Human killer instinct? Maybe not

eta
There seems to have been a bottleneck 70,000 or so years ago where Homo sapiens almost went extinct this would explain our lack of genetic diversity among humans today. There where some 2,000 or so of us at the time.

We share a common male and female ancestors Mitochondrial Eve, believed to have lived between 150,000 to 250,000, and Y-chromosomal Adam, from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago.

There are two main theories that explain human evolution the "Out of Africa" theory, it hypothesizes we migrated from East Africa at a time that approximately coincides with our mass extinction, and the Multiregional theory, that human species evolved separately and interbred with eachother, neither postulates interbreeding with non homo primates species. By the way evolution doesn't suggest we evolved from apes or monkeys. It suggests we share some common ancestry with them or in other words we evolved from the same primate species millions of years ago but evolved differently.

There is some speculation that protohumans could have successfully interbred with other primates but this probably wouldn't have been genetically possible once humans diverged sufficiently.

So we are very closely related both by the fact that we came from the same 2,000 or so humans 70,000 years ago and by the fact that we share the same genetic mother and father. Homo sapiens probably didn't breed with nonhuman primates but our protohuman ancestors might have. The coalescing you wrote about might be supported by Multiregional theory but it has much less supporting evidence than "Out of Africa" theory. I hope all that helps.

Is their scientific evidence or any kind of postulation that states that at some point humans coalesced into one species? I mean, loosely speaking, I'm asking (maybe ignorantly) that all humans are related, but we still might be derivative of different branches of ancestors... variations and combos of gorilla, bonobo, chimps... someone who knows what I'm saying please clarify and expound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmuOW6qGbx4
Most people, 98%, are very cooperative it's only the 2% of people that are jerks and ruin it for the rest of us.

Book: "The Fall" by Steve Taylor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/dec/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview18

We survive through cooperation . Violence could have evolved as a defensive strategy . To be violent we must first be afraid . It is the fear trigger . That is what is manipulated . Implanted at an early age to see threats all 'round , by local myths and hysterics of the day . Without this stimuli , it would be a much more peaceful world .

yet more scientific evidence that capitalism goes against nature.

in an organism as large as we, there is need for regulation of population, for example the large reptiles often have low birth success, predation and decease claim many (not so with us)

for us large mammals we are a fluke of development, able to breed monthly (though not birth monthly) would have served us well in a near extinction event.

our need of a long childhood could lead to conflict serving well those who assured their survival by forsaking another, this could have created a divergent trend for aggression in our hominid line as oppose to others (thus making this article useless)

infighting and decimation has become our only major population reduction as we have no natural competitors providing that the defense of our culture and civilization persists.

The old saying of "Philanthropy is not a survival trait" could in some ways explain mankind. the key to evolution i.e the double edged sword, is that what ever survives is supreme, thus the drive to kill another that is unwilling to kill is a fantastical acceleration of this tenement. basically what ever has remained of time (that being the ruthless) is what we likely are.

we can choose another way of course as we are no longer silent partners to our developing evolution but could "breed" ourselves, but in the interest of freedom and liberty (which often serve us quiet poorly) this would never be alowed due to one major stance of logic. . .who are we to decide?

We are wired for co-operation as well as designed to make the nearly instantaneous choice between fight or flight when threatened. The core problem with our endemic history of violence is what so easily triggers violence in a variety of humans, in a wide variety of situations.
Some humans tense and automatically enter a "combat ready" mode when approached within 100 feet. A lot of those folks are found in prison. Some human societies value and strongly reinforce non-threatening and co-operative behavior. Ones that comes most easily to mind are the Buddhist countries of East and Southeast Asia, but of course, individuals and groups in any of those societies can be, and do, respond violently with the same common triggers observed throughout human society.
Projection of violent intent and demonizaton of the alien "other" is the standard step to induce the war mode in humans. It works brilliantly in modern media from WWI tales of the "raping and pillaging Huns" to fanciful tales of "weapons of mass destruction" hidden in poor countries half-way around the world.
Some humans perceive almost any difference as threatening. They are the most dangerous group in any society and the most easily sparked to violent response. It's no secret among psychologists that the paranoid personality is attracted to politics. Surprisingly, given their easily observable severe personality problems, paranoid personalities often do remarkable well in politics. Two examples often cited of paranoid personalities in politics are Josef Stalin and Richard Nixon.
One would think that classes in recognizing, and resisting being manipulated by, individual and group triggers to violence would be far more valuable to modern society than driver's education.
The only thread touching on this used to found in high school speech communication classes when they briefly identified the common methods of persuasion by sweeping false arguments. I don't think that is commonly taught anymore. Too bad. That course could use an update, and worldwide daily distribution.