The Origin Of Dogs – Biogenetic engineering, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 39 times


reply posted on 24-10-2011 @ 07:23 AM by TheWalkingFox
Originally posted by steveknows
reply to
post by TheWalkingFox



You've twisted what I said. The question is that is a dog a domesticated wolf and it has nothing to do with a jackel. All animals you've mentioned aren't found with wolves though it has been known for dogs to run with wolves. Also the wolf/ dog pup thing you mentioned would be a pup that had both predomestication and postdomesticated traits it would be no different to a pup of a poodle and a Labrador looking like a labradoodle, sorry but your point there was lame.


Your point was that a species is defined by viable offspring. I simply game you counterexamples of interfertile animals that are nevertheless different species. Perhaps it's due to the inherent fragility of the "species" classification itself that causes the confusion.

Basically? it doesn't matter if two populations could theoretically produce viable offspring, if those populations do not do so when left to their own devices. A good example is a variety of frog, the Narrow-mouthed toad. it has a species on the east bank of the Missisippi, another on the West. Amphibians being what they are, there's overlap. Problem is, the two are completely physically identical. The only way to tell them apart is through their calls. presumably htye are completely interfertile. But they never breed together... because their calls are different. The males of one species have a song that only appeals to females of that species.

Similarly, all those canids send off different sexual cues that generally prevent natural interbreeding. Thus they are different species.

What I've said in previous posts isn't my concept this is what the books written by the experts say and you've only proven what I say as wrong to you and not to the reality of it.


Your books aren't necessarily wrong, just not as detailed as some more involved works on hte subject. Of course interfertility is a basic prerequisite - but if the populations don't bump uglies on their own, then they're different species. Fairly simple.

You've started talking about a lion with sheeps traits and such and it's just rediculous to compare some sciencfiction animal with the natural process of domestication.


Sigh. No. Domestication is a product of selective breeding - that is choosing animals or plans for favored traits. You brought up that lions or bears could not be domesticated. I pointed out that, even if this were true, the process by which domestication was achieved can still be applied. So if we wanted to breed, say, a lion whose mane covers the entire body, or a bear with a super-short muzzle? We could certainly do so. I'd even wager we could domesticate them, given the right selection process (we've done it with wild foxes after all)

A person can make anything fit anything if you ignore the facts and forego commonse sense.


You'd be amazed at how often "common sense" is useless in biology. I still meet so many people who think hyenas are a kind of canine, for instance. "it's common sense!"

I'm sorry but you're argueing against proven science on so many levels and not just whether or not dogs are domesticated wolves.


Actually I never argued that dogs are not descended from wolves; rather I argued over the method by which wolf became dog. I don't think the "camp scavenger" model is accurate. I think it's more likely that wolves were deliberately taken, tamed, and later domesticated by humans.

Now from what I can make out of what you've said in regards to evolution you've basically said that the 6 foot tall bronzed Aussie on the Gold coast of Australia is a branch off but not of the same species as the Pigmy in Africa.


Sub-species. See that prefix? It's really important. They are both the same species. However due to geographic isolation of their ancestors, they have both received a different "package" of physical traits that result in the pretty divergent appearances between the two in your example. However given the opportunity (and a little romancing, one presumes) the two people in your example would happily pair up and make a medium-sized brownish-reddish frizzy-haired baby for all the world to admire. As travel becomes easier, those geographic barriers cease to be an issue, and humans are slowly but steadily returning to a single population.


reply posted on 24-10-2011 @ 09:48 AM by Asktheanimals
Some idiot near where I used to hunt deer decided it would be a good idea to have a wolf for a pet. Not only that but they let the thing run wild and before long it had started it's own pack with several wild dogs and was bringing down healthy deer and mauling them to death.
One morning while in my tree stand a wounded doe ran by with a large gash on it's left flank. I was too absorbed in trying to make out the details of the doe's injuries to shoot it but within a minute a large buck came running by from the same direction. it stopped directly below me and as I was drawing to take a shot I heard another noise coming from behind the buck. It was the wolf who stopped to sniff the ground where the buck had stopped a few seconds earlier. I put an arrow through the middle of it's chest and it grabbed the arrow shaft in it's mouth and snapped it off, then ran back from the direction it came in. I tracked it to the owner's yard which was well over a mile away.
We found the remains of 4 adults and 3 fawns this "family pet" decided to play with. I have no regrets and place the blame squarely on the person foolish enough to think you can domesticate such an animal. I highly doubt the 7 deer carcasses I found were the only victims of this animal, there may well have been other dogs and cats mauled by it but my overwhelming thought was what happens if this thing decides to chase down a child?
Neat article, really does make one wonder where our domestic breeds came in to existence.


reply posted on 24-10-2011 @ 03:18 PM by steveknows
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Originally posted by steveknows
reply to
post by TheWalkingFox



You've twisted what I said. The question is that is a dog a domesticated wolf and it has nothing to do with a jackel. All animals you've mentioned aren't found with wolves though it has been known for dogs to run with wolves. Also the wolf/ dog pup thing you mentioned would be a pup that had both predomestication and postdomesticated traits it would be no different to a pup of a poodle and a Labrador looking like a labradoodle, sorry but your point there was lame.


Your point was that a species is defined by viable offspring. I simply game you counterexamples of interfertile animals that are nevertheless different species. Perhaps it's due to the inherent fragility of the "species" classification itself that causes the confusion.

Basically? it doesn't matter if two populations could theoretically produce viable offspring, if those populations do not do so when left to their own devices. A good example is a variety of frog, the Narrow-mouthed toad. it has a species on the east bank of the Missisippi, another on the West. Amphibians being what they are, there's overlap. Problem is, the two are completely physically identical. The only way to tell them apart is through their calls. presumably htye are completely interfertile. But they never breed together... because their calls are different. The males of one species have a song that only appeals to females of that species.

Similarly, all those canids send off different sexual cues that generally prevent natural interbreeding. Thus they are different species.

What I've said in previous posts isn't my concept this is what the books written by the experts say and you've only proven what I say as wrong to you and not to the reality of it.


Your books aren't necessarily wrong, just not as detailed as some more involved works on hte subject. Of course interfertility is a basic prerequisite - but if the populations don't bump uglies on their own, then they're different species. Fairly simple.

You've started talking about a lion with sheeps traits and such and it's just rediculous to compare some sciencfiction animal with the natural process of domestication.


Sigh. No. Domestication is a product of selective breeding - that is choosing animals or plans for favored traits. You brought up that lions or bears could not be domesticated. I pointed out that, even if this were true, the process by which domestication was achieved can still be applied. So if we wanted to breed, say, a lion whose mane covers the entire body, or a bear with a super-short muzzle? We could certainly do so. I'd even wager we could domesticate them, given the right selection process (we've done it with wild foxes after all)

A person can make anything fit anything if you ignore the facts and forego commonse sense.


You'd be amazed at how often "common sense" is useless in biology. I still meet so many people who think hyenas are a kind of canine, for instance. "it's common sense!"

I'm sorry but you're argueing against proven science on so many levels and not just whether or not dogs are domesticated wolves.


Actually I never argued that dogs are not descended from wolves; rather I argued over the method by which wolf became dog. I don't think the "camp scavenger" model is accurate. I think it's more likely that wolves were deliberately taken, tamed, and later domesticated by humans.

Now from what I can make out of what you've said in regards to evolution you've basically said that the 6 foot tall bronzed Aussie on the Gold coast of Australia is a branch off but not of the same species as the Pigmy in Africa.


Sub-species. See that prefix? It's really important. They are both the same species. However due to geographic isolation of their ancestors, they have both received a different "package" of physical traits that result in the pretty divergent appearances between the two in your example. However given the opportunity (and a little romancing, one presumes) the two people in your example would happily pair up and make a medium-sized brownish-reddish frizzy-haired baby for all the world to admire. As travel becomes easier, those geographic barriers cease to be an issue, and humans are slowly but steadily returning to a single population.


You've got no concept. All you say is wrong. just one point because I can't be botherd with the rest, Domestication of the dog from wolf was not the result of deliberate selective breeding. Humans tolerated traits form individual wolves and allowed them to hang around and nature did the rest. You can't seem to get your head around this. You're a dead end.
edit on 24-10-2011 by steveknows because: Typo



reply posted on 24-10-2011 @ 04:55 PM by TheWalkingFox
Originally posted by steveknows
You've got no concept. All you say is wrong.


Telling me "you're wrong" doesn't actually make it so. Please. Read up on biology, taxonomy, and evolutionary theory. it's all there. There are a lot of books on these subjects. Might I suggest Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale" or "The Greatest Show On Earth"? Both do a fine job of explaining this whole "species" thing. Steven Jay Gould has some nice stuff out there as well. "Before the Dawn" by Nicholas Wade, and "The neanderthal enigma" by James Shreeve offer some insights into the biological divisions of humankind. These are just the tip of an iceberg, of course.

just one point because I can't be botherd with the rest, Domestication of the dog from wolf was not the result of deliberate selective breeding. Humans tolerated traits form individual wolves and allowed them to hang around and nature did the rest.


Self-domestication is one hypothesis. The notion of humans adopting wolf cubs and simply keeping the ones that were "best" (by whatever criteria the ancient people) is also perfectly valid. More of a long shot is the possibility that dogs are not really descended from wolves, but rather that dogs and wolves have a very recent common ancestor. There are several hypotheses for the origin of the domestic dog - and it's likely that there are multiple origins for dog domestication, so one instance could be camp followers, another instance could be ancient people going "hey, those people have wolves, let's go get some, too" and so on. Dog genetics are kind of all over the place (in fact all we can say for certain is that they didn't originate in the Americas; native American dogs are all descended from old world populations)

You can't seem to get your head around this. You're a dead end.


You're right, I'm not going to accept you as the penultimate authority on a subject you clearly haven't studied very deeply. There are several hypotheses out there, each have their strong and weak points, and there is no absolute word of god consensus on the subject.


reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 01:21 PM by Lostmymarbles
reply to post by steveknows



How long do you think it took to get to where we're at? From taming to breeding to domestication?


reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 06:07 PM by steveknows
Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
reply to
post by steveknows



How long do you think it took to get to where we're at? From taming to breeding to domestication?


You're insinuating that the domestication was a deliberate act on the part of humans. It wasn't. However the act of breeding particular dogs to serve a purpose is true of humans but that happened after the dog had already arrived.

Skulls showing the transition of wolf to dog have been found and you can google it.

I've elready posted a timeline of the domestication of animals on this thread so just have a look.

Pages: <<  2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Amazing, X-Ray probe of Antikythera Mechanism (Video)
  Posted 18 days ago with 58 member flags
Eye of Horus is actually an early math system?
  Posted 15 days ago with 45 member flags
Pi, Golden Ratio and Speed of Light encoded into Great Pyramid
  Posted 9 days ago with 33 member flags
Why is the Ancient Alien Theory difficult to accept?
  Posted 13 days ago with 26 member flags
Unknown ancient language found on unearthed Assyrian tablets
  Posted 17 days ago with 21 member flags
"The Venus Blueprint"
  Posted 12 days ago with 16 member flags
The Lost City of Vilcabamba
  Posted 10 days ago with 14 member flags
The Istanbul Shem rocket-ship
  Posted 10 days ago with 11 member flags