Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Origin Of Dogs – Biogenetic engineering

page: 5
39
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   

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.




posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
wolves are nothing to mess with my friend had two wolf dog hybrids and had to have both of them PTS
for social maladjustment issues. She still insists that wolves are the best animals ever and wants to get more?????

my cousin had a "DOG" that she insisted was a husky but it was a wolf hybrid or I'm a monkeys Uncle, I warned her that her dog was a wolf for years (really skitzy animal) anyway she got married and a month later the damn thing tore her new husbands throat out! He survived by a miracle.

I am of the opinion that North American Timber Wolves had no part in the hybridization of domestic dogs
Domestic dogs come from some species of Eurasian wolves . not to be confused with each other.

Like I said the world is full of canids not all of them are wolves, and any of them could be in the lineages of dogs
all them can interbreed with dogs and produce offspring that are fertile like dog/coyote mixes for instance



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

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



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I have always found darwinism to be flawed once dogs where put into the mix. Surely a dire-wolf could not become a Chihuahua
Then this study done by the researchers in trying to domesticate the wolfs, and it went well until 18 months, well hell I-any fifth grader could have told the researchers that.

Thus, the winners right the text books and when truly profound questions are asked, research have more questions


These questions might be able to be answered if our current government-educational structure told the populous the truth.
Thanks op, been wondering about the theory of dogs for quite sometime



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Shepherd/husky/coyote cross. Definitely a "real dog" type.
Definitely a little skittish too, I don't let her out of the yard off the leash, ever. I don't ever let her around young children either, but if the child is tall enough, she's good with them.
A little trying raising her around a Shihtzu though, it's a good thing that she likes other animals, and was raised around a cat also.



So how did this little creature come to be? It's my first little "dog", but after having dogs that look and act like dogs, it's hard to understand how this cute little creature is considered a "dog". He climbs on the furniture like a cat, but apparently he really is a dog.
I've tried looking into the background, they say they are still close to the wolf genetically
and they are a mix of Pekinese and Llasa Apso, but how did they come about?

There's a missing link here.....




posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
We should all just agree to disagree on this topic. To many published stuff that supports both sides of the arguments. Seeing how none of us were there to observe the process, its all educated guesses.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I came across the Russian study of Silver tailed foxes while researching neurotransmitters...
...separating out the calmer animals breed foxes with progessively higher serotonin levels...
...which dampened down the more agressive/obsessive characteristics of the animal...
...and changes in appearance.

Wiki has a primer and lists many of the relevant studies...

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 24/10/11 by troubleshooter because: spelling



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
I came across the Russian study of Silver tailed foxes while researching neurotransmitters...
...separating out the calmer animals breed foxes with progessively higher serotonin levels...
...which dampened down the more agressive/obsessive characteristics of the animal...
...and changes in appearance.

Wiki has a primer and lists many of the relevant studies...

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 24/10/11 by troubleshooter because: spelling


This one had been pointed out to the mob who don't believe dogs are domesticated wolves so many time on ats but they just reponnd with "That does not prove dogs come from wolves" I think they want a time machine so they can see it happen.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
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?



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

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.





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join