears and even Ostriches exist, yet mostly wolves. A leading theory is that a she-wolf that has recently lost her cubs (by whatever means, natural death, hunting or eaten by another predator) will steal human babies because she is being driven by her maternal insticts to care for a young.
Click to expand...
Interesting topic. I've some books on the subject. There are unfortunately very few reliable data on the subject. I'll go back to these books and post more information later....

Onhell said:
Anyway, while on the subject of being raised by animals she asked me, "Can humans have babies with monkeys?" I answered that there is no way to be sure.
Click to expand...
The only way to be sure is the experimental approach. And obviously you've got to make replicated experiments.  :innocent:
Good luck mate! 
 
JackKnife said:
The only way to be sure is the experimental approach. And obviously you've got to make replicated experiments.  :innocent:
Good luck mate! 
Click to expand...

And since you need to keep experimental control, it has to be the same person, under the exact same conditions.  The other party can be changed, though. :innocent:
 
Onhell said:
The site gives more info. Anyway, while on the subject of being raised by animals she asked me, "Can humans have babies with monkeys?" I answered that there is no way to be sure. I've seen theoretical speculation going both ways, everybody agrees that ethically no one would actually try to go through with such an experiment and that's when I found this.
Click to expand...
From my limited knowledge of biology, I have learnt that generally two different species can mate (as long as the species are not that far apart - genetically. And we humans have, what, 96% or more the same DNA make up as a chimp) but the offsprings are, on the whole, infertile (i.e. Mule or [if they do exist] Humanzee).
 
Onhell said:
Duke... this is not in the Madness forum, I'm seeking SERIOUS responses to both issues, I thought I could find them here since we are all fairly well educated and informed, and those who are not can benefit from those who are.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. My bad, dude.

I have heard a philosophical argument that might be relevant to this situation (though not speifically to your question). It's called "Molyneux's Question," but don't ask me who the hell Molyneux was. Essentially, it asks if a person raised in isolation form all other human beings would be able to think.

Here's a brief exerpt from an essay I wrote a few years ago for a social history class on  language, thought, and society. (It was during my brief flirtation with postmodern theory, now I just drink a lot when I'm experiencing epistemological malaise):
**first 12 pages removed**
Not only does language form the basis of social institutions, but it also directs human thought. Human beings think in languages. Even when we do not articulate our thoughts, we form them using words and concepts which are products of language. Our language, therefore, shapes our thoughts by defining the words we use to think. It cannot be denied that thought exists outside of language. However, spoken language (or at least a short-hand derivative of it) forms the lens through which human beings experience the world. That is, since we think in language, the language we use and the vocabulary at our disposal shape our thoughts. Posing Molyneux’s Question to this argument will better illuminate the point being conveyed.  If, hypothetically, human being were somehow raised from birth without ever been exposed to language, he would still think. However, he would not be able to conceive of anything beyond the physical world in which he lives. Shapes, colours, tactile sensations, and sounds would be as real to him as they are to any human being, but without language he would not be able to fathom abstract concepts such as “love” or “friend.”
**irrelevant paragraphs removed**
It may be, however, that language and thought are not synonymous. If clearly identifiable emotions, thoughts, and ideas cannot be precisely expressed in our own time, it stands to reason that they could not have been expressed in past societies either. This postulation can be tested by asking again Molyneux’s Question about a man who lived his life in isolation without hearing language or communicating with others in any way. While he may not be able to think abstractly, he would remember events as shapes and sounds as clearly as anyone else. Our hypothetical man would simply lack the ability to transmit them in any meaningful way to a historian. This does not mean his experiences are any less real than anyone else’s merely because he lacks the ability to conceive of them using language. Though it is a simple example, the point is clear: there exists a past outside of discourse; it may not always be recoverable as “history,” but it must be acknowledged as having existed.
**rest of essay removed**

/edited for asthetics
 
Thanks Duke, actually it was quite relevant, because "this hypothetical" person raised in isolation is not hypothetical at all.

The twins from Iran that were kept in a closet by their father for 12 years can't speak, but they do have a language. They communicated through groans and whimpers (like animals) with each other.

When a flimmaker learned about them she documented their case in The Apple, a documentary starring the Twins themselves. In the few weeks they spent with the film makers, the girls developed more than they had all those twelve years... Humans need human contact to develop to their full potential (IMO).
 
Quite an odd topic, Onhell... Anyway, in order to create a mule, you need a horse and a donkey, which scientifically are connected since a donkey is another kind of horse, but a horse anyway.  My point here is, a human being can not fertilize a monkey or viceversa, which says we ARE NOT, a kind of monkey, so, I think we might be able to get enough points to discard the theory of humans descending from monkeys IMO.
 
Metal_made said:
Quite an odd topic, Onhell... Anyway, in order to create a mule, you need a horse and a donkey, which scientifically are connected since a donkey is another kind of horse, but a horse anyway.  My point here is, a human being can not fertilize a monkey or viceversa, which says we ARE NOT, a kind of monkey, so, I think we might be able to get enough points to discard the theory of humans descending from monkeys IMO.
Click to expand...

The DNA of human beings and chimpanzees are identical by 98%. I would say it is very likely that a human can fertilise a chimp and vice versa, it has only never been tried.
One fact that you missed is that hybrids are always sterile. A mule can not have children. A human-chimp hybrid could not have children as well.
 
Metal_made said:
Quite an odd topic, Onhell... Anyway, in order to create a mule, you need a horse and a donkey, which scientifically are connected since a donkey is another kind of horse, but a horse anyway.  My point here is, a human being can not fertilize a monkey or viceversa, which says we ARE NOT, a kind of monkey, so, I think we might be able to get enough points to discard the theory of humans descending from monkeys IMO.
Click to expand...
That is something my theology teacher always says.  Why does this make sense to you?  It's evolution.  If humans had the ability to fertilize a monkey,  they'd be monkeys.  That's quite different than claiming that they descend from monkeys,  don't you think?
 
Perun said:
One fact that you missed is that hybrids are always sterile. A mule can not have children. A human-chimp hybrid could not have children as well.
Click to expand...

Not true, Ligers (hybrid of Tigers and Lions) are not sterile.
 
No, the other way around: Female ligers are fertile, male ligers aren't.
 
you merely said hybrids are always sterile... whether the male is or isn't fertile, the fact that females are means hybrids are not always sterile... just saying dawg... just saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top