Does Domestication Suggest a God?

reply to post by FreeMason

It started more than a half century ago, when Trut was still a graduate student. Led by a biologist named Dmitry Belyaev, researchers at the nearby Institute of Cytology and Genetics gathered up 130 foxes from fur farms. They then began breeding them with the goal of re-creating the evolution of wolves into dogs, a transformation that began more than 15,000 years ago.

With each generation of fox kits, Belyaev and his colleagues tested their reactions to human contact, selecting those most approachable to breed for the next generation. By the mid-1960s the experiment was working beyond what he could've imagined. They were producing foxes like Mavrik, not just unafraid of humans but actively seeking to bond with them. His team even repeated the experiment in two other species, mink and rats. "One huge thing that Belyaev showed was the timescale," says Gordon Lark, a University of Utah biologist who studies dog genetics. "If you told me the animal would now come sniff you at the front of the cage, I would say it's what I expect. But that they would become that friendly toward humans that quickly… wow."

Miraculously, Belyaev had compressed thousands of years of domestication into a few years. But he wasn't just looking to prove he could create friendly foxes. He had a hunch that he could use them to unlock domestication's molecular mysteries. Domesticated animals are known to share a common set of characteristics, a fact documented by Darwin in The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. They tend to be smaller, with floppier ears and curlier tails than their untamed progenitors. Such traits tend to make animals appear appealingly juvenile to humans. Their coats are sometimes spotted—piebald, in scientific terminology—while their wild ancestors' coats are solid. These and other traits, sometimes referred to as the domestication phenotype, exist in varying degrees across a remarkably wide range of species, from dogs, pigs, and cows to some nonmammalians like chickens, and even a few fish.

ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

Visiting the page may prompt you to print. Just cancel the printing job and you'll be able to read it.

FreeMason
Andy we didn't genetically alter the domestication trait into the animals of preference.

The domestication gene already exists, refer to the Fox. It is precisely by finding this gene, how the Russians found that the Fox is another animal that can be domesticated.

So all mammals have a domestication gene?

Or just the hundreds we have domesticated?

The rat, the boar, the auroch, the camel, the horse .....

reply to post by FreeMason


There is no "domestication" gene. What they mean by "genetic mysteries of domestication" is that domestication changes the expression of genes, in animals. Pigs lose most of their hair, teeth shorten, etc.

Humans domesticated the animals that had a utilitarian benefit to society, whether that be for food (pigs, cows, poultry, etc.) or work (dogs, cats, horses, ox, etc.), and were easy enough to control until most wild tendencies and temperament were able to be bred out. Animals that were not domesticated either didn't serve a utilitarian need or were too difficult to control, i.e. large predators, vermin, etc.

There really is no great mystery behind this . . .

Most animals we have domesticated have been pack/herd animals so we have affected their basic structure like wolves have become dogs as they have a rule structure and we put ourselves at the top of the tree meaning we control the pack which means who breeds with who (or doesn't), for other animals like cats its become a mutually beneficial arrangement where since they're introduced to the 'deal' at birth they're happy to do what we want since their mother thinks its ok but give it a couple of generations in the wild and tiddles will be as vicious as if the last 5-10,000 years have never happened

solomons path
reply to post by FreeMason

 

There is no "domestication" gene. What they mean by "genetic mysteries of domestication" is that domestication changes the expression of genes, in animals. Pigs lose most of their hair, teeth shorten, etc.

Humans domesticated the animals that had a utilitarian benefit to society, whether that be for food (pigs, cows, poultry, etc.) or work (dogs, cats, horses, ox, etc.), and were easy enough to control until most wild tendencies and temperament were able to be bred out. Animals that were not domesticated either didn't serve a utilitarian need or were too difficult to control, i.e. large predators, vermin, etc.

There really is no great mystery behind this . . .

No, that's not what they mean.

There is a genetic imprint allowing domestication.

If this were not true, how could they find that gene in Foxes and prove that Foxes could be domesticated, as opposed to Wolves?

Maxatoria
Most animals we have domesticated have been pack/herd animals so we have affected their basic structure like wolves have become dogs as they have a rule structure and we put ourselves at the top of the tree meaning we control the pack which means who breeds with who (or doesn't), for other animals like cats its become a mutually beneficial arrangement where since they're introduced to the 'deal' at birth they're happy to do what we want since their mother thinks its ok but give it a couple of generations in the wild and tiddles will be as vicious as if the last 5-10,000 years have never happened

Also not the case domestication takes many generations to undo, unless there is interbreeding with non-domesticated animals.

Notice that stray dogs don't become ravenous like Wild Dogs of Africa, which hunt and eat people.

reply to post by FreeMason


This proves nothing except that we have much more to learn regarding biology and genetics. It would be foolish of you to suggest that this evidence is anything close to conclusive. While the possibility may exist, it is barely that: a possibility. Among dozens more, I might add. Each of which grows further from the "intelligent design" theory than the last.

AndyMayhew

FreeMason
Andy we didn't genetically alter the domestication trait into the animals of preference.

The domestication gene already exists, refer to the Fox. It is precisely by finding this gene, how the Russians found that the Fox is another animal that can be domesticated.

So all mammals have a domestication gene?

Or just the hundreds we have domesticated?

The rat, the boar, the auroch, the camel, the horse .....

Just the ones we domesticated and probably a few more. Headed to the Gym, when I get back I'll try and dig up articles about all this.

If someone wants to beat me to it by all means please do. I didn't realize when making this thread that there would be so much debate on what "domestication" entails...so we should do some discovery if anyone has the time.

reply to post by FreeMason


Sorry that fox study in Russia is decades old and happened at a time when genetics was still considered pseudo-science by many, not to mention the advancements that have taken place since then.

You and the study are considered "wrong" by modern day geneticists and biologists.

I'm on an iPhone, so I don't know if the link will show or if its mobile, but here is a good NatGeo article that is more current.
Domestication based on several genetic factors

reply to post by FreeMason

Domesticated animals are different than wild animals, I can't reference the National Geographic that discussed this, but they had an article about the genetics of domestication, that only those animals with the genetic expression to be domesticated can be domesticated.

That's why, for instance, there are no domesticated wolves, or lions, or tigers, but following the genetics of other domesticated animals the Russians discovered you can domesticate the Fox which they have.

But, on this note, I just found it profoundly odd that Evolution could provide for such a genetic expression, and across so many unrelated species, just for the sole purpose of being utilized by mankind. My thoughts are that they were created to be utilized.

Thoughts, in no particular order:

1. Find your source for this information and post it so the rest of us can read the same information you did.

2. It seems like you're falling into the usual false dichotomy trap that creationists and "intelligent design" proponents find themselves in. "If something is inconsistent with evolution, then God must be the right answer." It's not a binary system.

3. The archaeological and genetic evidence that we domesticated wolves is there. If you've got a few thousand years, you could likely re-domesticate Canis lupus lupus into some new breeds of Canis lupus familiaris. Or you could engage in an extensive breeding program like one Russian scientist did with foxes and do it in about 40 years.

I don't get your OP *at all*.

" but you can't really keep a deer in your yard it's just too wild. "

Let's assume that humans, 1000s of years ago had a reason to domesticate deers, the result of that (breeding etc.) would likely be a new, sub-species of deers who are "domesticated", in the same way as dogs ARE INDEED DOMESTICATED WOLVES, although "sort of" a new species which arose from the domestication.

That humans CAN actually create different types of animals/breeds should be obvious, dog breeds, cat breeds etc. It would then indeed only take several thousands of years for those domesticated animals to be "created", because of the ACTIVE involvement by humans (breeding).

Your argument that some animals have a preference to be domesticated based on DNA I don't buy. You would need to provide evidence that humans attempted to domesticate certain animals...but never managed to do so.

""
Humans haven't been on the Earth long enough to influence animal evolution more or less, and even if we have, why that influence?
""

How can you say that? ANY domestic animal, ie. dogs, cats, certain type of fish are the best examples that we indeed DID influence animal evolution. Why do you even doubt something so obvious?

By the way, modern plants like vegetables, fruit, crops etc. are also "modified" and bred as to yield better results or being more resistant as compared to their early forms. Would you also imply that there is godly input at work, say, to make tomatoes more fleshy?

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


Good point, although I'd suppose they would respond the fact that tomatoes are edible is gods work, which would then raise the question why are some plants poisonous.