Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Where do dogs really come from?


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 Zohaar818

Zohaar818

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 112 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 10:10 AM

http://www.newdawnma...at_Enigmas.html

May sound like a strange name for a thread but I assure you it's a serious question and one that should occupy the minds of Creationsist and Evolutionists alike...[check the link.and see what you think..].
The enigma of the dog is on the list of the world's 6 great enigmas, [among many] which still beg proper answers...

"The Origin Of Dogs – [Biogenetic engineering ?]

Now we turn to a mystery that nearly equals the pyramid, though it is a little known conundrum hidden in the mists of remote antiquity. Let us start with a simple question that appears to have an obvious answer: what is a dog? It turns out geneticists in the past decade have shown the answer is not so obvious. In fact, generations of anthropologists, archaeologists and wildlife biologists turned out to be dead wrong when it came to the origins of “man’s best friend”.

Prior to DNA studies conducted in the 1990s, the generally accepted theory posited that dogs branched off from a variety of wild canids, i.e., coyotes, hyenas, jackals, wolves and so on, about 15,000 years ago. The results of the first comprehensive DNA study shocked the scholarly community. The study found that all dog breeds can be traced back to wolves and not other canids. The second part of the finding was even more unexpected – the branching off occurred from 40-150,000 years ago.

Why do these findings pose a problem? We have to answer that question with another question: how were dogs bred from wolves? This is not just difficult to explain, it is impossible. Do not be fooled by the pseudo-explanations put forth by science writers that state our Stone Age ancestors befriended wolves and somehow (the procedure is never articulated) managed to breed the first mutant wolf, the mother of all dogs. Sorry, we like dogs too, but that is what a dog is.

The problems come at the crucial stage of taking a male and female wolf and getting them to produce a subspecies (assuming you could tame and interact with them at all). Let us take this one step further by returning to our original question, what is a dog? A dog is a mutated wolf that only has those characteristics of the wild parent, which humans find companionable and useful. That is an amazing fact.

Think about those statements for a moment. If you are thinking that dogs evolved naturally from wolves, that is not an option. No scientist believes that because the stringent wolf pecking order and breeding rituals would never allow a mutant to survive, at least that is one strong argument against natural evolution.

Now, if our Paleolithic ancestors could have pulled off this feat, and the actual challenges posed by the process are far more taxing, then wolf/dog breeders today certainly should have no problem duplicating it. But like the Great Pyramid, that does not seem to be the case. No breeders have stepped up to the plate claiming they can take two pure wolves and produce a dog sans biogenetic engineering techniques.

The evolution of the domesticated dog from a wild pack animal appears to be a miracle! It should not have happened. This is another unexplained enigma. "

-Zohaar

#2 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • 14353 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 10:17 AM

It would be nice to see some evidence for this rather strange claim.

That dogs evolved from wolves is rather obvious. There is no such thing as a completely tame dog. Dogs can be very dangerous animals and do kill on occasion.

It is probably impossible to create a tame dog by capturing a wolf and not do anything to it. Keep the breed captivated for a few generations, however, and you end up with tame wolfs. Given enough generations they become dogs. Speciation of dogs is very doable by breeders.

#3 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15321 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 10:28 AM

___I watched a show on dogs & their originins from wolves. They did a part about breeders of foxes (for fur) have found that over generations as the animals became less wild, the pelts changed to having irregular markings so as to make the pelts unsaleable; the more varied the coat, the more docile the fox if I remember correctly.
___As to 40,000 to 150,000, human remains (inclusive of tools, firepits, & other tools) do go back that far. The topic is interesting, but I see nothing requiring strange claims. :turtle:

#4 Zohaar818

Zohaar818

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 112 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 10:39 AM

It would be nice to see some evidence for this rather strange claim.

That dogs evolved from wolves is rather obvious. There is no such thing as a completely tame dog. Dogs can be very dangerous animals and do kill on occasion.

It is probably impossible to create a tame dog by capturing a wolf and not do anything to it. Keep the breed captivated for a few generations, however, and you end up with tame wolfs. Given enough generations they become dogs. Speciation of dogs is very doable by breeders.


So what you're syaing is that given enough time in human company, wolf DNA will change into dog DNA..si that it...that introducing wolves to dogs and keeping th em captive for a few generations allows them to 'evolve' into dogs.at which point we cross breed or inbreed to get diverse pedigrees?
Are you positing a certain type of extinct wolf more like shepard dogs or malamutes/huskies, than wolves from which dogs descended..or that we bred huskies with wolves to get..what exactly?...a poodle?..a St. Bernard..a spaniel?
What I find most troubling is the use of the phrase..'that dogs evolved from wolves is obvious'....when according to the geneticists and the breeders...it isn't.

If it is all so obvious where is the record of it being done... and by whom? In all the ancient art in which dogs appear they seem to already be diverse and specified and yet we have no culture describing in any way the method used to get dog from wolf...all we have are ready made dogs...

-Zohaar

#5 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15321 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 10:50 AM

___What records do we have from 50 - 100 thousand years ago to consult? Is the domestication of Dogs any different than Cattle or Goats? Where is the Holstein in the wild?
___I admit there is mystery here, but not such as to require extreme explanation. As I pointed out with the fox breeders, the domestication effect on wild animals is observable. Moreover, as humans constitute part of Nature, our selective breeding of animals is Natural selection. New breeds of Dogs still occur & if someone is sharp enough to recognize them, they keep them for breeding. :turtle:

#6 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • 14353 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 11:22 AM

If it is all so obvious where is the record of it being done... and by whom?


Note that I said you get tame wolves, not tame dogs.

I wrote "they become dogs"...bad phrasing. That is not correct. I meant that they will become indistinguishable from dogs, although not genetically.

The fallacy in your argument is that you assume that dogs descended from wolves. They are genetically very, very close and have the same ancestor - meaning that they evolved in parallell.

For more about wolves and domesticated dogs:
http://canidae.ca/index.html

#7 nkt

nkt

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 388 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 12:30 PM


The evolution of the domesticated dog from a wild pack animal appears to be a miracle! It should not have happened. This is another unexplained enigma. "

-Zohaar

Not sure about that. Pack behaviour and impressioning are probably the reason we have dogs that are distinct from wolves. Huskies are very like wolves, dalmations have the stamina of wolves, labradors are utterly loyal to master, as are many of the guard breeds.

I see nothing wrong with the "standard model" explanation. A hunter kills the wolf, scares the rest of the pack away, or a cub or two are abandoned for whatever reason, and the cute little wolf cub goes back for a present for the kids. It is fairly rare for high level predators to be eaten by humans anyway, and only in the hardest of times would anyone decide to eat a small puppy.

So the puppy is given to the kids, and impressions on them, and then, perhaps, a fight starts, either human vs. human or animal vs. human, and the "dog" sides with it's pack master. The tribe notices this, and decides that they might get a few more pups.

After that, selection for traits is just the same as for every other animal species (except humans) who we have never even hesitated to breed for what we want.

Even without modern genetic theory, people have know that a strong mother and father will give, generally, a strong son of whatever species, and a fast mother with a fast father will give a fast son.

I don't see a problem?

#8 spennithorne

spennithorne

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 03:02 PM

It would be nice to see some evidence for this rather strange claim.

That dogs evolved from wolves is rather obvious. There is no such thing as a completely tame dog. Dogs can be very dangerous animals and do kill on occasion.

It is probably impossible to create a tame dog by capturing a wolf and not do anything to it. Keep the breed captivated for a few generations, however, and you end up with tame wolfs. Given enough generations they become dogs. Speciation of dogs is very doable by breeders.


I quite agree. Wolf traits like loyalty, defense of the pack, attention and obedience to dominant individuals, sharing of food, care for the young, guardianship of the hiding place of the pups, sleeping together at night for warmth-----all these traits would make wolves attractive to have as protectors and companions for early humans. It is clear that humans and canids have been interacting for a long time----40,000 to 150,000 years is the realm of time that Homo erectus and Neanderthal man were overtaken and during which time CroMagnon man (true Homo sapiens) arose and eventually dominated the earth. It could even be (a hypothesis that has long intrigued me) that it was partly the capacity for domestication of canids that gave power to Homo sapiens over and above their predecessors; and that the capacity for domestication arose as one natural expression (among many others such as more sophisticated tool use, domestication of fire, and cave art) of their (our) sharply increased brain size.

#9 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Members
  • 2235 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 11:48 PM

Yes, there is also the point that symbiotic relationships arise quite naturally in the animal kingdom. Take the clown fish and it's poisonous companion/home by example. Even the bacteria that live in our intestinal tract act as examples of how species can evolve together.

#10 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • 6062 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 02:40 AM

Humans, having lost the fine sense of smell we had when the need for binocular vision drove our eyeballs to the front of the skull, shrinking our nasal cavities in the process, need to identify our mates in the hunt. Therefore, humans have the most varied looks in the animal kingdom. Humans are also the animal with the most facial muscles, using them as a very effective communication tool - think smiles, frowns, etc. - which are all universal. The tribes discovered in Papua New Guinea in the 1960's, having never had contact with anybody from the "outside", smiled and frowned as much as anybody on Earth - and was able to communicate in a rudimentary fashion with the researchers, using mostly their expressions.
Interestingly enough, the animal next in line for facial muscle count, is the dog family. They have relatively large brains, can be trained, and can react to commands, be it verbal, or visual (facial expressions). They were therefore useful in the hunt, where the pack leader (human) can command his pack of dogs, in the same hierarchical structure the dogs (ex-wolves) were used to.
In my opinion, it's just interesting that there's few animals able to express emotions facially apart from humans and dogs, and that they happen to have an afinity for each other. Dogs are the only animals apart from humans able to smile, frown, etc.

#11 Zohaar818

Zohaar818

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 112 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 04:19 AM

http://bleedingeyeba...gyptiandogs.htm

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Dogs.htm

http://www.indiandogs.com/artdogs1.htm

http://www.dogquotes...storyofdogs.htm [the conventional view of dog history without, you'll note, any explanation of the process of domestication or breeding to pedigree]

And a quote from a rather good source:
Dogs are the very first domestic animals to appear in the archaeological record. We have evidence from at least 14,000 years ago of fully domesticated dogs in Eurasia (Figure 1)(1-16). These early dogs share several features, including a much shortened facial region, crowded teeth, and smaller overall size compared to contemporaneous local wolves (4).
Despite what all of us have been taught about domestication, scientists understand very little about the precise biological and/or anthropogenic mechanisms responsible for transforming wild animals into domestic ones (17-22). This has important implications for our understanding of breed development because many assumptions have been made about the nature of the early dog/human relationship that are probably incorrect, as has been shown for long-held assumptions regarding domestication itself (20, 42). Certainly, there is no evidence to suggest that deliberate human actions precipitated domestication in most animals and the present consensus of opinion is that domestication was initiated by the animals themselves (20, 23-25). This conclusion is supported by evidence from recent genetic studies that domestication of wild ancestral species has occurred more than once, in different parts of the world, for virtually all domestic animals (26-40). For example, dogs appear to have been generated on at least three separate occasions (perhaps more) from geographically distinct ancestral populations of wolf (i.e. different subspecies). A similar pattern is seen in domestic pigs, cattle, sheep, goats, horses and water buffalo; all but the chicken show evidence for two or more discrete domestication events in different geographic locations.

Such multiple domestication events from geographically distinct subspecies of wolf could perhaps account for some of the variation we see amongst early prehistoric dogs. It is important to separate such initial variation from variation generated much, which is the result of local adaptation and/or breed creation. Although no comprehensive study of dogs from different geographic regions has yet been done, an examination of published data indicates that early dogs worldwide were remarkably similar in every way except size (42). Early dogs from northern Europe and Russia were the largest (although no larger than a modern dingo), while most from southwest Asia, China and NA were Dalmation-sized. All early dogs from Japan and one from central Europe (5) were somewhat smaller (about the size of a modern Finnish spitz or Keeshound). All were robust and well-proportioned but similar in general conformation: in all cases, slight differences in size are virtually all that distinguish dogs for thousands of years regardless of where they lived (1-16, 42-44).

Amongst dog samples recovered from the last 4,000 years, some regions show a wide range of variation in size while others do not (small dogs have been defined as those with a total skull length of 108-165 mm, accompanied by a humerus total length below 140 mm and femur total length below 160 mm; large dogs are defined as those with a total skull length of 165-196 mm, with humerus length above 140 mm and femur length above 160 mm) (55). For example, archaeological sites in Alaska and Greenland yield predominantly large dogs (although no larger than a modern dingo), while sites in the Kentucky/Alabama region generate mostly small ones (16, 59-60). While different sizes of dogs existed side by side in many regions (such as the US southwest and at the Jaguar Cave site in Idaho)(47), there is little evidence to suggest that populations of small dogs were the result of deliberate selective breeding. In only one of these regions is there associated evidence to suggest that conscious selection for distinct physical attributes was accompanied by controlled breeding – in other word, the necessary elements required to produce a truly distinct breed of dog as defined by modern standards. "
http://www.wsava2005...uropeanDogs.htm

In fact the oldest known dog breed on earth is the Saluki...and I ask you..how much like a wolf does it appear to be, physically? And how would one go about selectively breeding wolves, over how long a time...to get a Saluki would you guess?
http://news.national...XPLsalukis.html
Frankly, I wish I had a million dollars just so i could offer it to any breeder who, in ten generations or less could pull off such a 'miracle' of genetics...
-Sincerely

-Zohaar

#12 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • 14353 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 05:04 AM

Assume for a second that dogs where engineered, as you say.

What evidence do you have for this, except that you do not accept the current scientific theories?

#13 nkt

nkt

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 388 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 05:11 AM


http://news.national...XPLsalukis.html
Frankly, I wish I had a million dollars just so i could offer it to any breeder who, in ten generations or less could pull off such a 'miracle' of genetics...
-Sincerely

-Zohaar

Interesting. I always through those were greyhounds, now I find they are yet another breed I never heard of!

As for breeding that dog in ten generations, are you nuts? Try a hundred generations, at least, without using genetic engineering and clever tricks like cryogenics and artificial insemination.

Scottie history

(http://www.canismajo...og/scottie.html)
The Scottie is a short-legged British terrier, one of several wire-coated go-to-ground terriers developed in the Scottish highlands. The origins of these terriers is obscure, but it is fairly certain that they all arose from the same basic stock. Progenitors of the fiery Scottie were sent to France's monarch by King James I of England in the 16th Century, but as late as 1882, three different terriers were exhibited as Scotch Terriers. These included the Scottie, Cairn, and West Highland White terriers. The Dandie Dinmont had been included earlier, but this dog's obviously different appearance gained it recognition as a separate breed.

From this we can see that even over a fairly short time, a breed can differentiate. It is only because of agreed breed standards that they converge on these local plateaus of "fitness". The in-breeding issues are also common, as a quick look at the known issues for each breed shows. This is due to the small genetic variation available from dogs and bitches fitting all the other show criteria. Hip x-rays are expensive, and yet common for breeding dogs, to try to reduce the hip displacia trait in many breeds.

#14 Zohaar818

Zohaar818

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 112 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 02:17 AM

Assume for a second that dogs where engineered, as you say.

What evidence do you have for this, except that you do not accept the current scientific theories?


I didn't say they were engineered..I posted an article [of "6 enigmas",] in which the question was raised based on the lack of current theory to explain it satisfactorily
And it is apparent that those who believe in the dog from wolf theory haven't tested the theory...and as one of the respondents here agrees it would take more than 10 generations of deliberate breeeding to get anything like the saluki, the world's oldest breed.
I am also not a fan or adherent to the school of 'science' that comes up with nifty proofs such as: "That dogs evolved from wolves is rather obvious. "
That smacks of the same kind of pseudo-logical reasoning which gave us quotes like..'that the earth is the center of the universe around which all things revolve is rather obvious'' ...which was hurled at Galileo.
If it is so obvious why has no one demonstrated it? Because it would take 100 generations or more?
And frankly, to ask what evidence I have for artificial engineering other than my refusal to accept current theory is a canard..if current theory, upon examination cannot account for the observed phenomena, or if current theory is shown to be implausible given the record..that is evidence enough for me that we must seek a more complete theory..and that we must [once again] open our minds to the possibilities..start from scratch, forget our dogmas and theologies.
I don't say dogs were bio-engineered by ET..or God...I found the article relevant enough and intriguing enough to post..and I didn't say dogs were definitely bio-engineered..I simply asked where they came from.
Other than the 'obvious' answer I get flack, as if it's too dumb a question to even think about when everyone 'knows' dogs descended from wolves [ I mean they look so much alike, right...they're canines, right?..must have a common ancestor, right?].
So where is the evidence of our ancestors breeding wolves into dogs? How was it done...do we have a record of it? Has anyone left us a guide on how to do it 'naturally?''
Where is the intermediate species betweeeen wolf and terrier..the fossils, the skulls, the burial chambers of mummified half-wolf-half-terrier? Why is it not being done now? I mean, aren't all theories supposed to be tested before being taken on blind faith?
Where is the testing of this theory documented..when has it been clearly established through example that our theory of dog from wolf is correct?
I'm happy to say that clever neanderthals who had nothing but time on their hands, invited a competitor species to the campfire and then set about genetically modifying the breed through selective reproduction until they got ferrets, greyhounds and spaniels..if I see the evidence..or even if the dog breeders association had a guide about how to do it; get dog from wolf. But dog breeders do not have any info on this [ I checked !!!]

So what we have is an untested theory of dog descent from wolf...untested because it is too 'obvious' to question...which is held up as sacred writ by those defending 'science'.
Where is YOUR physical, scientific, genetic, anthropological, 'evolutionary', evidence for dogs from wolves via human domestication?
Note that I do realize proving current theory false does not automatically prove the bio-engineered dog theory true.......but surely if holes can be shown in current theory it should raise the eyebrows of those who claim they 'know' the story of the origin of dogs..don't you think?

-Zohaar

#15 Zohaar818

Zohaar818

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 112 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 03:13 AM

It occurs to me that the best way to answer the question as post ed 'where do dogs come from'..and one that was hoping to elucidate from the scientists among us, is to outline a general theory of dog descent [ assuming it is from wolves] in which we start with two wolves.
They needn't be 'alpha male and female', which is the only way wolves breed naturally..
[Leadership Behavior in Relation to Dominance and Reproductive Status in Gray Wolves, Canis lupus
Peterson, Jacobs, Drummer, Mech & Smith, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80 (August 2002): 1405-1412 (8 pp)
We analyzed the leadership behavior of breeding and nonbreeding gray wolves (Canis lupus) in three packs during winter in 1997–1999. Scent-marking, frontal leadership (time and frequency in the lead while traveling), initiation of activity, and nonfrontal leadership were recorded during 499 h of ground-based observations in Yellowstone National Park. All observed scent-marking (N = 158) was done by breeding wolves, primarily dominant individuals. Dominant breeding pairs provided most leadership, consistent with a trend in social mammals for leadership to correlate with dominance. Dominant breeding wolves led traveling packs during 64% of recorded behavior bouts (N = 591) and 71% of observed travel time (N = 64 h). During travel, breeding males and females led packs approximately equally, which probably reflects high parental investment by both breeding male and female wolves. Newly initiated behaviors (N = 104) were prompted almost 3 times more often by dominant breeders (70%) than by nonbreeders (25%). Dominant breeding females initiated pack activities almost 4 times more often than subordinate breeding females (30 vs. 8 times). Although one subordinate breeding female led more often than individual nonbreeders in one pack in one season, more commonly this was not the case. In 12 cases breeding wolves exhibited nonfrontal leadership. Among subordinate wolves, leadership behavior was observed in subordinate breeding females and other individuals just prior to their dispersal from natal packs. Subordinate wolves were more often found leading packs that were large and contained many subordinate adults.]
http://www.wolfology.com/id129.htm

So let's take the view that, humans being compassionate, and all puppies being cute, and females being prone to shower attention and affection on the vulberable..and men needing a comapanion predator on hunts and unforseen circumstances all combining to bring a 'runt' wolf pup or two to the campfire, eons ago in our prehistory..male and female.
And let's say that out of the litter of pups they produced we again, selectively bred the resulting pups to get what we thought were the best qualities into the next generation..something as loyal and comitted as a wolf but not prone to biting the children..


[" In the state of Michigan wolf hybrids are less common than in other states, but they do exist. One such hybrid was kept on a chain in the back yard, but well away from the house. The animal was reportedly 7/8 wolf, although according to one very knowledgeable person who has seen photos and video footage of the animal, he is much lower in wolf content. At best he could be 1/2 wolf. This animal was reportedly good with children and the owners had no reservations about allowing children to play with or around him.

On the 15 of March, 1990, a friend of the animal's owner came over to visit and brought her 2-year-old child. The child had previously "played" with the hybrid and there had been no problems. While the mother was visiting, she put her child into the back yard. Shortly afterward they noticed the animal shaking something -- that something was the child. Most of the throat was torn out; the child was nearly decapitated!...

Have you even wondered why children are told never to run around dogs, especially if they are strange dogs? Running is one of the things that elicits or "triggers" predatory behavior. Crudely put, a "trigger mechanism" releases a specific innate (or instinctive) behavioral response to a specific environmental stimulus. Also, there is a specific threshold for the elicitation of the behavior that varies from animal to animal.

There are many examples of such trigger mechanisms in the animal world. With wolves, pups food-begging from adults will trigger regurgitation; a perceived threat to the den, such as by a bear or man, will trigger barking; hearing a distant howl, will trigger howling, and so on. Just from these few examples one can see how we have altered dogs' behaviors through selective breeding. In general, it's much easier to trigger a barking response from dogs, and much harder to trigger howling, regurgitation, and most importantly, predatory behavior. In the latter case we have either selectively bred against predatory behavior, as in most livestock guarding dogs, or have altered the "threshold" for the elicitation of predatory behavior, as in most other breeds. In fact, the threshold for the elicitation of predatory behavior towards children in many dogs has been raised so high, again through selective breeding, that the likelihood of it ever being evoked is very small. In pure wolves it hasn't been altered at all; hybrids are anybody's guess. Although a wolf hybrid's behavior and appearance will generally fall somewhere between those of a wolf and those of a dog, an individual's behavior can actually be better or worse than either parent.] http://www.wolfpark....d_wolfdogs.html

Note the above is an excerpt from a site about wolfs and hybrids...to get a hybrid you need a wolf and a dog..In fact the only chance one has of getting wolf qualities and dog qualities in the proper mix is to start with a wolf and a dog, not two wolves..

To get a long haired breed you'd need to breed the two pups with the longest hair and hope two of their pups , male and female had long hair..or you'd breed one pup with the long haired parent ..and hope for the best.
No doubt, this is plausible as a process until you factor in wolf behaviour, hybrid behaviour, and the problem of recessive genes accumulating as you continue to inbreed and refine the blood line.

In none of my research over the last week and a half have i found any reference to this step by step method of wolf to dog breeding..and in no journal or site can I find any mention of a way to selectively breed wolves to get more docile or dog-like canines..every site which delves into it states [what to me is] the perfectly obvious..in order to get a canine that is less wolf than wolf you need one parent to be at least part dog.
Period.

As for 'the obvious' fact that dogs came from wolves since they look so much alike...

http://www.wayeh.com...dogs/wolves.htm

"Wolves, Wolf-Dogs & Phenotypes

Wolf, Siberian Husky, & Alaskan Malamute
-- Three separate animals

Malamutes, Siberians, Wolves, & Wolf-Dogs
This page was written with help from employees and researchers at Wolf Park and Bays Mountain Park and members of many lists, including WolfDogList, Malamute-L, Sibernet-L, and Sleddog-L. All mistakes are mine.

Purebred Alaskan Malamutes and Siberian Huskies are not wolves, or part-wolves, were not bred from wolves, and these breeds were not developed by breeding to wolves anytime recently (that is a separate animal called a wolf-dog). Based on studies by Dr. Robert Wayne at UC Berkeley, sled dogs are no more closely related to wolves than Chihuahuas. There is very little genetic difference between any dog and any wolf, coyote, or jackal, etc., so little, in fact, that genetic tests cannot tell how much wolf is in deliberately bred wolf-dogs. The domesticated canines and their wild cousins CAN interbreed. However, pedigrees on Malamutes and Siberians are available back ~20 generations (to the early 1930s at least) and these dogs are not wolf crosses -- Malamutes are Malamutes, Siberians are Siberians.

But they look like Wolves, or Phenotype
The definition of Phenotype is "the genetically and environmentally determined physical appearance of an organism." In other words, (the parents and) the conditions create the appearance.

Malamutes & Siberians LOOK like wolves, and in certain instances, ACT like wolves, because: All dogs and wolves descended from a common ancestor (or primitive version of the wolf, the debate rages); and,
The phenotype of the Northern Breeds is the best solution to the problem of the Arctic weather and conditions. The Northern breeds did not evolve MUCH past that phenotype, as other breeds have because most variations to the phenotype would be killed off. A boxer would not survive because he wasn't built for the situation."


So maybe dogs don't come from wolves but from coyotes or jackals, hyenas..maybe some gutsy cave-man and his kin took a jackal and a fox and forced them to mate..maybe that's what happened..... and then took that pup and crossed it with...
But seriously, if that's how it was done, why has no one anywhere ever found a piece of evidence to support the claim?

If dogs 'evolved' from a common ancestor that ancestor is long since extinct and humans had nothing to do with it..or maybe..just maybe..they WERE bio-engineered.

Given all of the above can anyone say with certainty that they really know where dogs came from?

-Zohaar

#16 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • 14353 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 03:31 AM

Zohaar...ease off a bit. I may have been unclear about things but there is no need to act like there is a war going on. :shrug:

I didn't say they were engineered..I posted an article [of "6 enigmas",] in which the question was raised based on the lack of current theory to explain it satisfactorily


Granted - although I question the scientific intelligence of those who wrote that article, which I am in my right to do.

I still pose the question - what is YOUR answer to "Where do dogs really come from" which is the title of this topic.

I am also not a fan or adherent to the school of 'science' that comes up with nifty proofs such as: "That dogs evolved from wolves is rather obvious. "


If you had bothered to read my replies you'd find that I have corrected myself and said they evolved from the same ancestor. You may call this pseudo-science as much as you like but the fact remains that dogs and wolves are closely related. Where dogs come from is no more a mystery than where cats come from.

If it is so obvious why has no one demonstrated it? Because it would take 100 generations or more?


Again, the evidence in evolution is rather strong. I frankly don't see the mystery here. That something is obvious doesn't mean it is wrong. It also doesn't mean that it is by necessity correct, as you point out.

And frankly, to ask what evidence I have for artificial engineering other than my refusal to accept current theory is a canard..if current theory, upon examination cannot account for the observed phenomena


...which it does...

..start from scratch, forget our dogmas and theologies.


Because I accept the current theories does not mean that it is based on dogma and theology. That is a rather strong comment.

So where is the evidence of our ancestors breeding wolves into dogs? How was it done...do we have a record of it?


There is plenty of background here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog

Has anyone left us a guide on how to do it 'naturally?''


Now who would that be?

Anyway, dogs and wolves can still interbreed and have fertile offspring, which suggests extremely close genetic relation - in fact, that they belong to the same species.

Where is the intermediate species betweeeen wolf and terrier..the fossils, the skulls, the burial chambers of mummified half-wolf-half-terrier? Why is it not being done now? I mean, aren't all theories supposed to be tested before being taken on blind faith?


There would be no such thing. There are half-breeds from interbreeding. It is being done now - certain species of dog are mated with wolves to create fight dogs.

Where is the testing of this theory documented..when has it been clearly established through example that our theory of dog from wolf is correct?


I think this entire issue is being turned upside down. What I am trying to convey is not that dog evolved from wolf. They evolved from the same ancestor. That ancestor is known. If you trace the path back you will find that the cat, the weasel, racoons, bears and foxes also come from this line. The wolves' closest living relative today is the dog. Nobody had to engineer a wolf into a dog - they both evolved.

Your question seems to be how on earth did the wild wolf be tamed into dogs. There was no need for this. Human beings domesticated the dog.

but surely if holes can be shown in current theory it should raise the eyebrows of those who claim they 'know' the story of the origin of dogs..don't you think?


What raises my eyebrows is how you fight so much for something that is neither a mystery nor a difficult issue.

#17 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • 14353 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 03:47 AM

"Malamutes & Siberians LOOK like wolves, and in certain instances, ACT like wolves, because: All dogs and wolves descended from a common ancestor (or primitive version of the wolf, the debate rages); and,
The phenotype of the Northern Breeds is the best solution to the problem of the Arctic weather and conditions. The Northern breeds did not evolve MUCH past that phenotype, as other breeds have because most variations to the phenotype would be killed off. A boxer would not survive because he wasn't built for the situation."


Given all of the above can anyone say with certainty that they really know where dogs came from?


Your post pretty much proves my point really - there is no mystery. Dogs and wolves evolved from the same ancestors. Problem solved.