Slashdot Mirror
50 Years of Domesticating Foxes For Science
gamebittk writes "In 1959, Soviet scientist Dmitri Belyaev set out to breed a tamer fox that would be easier for their handlers in the Russian fur industry to work with. Much to the scientist's shock, changes no one had expected emerged after just 10 generations. The foxes began behaving playfully, were smaller in size, and even changed color — much like dogs."
Belyaev died in 1985, but the experiment continued (PDF) in his absence, and to this day provides strong evidence to parts of evolutionary theory. The experiment eventually branched out to involve other species as well.
Soviets actually had long history in experimenting modifying genes and DNA of animals, and in late years this was even minorly expanded to humans. They were really cautious about that, but did experience on things like changing human behavior in brains and trying to give them 'better' abilities (as in from military point of view). Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies. The most interesting part is that via some limited lobotomy, they managed to remove some feeling of fear and feelings from the subjects. There's a few videos out of those experiences, this one is taken near Black Sea in 1986 in area whats currently Ukraine.
Never the less, it's always scary when humans play god. Something is going to happen eventually, so should be really careful about it.
"Intelligent Evolutionary Design"
Evolution - Has new genetic information been added? Or has existing information, already within the genome been lost through selective breeding. The latter I think! Foxes still produce after their kind and their offspring are still foxes (albeit with less genetic material than their progenitors)
People really need to learn the difference between Evolution (which is adding new material, through unintelligent, uncontrolled random accidental chance process) and Selective Breeding (which is not evolution, but rather devolution).
As I read through the article, blue eyes, fair skin and hair were as indicated as behavior. Correlation and causation discussion aside, I can't help but draw some parallels in human society.
I am trying to avoid presenting this as an argument for racism, but I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people. Darker skinned people are viewed as stronger, more healthy while lighter skinned people are viewed as weaker, more sickly. I can't say where the facts are in all of this, but the perception is pretty clear.
And dare I mention the "practical jokes" videos out there all over youtube and similar sites? Am I the only one who noticed that when lighter skinned people are frightened they squeal like little girls while darker skinned people tend to lash out often striking whatever it is that caused a fearful reaction? Are there exceptions to these patterns? Certainly.
And in the articles, it was by selective breeding with these patterns in mind, that these new foxes and rats were created.
I know some people are immediately offended when parallels are drawn between humans and other animals (hell, just by saying "other animals" I am probably making some people angry) but even the most simple observations make some conclusions seem quite obvious to draw.
There are two things Marines are always taught
1)To keep your priorities in order
2)Know when to act without hesitation
An atheist professor was teaching a college class and he told the class that he was going to prove that there is no God.
He said, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!"
Ten minutes went by.
The professor kept taunting God, saying, "Here I am, God. I'm still waiting."
He got down to the last couple of minutes and a Marine just released from active duty, and newly registered in the class, walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and sent him flying from his platform.
The professor struggled up, obviously shaken and yelled, "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?"
The Marine replied, "God was busy, so He sent me."
Unfortunately for the Marine, God didn't give a shit if the professor pressed charges or not, so when the police came to arrest him no force in heaven or Earth interceded. He was processed and put in a cell. While in the cell, he met an atheist hobo who claimed there was no God, so he beat that guy up too. over 9000 other inmates attempted to haul him off the hobo, so he beat them up as well. One of them suffered severe blunt force trauma and died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. His bailed was not made and he waited in prison until the day of his trial.
Because of this, the marine was found guilty of four counts of aggravated assault and one count of 2nd degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years time served in state penitentiary, with parole opportunities after 7. Unfortunately, the judge was a well known, avowed atheist so the marine felt compelled to give him a piece of God's mind. The marine leaped onto the defense table and, using his scheming Jew lawyer as a lawn dart, struck the judge in the face. Parole opportunities were revoked.
While in jail the marine found himself very busy fighting anyone who showed the slightest lack of faith in God. Unfortunately, one afternoon in the sixth year of his incarceration, God instructed him to pick a fight with a particularly large man of Hispanic descent and, although he prevailed in the initial conflict, the 27 Latin Kings members who fell upon him following his victory quickly delivered blows sufficient to render him incapacitated.
Because of the severity of his injuries, he was given a bed at the prison hospital. While there, the prison psychiatrist conducted extensive interviews, ultimately determining that the marine was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and late onset schizophrenia. He was immediately put on a extensive array of powerful anti psychotics and anti depressants; all of which he secretly was not taking, because God had told him the medication was from the devil and was being used by heretic Muslims and atheists to sever his ties to the Lord, his God. His condition continued to worsen and he spent more and more time locked in solitary confinement for his disruptive behavior. While there he would cry and scream and pray to the lord for guidance. In turn the lord would fill his eyes with visions of ultimate triumph over evil; the streets of pagan cities, clotted with the thick heart blood of the nonbelievers; abortion clinics fat with flies and the rotting flesh of the defilers; the righteous dancing in the vaulted crypt of the world as the sky turned to red ash and caught fire. He wept with joy as the profound visions filled his soul; the nourishing screams of the nonbelievers as they were dragged down into perdition, filled his ears and echoed in his head like beautiful music.
Unable to attend church in solitary, the marine began to despair. God then gave him the power to transubstantiate anything, so he began tearing great chunks of his own flesh from his body, at which point he would transform the
Just look at how we humans are being domesticated. over the last couple of hundred years.
All our science and technology is based on the idea that we can understand, control, and improve nature.
Playing God, in the Xn tradition, is creatio ex nihilo. Tweaking nature - even with catastrophic results - is not playing God.
I can't wait for a team to show whether the same can be made to politicians.
Humankind would necessarily undergo the same sort of evolutionary changes. We can expect differences in behavior among the different races and ethnic groups. Evolution changed both the color of the skin and the type of behavior. Intelligence is one form of behavior.
The belief that all races and all ethnic groups have identical intelligence and identical levels of violent behavior or passive behavior is simply an assumption -- without proof.
If nothing else, this is relevant in so far as illustrating how much behavior and physiology can change by the modification of a single simple and seemingly unrelated hereditary trait.
The long and arduous road of chance modifications to the organisms genome isn't necessary to explain these expressed traits specifically, when these simple modifications can cause entire systems to behave differently. It's whole other way of looking at natural selection.
It's not as though we haven't heard Creationists' arguments hinging upon the expectation that every step in evolution depends on a perfect storm of genetic error...
How soon was it before they decided to graft another head on the foxes? I hear Russian scientists were all into that sort of thing.
I was all excited for a second because I thought I'd be reading a story about Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and everyone else over a Fox News and the attempts to make them somewhat more human.
Long-discussed and documented - is this news ?
Anybody who has seen Grizzly Man, the film about Timothy Treadwell's tragic life with the Grizzly bears, knows that foxes can be domesticated. He befriended several wild foxes and can be seen in the film stroking one of them while it sits contented on his tent.
He wasn't so successful with befriending the bears themselves, obviously, but he certainly did well with the foxes.
I wish someone would fund my research into owning a cat or my cousin's cutting edge investigation into petting a hamster. Only another forty years or so and we might reach a vaguely plausible conclusion.
... nor any scientific evidence of course.
In evolution there isn't necessarily addition of genes, in most case there is a mutation of existing genes.
In Selective Breeding there is *certainly* no loss of "genetic material", there is simply an artificial selection of genes.
It's guided evolution.
Evolution is not about "getting better", it is just about adapting to the environment around you and breeding better. The individuals that survive and breed the most have more chances of passing down their genes, If the conditions requires it some species may even evolve naturally in being *less* intelligent.
Pick a book that explain evolution for dummies, it's not blasfemy to know how things work in nature, it is blasfemoy not to know how things work, because you commit a sin of arrogance in pretending to know how things work best than nature.
They should've started selling foxes as pets. They probably would be swimming in cash by now if the prices of wild cat-domestic cat hybrids is any indication of how much people are willing to pay for "unusual" pets.
Vikings.
You know.. those blue-eyed, fair-skinned, fair-haired sissies that have found time to discover America during their break of looting and pillaging across Europe.
Anecdotal evidence such as that might point us to a crazy idea that human beings are not foxes.
That they don't eat like foxes, breed like foxes, live as long as foxes, socialize like foxes or THINK like foxes.
And therein lies the proverbial pudding* - we didn't really evolve that much since we got ourselves these big brainy things that we use for thinking.
You know... that central junction box that does most of our nerve-signal routing, which can control the production and use of hormones in our bodies, besides being used for learning skills and thinking shit up.
In other words - we are a hell of a lot more complex animals then foxes. We have much greater control (and tolerance) over our hormones AND our life circumstances.
Also, we stopped fiddling with evolving our pigmentation back when we discovered clothing. Gave it up completely once we came up with makeup and hair-coloring.
*I know how the phrase goes. I've misused it intentionally to piss off grammar-Nazis and culture-trolls.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I love those coats! This is research for the greater good.
Home of The Suki Series
Fur is murder
I accidently moderated this offtopic, and cannot undo it. Sorry
Fur sucks. The animals spend their entire lives in cages and are then killed in very pain full ways. Nobody needs fur.
I saw a documentary years ago. After the British pulled out of India they abandoned many pedigreed, pure bred dogs to fend for themselves. After a few generations the dogs started to look like dingos or wolves.
Breeding animals sucks.
I have met so many wonderful animals who have so many health problems as the result of breeding.
Just leave the animals alone.
I want one! Foxes are cute and smaller than dogs but clever like cats.
If they have bred them to be more behaved they would probably be good house pets for urban dwellers. Foxes are pretty adaptable anyway, living off the scraps of society for a few hundred years already. It's mostly people that keep them out of populated places. That's how man started taming dogs and cats.
Reminds me of the Cold War Dog Fight joke: The Americans and Russians at the height of the arms race realized that if they continued in the usual manner they were going to blow up the whole world. One day they sat down and decided to settle the whole dispute with one dog fight. They'd have five years to breed the best fighting dog in the world and which ever side's dog won would be entitled to dominate the world. The losing side would have to lay down its arms. The Russians found the biggest meanest Doberman and Rottweiler dogs in the world and bred them with the biggest meanest Siberian wolves. They selected only the biggest and strongest puppy from each litter, killed his siblings, and gave him all the milk. They used steroids and trainers and after five years came up with the biggest meanest dog the world had ever seen. Its cage needed steel bars that were five inches thick and nobody could get near it. When the day came for the dog fight, the Americans showed up with a strange animal. It was a nine foot long Dachshund. Everyone felt sorry for the Americans because they knew there was no way that this dog could possibly last ten seconds with the Russian dog.
When the cages were opened up, the Dachshund came out of it's cage and slowly waddled over towards the Russian dog. The Russian dog snarled and leaped out of it's cage and charged the American dachshund. But, when it got close enough to bite the Dachshund's neck, the Dachshund opened it's mouth and consumed the Russian dog in one bite. There was nothing left at all of the Russian dog.
The Russians came up to the Americans shaking their heads in disbelief. 'We don't understand how this could have happened. We had our best people working for five years with the meanest Doberman and Rottweiler in the world and the biggest meanest Siberian wolves." That's nothing", an American replied."We had our best plastic surgeons working for five years to make an alligator look like a Dachshund."
I recall a Stanford talk back in the mid 90s in which Dawkins asserted in no uncertain terms that there has never been any significant impact on human evolution by human breeding of humans.
Seems a little religious, of him.
We cats have tamed man for 5000 years and haven't seen any useful changes since then.
I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit, strong.
The are issues with evolutionary theory, and I think people get confused about certain things like, a species ability to adapt to its environment, is that it fails to explain how a completely different species evolves, number one.
For example, Polar Bears, which yes due to climate change (Man made or otherwise...) are losing their environment, are adapting by interbreeding with Grizzily bears and producing offspring. This is happening because the Polar bears are forced to move south because of lack of Icepak.
Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theory, but like a lot of evidence due to climate change, it is being surpressed or just tossed out because it doesn't support the idea species change can only happen in a said species, not by interbreeding between "species".
Secondly, it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance, such as developing an entirely different organ for example in a very gradual way. We already know how intricate DNA is, and the instructions to build cellular organs number in the billions of proteins. How all 1 billion of those proteins arose by chance over time is a huge problem for evolutionary proponents. Not just mathematically speaking, but no mechnism in biochemistry has been pointed out so far, that would allow for random variations in biochemisty to produce anything but proteins or instruction which kill the organism outright.
Third and finally, there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation, particularly entropy which states systems move from complexity to simplicity, not the other way around.
Something odd is going on with life, for sure.
As we learn more about life, the case of how life works gets even more odd.
I don't believe in the "religion" of evolutionary theory, and I think it has held back science for a century in making any real progress in the basic questions in biochemistry, which if you do not tow the line your papers don't get published or funded.
But I wish evolutionary "priests" of the science would stop trying to kill "God" and let talented young people with new ideas about how biochemistry works and the mechnisms for change to be done in a more tolerant environment.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
...you commit a sin of arrogance in pretending to know how things work...
I like to call it "Malicious Ignorance". It is a disease that about 80% of people are afflicted with
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
WNYC's Radiolab recently did a story on this subject too. The program is split into 3 parts, and the last one is about these foxes. To get a better sense of what the program is about, I would suggest listening to the whole episode. An hour well spent.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/10/02
I want one
That is breeding - and a rather simple and limited form of it.
If we are to call that evolving, then we may just as well start talking how Australians have evolved to be more resilient to heat and hardship than their British ancestors.
After all, weaker ones have all died out. Right?
Or how about our resistance to common diseases like flu?
"Regular" flu still takes around 500.000 lives each year globally - that is quite a bit for such a common disease.
Untreated, even a common cold can still kill us. That is why we have invented medicine.
And I am not talking penicillin here - I mean the stuff that has been around since we lived in caves. Herbs, teas, ointments and such.
And we didn't become immune to plague or tuberculosis - we came up with a treatment.
Also, we as a species are able to migrate A LOT better than other animals.
That is why a death of half a million annually from flu goes by unnoticed and has little to no effect on improving our immunity as species.
Those 500.000 live all around the globe.
We are not limited to a single location, way of life or a food source - as a species.
That is why there is no such thing as a "pure" human. Or a pure German, American, French, Chinese, negro, Caucasian, Asian...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
If they could make smaller, playful koalas and pandas they would make a fortune.
See this 2005 story from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4240000/newsid_4245900/4245983.stm or this rehash of the story from 2008: http://jguk.org/2008/02/domestic-tame-pet-fox.html or the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox.
Not News, Not Necessarily for Nerds, Nothing We Need.
Move along, nothing to see here.
That the borders between species are a little fuzzy is hardly novel.
Try drawing the boundaries of the system in the right place. Hint: that hot yellow thing in the sky during the day counts as "in".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
They spend their lives trying to make everyone else miserable.
...since foxes and dogs are canines, the canine race itself tends to be more docile or easier to tame by humans, that could be an explanation for their playfulness. Their instincts are very similar. Face with good treatment, good food, they tend to become more trusting...
...this is the fox we end up with.
That's fine by me.
Have gnu, will travel.
First, it was a wild fox, quick and smart.
After a few years, it became playful, domesticated, slow, stupid, and unstable. I'm on Chrome now. ;)
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Foxes domesticates dogs
Go vegan. Till then go away and play with your cultural bias.
Deleted
The way mutations are worked into the gene pool seems, to me, to be the main interesting thing about evolution
Really...
What was the simplest organism? What was it? What did it do?
Basically, it was a chemical, which copied itself (a replicator), somehow.
And the increasing complexity, what purpose did it serve? Surely the sole purpose of the modifications were to allow that chemical to copy itself better... Those that didn't replicate better were replaced by those that did.
And the less simple organisms? The purpose they serve? To allow the chemicals to copy themselves further, in more environments.
And, the purpose of complex organisms? No different. Organisms (all life) exist to create copies of the chemical replicators.
You think you are a human being? In fact, you are a gene copying machine.
Deleted
We've bred Aurochs, and Dogs, and Guinea Pigs. When I read about these a few years ago, I thought maybe I would adopt one, as they seem a little cooler than Felix domesticus.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Do not confuse adaption to evolution. The genetic make up for these traits existed in the DNA long before the traits started to show up.
Problem is a great deal more died than the documented level. its over 1 million. I've heard doctors from Iraq say that they don't see all that many people in hospitals; they can only guess as to how many never get into "the system" which doesn't do a whole lot to document them.
In Vietnam, the US wanted high body counts and it backfired. This time they wanted low and inexact counts so they didn't want to keep track and it has worked out much better.
As far as the invading side:
About half the group is "contractors" (mercenaries) and there is a large number of actual contractors as well.
The military counts goofy to lower their official death count as well. They can save people better, faster, and much much easier in this war (not being a jungle helps a ton) but that doesn't mean they don't die LATER when it doesn't count in the official tally (or they off themselves as a direct result of their experiences - and what if they flip out and kill other people?) We don't get good official numbers for a reason.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
They are not suitable pets unless they live outside when older and have a lot of space for territory, so are unsuited to urban areas, but the whole point of the Russian breeding program is to overcome this.
It's perhaps worth pointing out that there are similar breeding programs for "super-domesticated" dogs, like the cockapoo.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Move along, nothing to see here.
It's FOX News - what did you expect?
Hey mods, the OP was a joke for cryin' out loud and I found it pretty dang funny.
Ben Stein.
the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scale
I've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.
I've been to Pearl Harbor: You're full of shit.
Your turn.
I am really surprised that no-one has picked up on the nature v/s nurture angle to this story.
let's look at it.. Some foxes are "naturally" agressive (read: NATURE).
By taking the foxes that were curious and more passive and pairing them, their offspring were less aggressive (read: NATURE).
I grew up in a family of three children. My siblings were adopted - although I didn't know for quite a few years. Not only did I look like my parents, but my behaviour was/is like my parents. Regardless, I have always had a very strong bond with one of my siblings - my other sibling is just plain unpleasant (as strongly agreed by the rest of the family).
When my sister was 25, she heard from her biological mother for the first time (read: through a private detective). I took my sister to met her biological mother for the first time - it was like looking at a clone. They had never seen each other, not even photos. They dressed the same, same hair-styles, social past-times, smokers, music tastes, mannerisms - it was uncanny, particularly given that my sister was the only one in the family who had these interests!! I can assure you that the similarities ran alot deeper than "appearances" - their personalities were VERY similar, as were their interests. Again, I believe NATURE.
Note: If you happen to be a social worker for children... ask yourself: nature v/s nurture ... particularly before you cast aspersions about bad parents - particularly when there are adopted children in the equation. From experience, I can say that some callous social workers nearly destroyed my parents emotionally. These "so called experts" never justified why only one of the three of us was constantly in trouble with the law - and the other two of us were NEVER in trouble with the law. again, I believe NATURE.
I could discuss this topic in a lot of detail (biologically related siblings who differ, effect of nurture in extreme conditions, etc). However, I'll spare you the details :) In summary, I am a strong believer that the clear majority of a person's behaviour is a result of their genetics (NATURE) rather than NURTURE if the environment is benign. The story of these foxes re-inforces my long-held belief.
AC
We're letting them do that because we don't see it coming and/or don't have the balls to wipe them out first.
Everybody thinks that human are not part of Nature! :)
Everything we do or invent is as natural as the loge of a dog. We only think we are better and somehow, outsiders.
Ridiculous beeings, these humans...
we didn't really evolve that much since we got ourselves these big brainy things that we use for thinking.
We seem to have lost most of our body hair since then. What were you expecting, wings and stingers?
We're evolving faster than ever before because our environment is changing faster than ever before. The creation of modern human civilization is a massive environmental change, and that's an understatement because there just aren't words to fully express such a level of environmental change.
Evolutionary changes need not be physically obvious. They can involve digestion (lactose tolerance), the immune system (the 1% who are immune to HIV), or the mind (behavior that defeats birth control).
If you want to know what future humans will be like, simply look at the selection pressure. The biggest reason why people fail to have surviving offspring is birth control. This can be overcome by increased desire to have kids, or by a tendency to fail in the use of birth control.
In other words - we are a hell of a lot more complex animals then foxes.
I wouldn't bet on that. We're less complex than our Christmas trees; they have way more DNA than we do, probably because defending a non-mobile organism requires extreme chemical complexity.
Also, we stopped fiddling with evolving our pigmentation back when we discovered clothing.
You forget sexual selection, particularly mate choice and ornaments. (more)
Scientific experiments have shown that many animals killed for food, leather and fur are as intelligent as some of the smarter dogs we love. The next time you see a news piece about what the Chinese and Asians do to dogs and get disgusted remember that. We do the same to animals who have just as much intelligence and capacity to suffer.
Therefore, eating dogs is not wrong.
For sure it's environmentally friendly to eat unwanted dogs instead of injecting them with toxic chemicals and burning fuel to cremate them. They probably taste pretty good; it's too bad I'd have to fly overseas to get one without legal trouble.
Just look at the word "humanely". It's something that has to do with humans. Concepts like "torture" and "cruelty" are human concepts. These concepts should not apply to non-humans.
People who enjoy the "torture" of animals are very similar to people who get upset about it: both are personifying animals. That's a mental weakness.
Animals don't give a damn about animals. The worm eating a dog's brain doesn't feel remorse. The aligator eating a kitten doesn't contemplate any ethical issues. Food is food.
There isn't any reason for us to see things differently, and many of us don't. Most people have no problem setting out a mouse trap or cutting up a tasty fish.
You're having trouble because you've gotten some sort of mental disconnect from nature (yes indeed, critters eat other critters) or because you really have some difficulty with the distinction between your own species and the rest.
an animal who wants to live
No. "an animal that instinctively behaves in a way that tends to cause survival"
You're personifying. I may as well say that a tomato wants to live. If personifying is reasonable, then you'd better not kill her. ("her" meaning the tomato)
So when does someone start trying this with chimps or monkeys? Are they already doing it? Seems like that could really open some doors, you had chimps who were as easy and (relatively) safe to work with as dogs.
You think like a ReThuglican Jew
http://www.sibfox.com/
Someone got $6,000 to loan me? I want one...
After they left the Ark, I mean...
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
I'd distinguish between at least three major human indicator traits, just to start with: cleverness, brightness and smartness (and that's before you start specifying other traits like artistic ability, ability to make inspired "leaps", aesthetic sense, creativity, empathic ability, and so on).
The rule of thumb is: if you think that "intelligence" is important, but you don't know the difference between "clever" and "bright", then you're probably not that bright (although you may well be clever).
"Clever but not bright" people tend to fixate on rigid systems of measurable quantities, rigid official definitions and correct solutions. They're the intellectual equivalent of racehorses - put them on a track with a defined goal and they'll beat all-comers, but put them out in the wider world to problem-solve, and they're liable to starve to death when something unexpected happens.
The subject of IQ tends to attract people who are quite driven, and perhaps quite clever, but often not all that bright. Bright people would tend to query the basic validity of the IQ metrics, realise the problems, and decide that since the field was so dodgy they'd rather go into some other, more respectable branch of science. So as a result, a disproportionate amount of work on intelligence is junk science, because by default, it's usually done by people who are just that little bit dim, and either don't see the problems or don't care.
Eric Baird
Where can I buy one?