Slashdot Mirror
New Research Sheds Light On the Evolution of Dogs
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The first dogs descended from wolves about 14,000 years ago but according to Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods humans didn't domesticate dogs — dogs sought out humans and domesticated us. Humans have a long history of eradicating wolves, rather than trying to adopt them which raises the question: How was the wolf tolerated by humans long enough to evolve into the domestic dog? 'The short version is that we often think of evolution as being the survival of the fittest, where the strong and the dominant survive and the soft and weak perish. But essentially, far from the survival of the leanest and meanest, the success of dogs comes down to survival of the friendliest.' Most likely, it was wolves that approached us, not the other way around, probably while they were scavenging around garbage dumps on the edge of human settlements. The wolves that were bold but aggressive would have been killed by humans, and so only the ones that were bold and friendly would have been tolerated. In a few generations, these friendly wolves became distinctive from their more aggressive relatives with splotchy coats, floppy ears, wagging tails. But the changes did not just affect their looks but their psychology. Protodogs evolved the ability to read human gestures. 'As dog owners, we take for granted that we can point to a ball or toy and our dog will bound off to get it,' write Hare and Woods. 'But the ability of dogs to read human gestures is remarkable. Even our closest relatives — chimpanzees and bonobos — can't read our gestures as readily as dogs can. 'With this new ability, these protodogs were worth knowing. People who had dogs during a hunt would likely have had an advantage over those who didn't. Finally when times were tough, dogs could have served as an emergency food supply and once humans realized the usefulness of keeping dogs as emergency food, it was not a huge jump to realize plants could be used in a similar way.' This is the secret to the genius of dogs: It's when dogs join forces with us that they become special," conclude Hare and Woods. 'Dogs may even have been the catalyst for our civilization.'"
> Even our closest relatives â" chimpanzees and bonobos â" can't
> read our gestures as readily as dogs can.
You can (quite seriously) include many humans in that as well. And on the other side of that coin, it's no surprise that many people relate to dogs a lot better than they do to other people.
I'd think it takes two.
And from what I see humans have applied selection pressure on the dogs more than the other way around.
On a related note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Evolution is not driven by a species' "desire" to do things.
It's clear from the information in the summary that humans domesticated dogs via unnatural selection (we killed off the ones we didn't like), yet the first sentence implies the authors reached the opposite conclusion.
Species do not make up their minds to evolve into X. It just happens. Don't try to make up reasons why the species wanted it that way.
Hare and Woods researching dogs, there's a joke in there somewhere
Here today, gone tomorrow
'Dogs may even have been the catalyst for our civilization.
Ayatollah Khomeini says,
"Eleven things are unclean: urine, excrement, sperm, blood, a dog, a pig, bones, a non-Muslim man and woman, wine, beer, and the perspiration of a camel that eats filth."
This is probably based on many references in the Hadith, eg. drom Muslim #Number 055
Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? and then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time.
I thought it was presumed by anyone that humans didn't go out, capture wolves and then selectively breed them for friendliness.
Isn't what the summary says exactly what people have always said?
There is no 'unnatural selection'. If we killed off the one we didn't like then we were just one more evolutionary pressure just like meteor strike or sudden climate change would be.
Evolution never did favor the leanest, fastest or any other trait we consider good as such. That is just anthropomorphism. It always favored the most prolific. What gets a species where it is might be largest or slowest. It depends on the environment in which it evolved.
Stop anthropomorphizing evolition. It hates that!
If it hates it so much why did it evolve us to do it?
If there's a domesticated species taking advantage of humans my money's definitely on cats rather than dogs.
"we often think of evolution as being the survival of the fittest, where the strong and the dominant survive and the soft and weak perish"
I like to give the example of birds. Which one is the most successful bird ? The most numerous on the planet. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't fly at all, it doesn't run fast and it's very good to eat. Still it's the most successful in terms of species: the chicken. Because it's good to eat, another specie (us) takes it everywhere and makes sure they reproduce in droves. Evolution works in funny ways...
Non-Linux Penguins ?
"Survival of the fittest" should be read as "survival of the most fit-for-purpose". It has nothing to do with strength, ferocity, sharp teeth, etc.
What is new in this? I think I've heard most of this before (except the eating dogs part).
None of these problems are the dog's fault, they're just not trained or housebroken. My dog doesn't bark, chase, or shit in the house, and when he does outside, I always have bags to pick it up. You need to be annoyed with the masters, not the servants.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
I see nothing wrong in the "old" thory - that humans kept some wolves that eventually evolved into dogs.
Sure, humans have always been eager to eradicate competing/dangerous animals. But in doing so, they would come upon puppies now and then. And surely, some humans would find them cute. Then as now! It is then likely that someone tried to keep some puppies - if the times were good and there were food enough anyway. They could always kill them later, if they turned hostile.
Bringing up young animals one finds in nature (possibly after killing/chasing off parent animals) is something humans attempt now and then. It is an interesting hobby. And it succeeds for several species. Taming birds is almost trivial - just be there (instead of the mother bird) when the eggs hatch. But birds is not that useful, beyond keeping them for food and more eggs.
A tame wolf is valuable as soon as it grows up however. Even if it is a much rougher animal to handle than a modern dog. Any wolf expects to be in a pack - and will help its pack to survive. Using a wolf for hunting is doable - but it is tricky. Much more important is that the wolf will fight for you. When a wolf consider the local human village to be its pack, it will help fight off troublesome animals (even wild wolves). And it will help fight invading humans from other villages too. Puppies get useful within a year.
So if you're bothered by invaders, you can add wolves to your army. Likewise if you're into conquest. Selective breeding can improve the animals a lot. But even the first generation, taken from a mother wolf, will be useful in stone-age warfare. Training can make them more useful, but even a wolf that merely grew up with you, will take your side in any fight. Which is also why some people today keep a large dog for protection.
Even though I agree with you for the times back then, if we suddenly decided to exterminate say all.... badgers, or pandas today on a whim (if we could), wouldn't that be a bit more contrived than otherwise? Back then, we were more worried about food and survival so that's what makes things different.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
There are wild dogs. And the wikipedia acticle also speaks about coyote as forefather. Why then always use the wolves is a mystery.
Natural (adj) - in accordance with human nature
Natural (adj) - illegitimate; born out of wedlock
Natural (adj) - not artificially dyed or coloured
Are you claiming that humans are inherently opposed to dogs, that dogs must be married before having puppies, and that all dogs have dyed hair? Or are you perhaps picking a single unrelated definition and suggesting that it is universally exhaustive?
There is way more research being done at Aberdeen University and it just started in October Search for the first ‘man’s best friend’
The Bible does not say they are unclean like pigs or other such animals. They usually referenced as scavengers eating the bodies of the dead or things such as that; or reference that a person who so bad off that only the dogs would clean his wounds. There are also references in the Bible as them as guard dogs or working as work dogs.
Now the koran does mark them as unclean and the few places that you see them in the middle east, outside of Israel, they are often treated very badly. When seen they are usually as guard dogs or as work dogs.
I have owned several dogs in my life and they learn sounds as well. I can have 4 items in a group and point and say "bone" and she will get the bon and not the ball.
At one time I had my collie able to find the "red ball" among the blue, red, and yellow ones... Dogs are colorblind, BTW.
Yes dogs understand gestures, if you ever had a duck hunting dog you know that is how you communicate with them before you shoot, but they understand far more than gestures. They understand them as good as they understand our noises, and it's not just because humans make the same motion all the time. Quadrapeligics cant point but the dog understands by training a different cue.
And that is the point. Dogs we train. Of all the animals we have only dogs get training and take to training easily. And you can do the same with cats.
Sadly most humans are far, far too stupid to know how to train dogs. You only resort to negative reinforcement as a last resort for changing bad behavior.... Most people start at the negative reinforcement.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Other cases are parasites and pests, where being too strong and too dominant might be killing of the own host prematurely and thus diminishing your chance to spread to other hosts in time. Many diseases were killing off people very soon, when they came first into a new population, but within time, grew more and more weak, like the Syphilis.
For species which rely on cooperation and forming of close-knit groups, being strong and dominant might just mean that there is no group for you to fit in. Then you are the literal "lone wolf", prone to an early death and no chance to reproduce. For some lone wolfs, accepting a human group as ersatz wolfpack might be just have been the right way to survive.
This theory assumes that at some point, bold friendly dogs walked up to humans in an attempt to be friendly.
What about the packs of wolves that humans slaughtered when hunting for food and found a litter of puppies the now dead dogs were protecting?
I think this scenario would most likely be the first source domesticated animals, over a fully grown wolf who decides to become friendly.
Humans are filthy and obnoxious animals. They have little place in our modern society. I'm sick of being preached at, chased, and
having human garbage everywhere I go, including INSIDE of houses. Humans were fine on the farm. In our compact, urban society, humans are just giants sources of stress. I have enough stress in my life without your personal stress-maker making stress for me TOO.
The Bible says that humans are unclean and bad.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Anonymous Coward: noun
Idiot who thinks that making up definitions helps him win arguments.
Species do not make up their minds to evolve into X
You are right on that statement, however, the statement that wolves evolved into domestic dogs is not entirely true. For a population to fully evolve into a new species, the ability to of the new species to interbreed and produce fertile offspring with the original species must be lost. Domestic dogs can freely breed with wolves and produce fertile offspring, so they have not completely evolved into separate species.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
...why does he/she go on a tangent and link everything under the sun to his/her theory?
It is no surprise that dogs were the first domestic animals, they were more effective hunters than individual humans and humans could give dogs sources of food that they couldn't access on their own (notably bone marrow from cooked bones, though also various processed grains). We not only had the dog before we had the horse, the cow, the cat, any bird or any non-canine mammal, we had the dog before we had what some would consider to be civilization. Hence by extending the hunting ability of the human, the dog could be credited with helping to domesticate the human.
Also worth noting that some of the very earliest grave sites from humans had dogs buried along side the humans; the dogs were that important to the earliest humans.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Puuuleeeese. It's like " No Child Left Behind " testing. Some one with a PhD designs a test to fetch a ball, and proves dogs are smarter than cats.
I just was woken up to give the kitties their morning treats, then I changed their litter box, filled their water dish, was was still given the "look " because I prolly didn't do one of these things quickly enough. Then, I geld the door open for quite a while while one of the kitties sniffed and considered if going outside would be better than staying inside.
Dogs smarter? Only someone that isn't familiar with cats would even think this.
Dogs have owners.
Cats have staff.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
My grandfather found it and took the single pup home. It grew with the family for a year but eventually took off to be with its own kind (they lived in a border area between Poland and Russia, a giant forest).
My grandfather told my Father that one day, it would leave, and it did. He'd seen it happen before with male wolves.
That only makes sense once the male matures, he'll want a mate, and the only way to get that would be to join with its own kind.
My Father said wolves are a lot like dogs but more "devilish" (intelligence-wise, not evil - he said they are FAR more clever than typical dogs are). He said he saw it later (after it took off to join other wolves) a few times from a distance watching them do the fields (had a large farm and logging business before the Nazi's came & took it from them, putting them on trains to be slaves in a labor camp) on the borders of their land, but it never came back again once it had joined its own kind.
Still: Want a TRUE friend? Get a dog (even cats are good I have found out the past few years if you treat them with respect & perhaps most importantly of all - with love)...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line, on dogs (which our society esteems quite highly & rightfully so) - I've said it before: "Dogs are better people than people" -> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22DOGS+ARE+BETTER+PEOPLE+THAN+PEOPLE!%22+and+%22APK%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=1480UbKHGK-N0QHUqICQDw
not really, stop thinking of us humans as special and start thinking of us as just another species within nature and you'll see that us killing off badgers or saving pandas is no different than any other external force on those species.
Evolution = "shit happens, live with it" (those who can't, die off).
Some think dogs don't come from wolves but from foxes : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
I taught the same to my wife, but she ain't australian or german...
I am often amazed at how well they read my expressions, moods, commands. I swear they think they are running the household... maybe they are: they stay home all day and eat and play, while I go to work and go out to buy them food.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
City by Clifford Simak ( reviews here) tells an opposite tale. Here are the opening lines.
The book was first published in 1952, and has won some awards. I read it as a kid, and still remember the impact it had on me.
Even if you're right (and remember we have a lot more control over what species go extinct or not), it's still very arguable that we can make 'good' and 'bad' choices, even if it's tricky to decide which. 'Good' would be ridding the world of the mosquito. 'Neutral' would be some other insect, and worse would be a type of animal which has many close and similar cousin species. "Bad" would be, well, I guess cats/dogs, or rare and beautiful species, or ecologically useful species which have no comparison elsewhere.
And yes, we are more special, at least in the sense that we dominate the planet, but also because we have profound intellect, creativity, and musical/art appreciation (and no, I don't believe in creationism or anything).
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Well done. Bravo.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Humans domesticated dogs.
Cats domesticated humans.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Finally when times were tough, dogs could have served as an emergency food supply and once humans realized the usefulness of keeping dogs as emergency food, it was not a huge jump to realize plants could be used in a similar way.'
Consider the venus flytrap: an excellent "guard plant" for defending your lair at night... and when you're thirsty, simply throw it in the juicer." (Maybe they'll even determine that once primitive man discovered how useful oxygen could be for fire, it wasn't a huge jump to realize that it could be inhaled as well...)
Mosquitoes have their role in the food chain. Killing off an entire species isn't a particularly good idea since we understand so little about what linkages are necessary.
What, you saying we aren't natural? How is it that we exist then?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"I'm assuming you are all for murder and abortion then too."
Can't speak for the poster but I'm assuming you're for non-sequitur.
"And news for the upper posts, you say species don't have a 'desire' and now it's said we humans are just another species? Huh, pretty sure I have desires!"
Are you a species? (Hint: no).
> If it hates it so much why did it evolve us to do it?
Because it was not very intelligently designed.
...we have profound intellect, creativity, and musical/art appreciation...
What makes that so special? Dominating the planet doesn't mean anything, and is not necessarily permanent.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If they didn't taste so damn good there wouldn't be that many of them.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I think wolves sought us out because our fingers can scratch in more places and for longer than a wolf can. Wolves domesticated us to be masseurs.
- Persnickity
Quote: “All knowledge, the totality of all questions and answers, is contained in the dog. If one could but realize this knowledge, if one could but bring it into the light of day, if we dogs would but own that we know infinitely more than we admit to ourselves!”
A frequently used technique by Kafka is self-analysis from another perspective eg Gregor Samsa as a beetle, ape in "report to an academy" or indeed a dog.
Kafka frequently alludes to the possibility that the search for truth is only meaningful in as much as it studies the totality of things.
This is evoked by "a lot of voices" (upon K. entering the courtroom or K.'s description of the phone call from the castle).
In "investigations of a dog" it is evoked by the "music" of 7 dogs.
Baudelaire at least had the good instinct of calling out "Oh Satan, prends pitié de ma longue misère" like the howling of a dog.
There is no 'unnatural selection'. If we killed off the one we didn't like then we were just one more evolutionary pressure just like meteor strike or sudden climate change would be.
The proper term is "artificial selection" and it very much exists. Natural selection occurs from the results of natural pressures - typically animals gain some advantage in reproduction due to an outside influence (which may be human). In artificial selection two dogs are mated based on certain traits that their human breeders desire - e.g. large paws for swimming (spaniels) or a great sense of smell (bloodhounds). That's a very different kind of outside pressure, and quite distinct from natural selection. It also doesn't necessarily mean that any particular animal is killed or even prevented from mating. It's mainly a matter of who mates with whom.
Do you have ESP?
What I've always found interesting is that despite all the differences between dogs and wolves, they are still the same species. Evolution in process. With dogs we will eventually see that split in species that Darwin first postulated.
Well as long as we don't kill all the wolves first. Then it'll be a bit tougher to see.
The short version is that we often think of evolution as being the survival of the fittest, where the strong and the dominant survive and the soft and weak perish. But essentially, far from the survival of the leanest and meanest, the success of dogs comes down to survival of the friendliest.'
That's because we don't actually read what Darwin wrote about man. To paraphrase him, he said, humans were inferior in most ways to the predatory animals in their environment. Humans, weren't the fastest, we weren't the strongest, we didn't have the longest fangs or claws. In every way, we were inferior in some major aspect to the other predators. He goes on to say, however, that what made humans survive and dominate is their innate ability to cooperate. Above all the other animal species, the ability for humans to cooperate with each other outweighs the deficits in our other competitive traits.
For Darwin, what made humans the fittest at survival was our ability to cooperate with each other. It was others who took the survival of the fittest and twist it into what we talk about today with it. Cooperation is not unique among humans, it just reaches its highest expression.
I know you're at -1:troll, but I'm curious where the research is too. Everything in the summary is conjecture.
That's right! And there's no pollution either! We're part of the environment, so what we do to it is natural!
Interesting read. Although, of course, the speculation about dogs being the catalyst of civilization is completely wrong. Everyone knows it was beer that did that.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Another organism that won by friendliness is cannabis: from a humble weed, it managed to turn itself into one of humanity's favorite and most cared for plants.
Is constructing strawmen necessary in order to report this discovery to the general public? "Survival of the fittest" doesn't mean "where the strong and the dominant survive and the soft and weak perish" or "survival of the leanest and meanest." "Survival of the fittest" means "survival of the fittest"---whichever animal is most appropriately adapted to their local environment will survive. Sometimes this means strength or aggressiveness; sometimes it doesn't. ("Leanest" is particularly amusing: I doubt the leanest arctic seal would survive very long alongside the more well-insulated ones, for example.) In this case, "friendly" made these protodogs more fit to survive than aggressiveness in the presence of humans.
Liberty in your lifetime
Not really, stop redefining the meaning of the word natural. In the context of natural selection it specifically means not selected by humans that are breeding animals.
Look at the timeline of domestication. Dogs were one of the first animals domesticated. Horses were only domesticated 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. The point is most of the wolf erradication attempts happened in response to attacks on other domesticated animals like protecting sheep and cattle. By that point dogs had been domesticated for thousands of years. Before hand weapons we competed directly with wolves for food. But once bows and advanced spear points showed up wolves would have avoided direct competition since they'd loose and dying foolishly is a poor survival trait. They found it better to wait for scraps and early humans probably got a thrill watching a former threat beg for scraps. Eventually groups of wolves found it easier to beg for scraps than hunt and thus found humans non threatening. People forget also that wolves/dogs were possibly the first domesticated animal for a second reason. Humans may have enjoyed having them around but when times got hard they were also seen as a food source.
Nothing like good tsunami or earthquake to show uppity humans how little control they really have.
This doesn't seem like research to me. The part were data is collected and analyzed seems to be missing so there really shouldn't be any conclusions. This seems more like a request for a grant to do research.
This is the secret to the genius of dogs: It's when dogs join forces with us that they become special.,
Humans and dogs have a mutualistic, symbiotic relationship. Both benefit from it. The dog gets shelter, medical care and access to better quality food. The human gets companionship, security, and help hunting/herding and all the other things dogs can do.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You missed the perfect setup!
In Soviet Russia, you don't domesticate dogs, dogs domesticate you!!
It's even there in the summary!
Millions of voices were crying out for the Lack of Smirnoff and the editors gave us one.
I for one welcome our new canine overlords.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
You sound pretty confident in your belief. Only problem is that it is a belief, you have absolutely zero scientific proof. Please don't post your religious dogma here.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Don't you just love these stories? Ooops, I mean narratives. Ummm, oh, perhaps speculation. I really mean Science FIction.
or plague - the black death reduced european population by 50%! Changed society completely.
Couldn't happen today though, no not when we have HIV, Avian Flu, or worse.... everyday bacteria that we've bred to be antiobiotic-resistent due to our own shortsighted foolishness!
Evolution, gets its own way everytime.
Killing something healthy to eat it and eating a rotting carcass are two very different things. Think about it.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Considering all the characteristic differences (Mastiff v. Chihuahua) are accounted for in 1% of the genetic makeup, dogs are incredible animals...
>>and have sufficiently obvious gestures to be interpreted by people.
But how many of them interpret human gestures as dogs do? While there are a few cats that have been trained, they are the exceptions, and it is debatable if this is training as opposed to conditioning. Open a can of tuna - here comes the cat. Open a can of beans - here comes the cat. Call out "dinner time!" no cat... but the dog sure as hell comes running.
I simply mention that I am getting tired to my wife the dogs get up and go to their bed in our bedroom. Or I ask my kids if "mom is home yet" the dogs run to the window to look for her. To the dog I say "hey" and point downstairs - dog goes down there or goes to get whatever I just pointed at. On its own if the dog has to crap it runs to the back door and rings a bell we hung there with his nose.
No other animals interact with humans at even close to this level.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I think you are looking at this from too much of a misanthropic angle and that's causing you to oversimplify evolution. Evolution is not just 'shit happens, live with it'. Evolution are the changes that result from selective pressures. Humans are certainly one of those pressures, but for practical purposes when there are active steps taken to influence evolution, then what is occuring is certainly evolution-like, but probably should get its own term.
I mean, we could call every single speck of matter floating around our sun a planet, but it makes it very hard to discuss things without always identifying exceptions, so we define the exceptions up front to aid in our understanding. That's why we differentiate asteroids and planets (and now dwarf planets)
So for practical purposes, humans must be included when you consider evolutionary factors, but I think you need to carve out an exception for when those factors are consciously introduced. It's still evolution, but probably should be subtyped.
Your definition of evolution sounds a bit too much like the comic book approach to creating Doomsday for Superman.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
My only issue is characterising this as them seeking us out.
More like they started living closer to us because we had lots of food around, enough to keep them well enough fed that they were not such a menace that we drove them all off. Frankly, this theory is very much like the conclusions I came to watching a documentary on the experiments with domesticating foxes.
There is clear generic variation that affects their agressiveness towards us. So mixing with us, more closely is going to put some selective pressure on those genes for the the ones that live near us. No shock, just that being friendly to humans turns out to be a distinct evolutionary advantage. Worked for cats too.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I know you're at -1:troll, but I'm curious where the research is too. Everything in the summary is conjecture.
If you read the article, you will find there is no research described there either. So the headline announcing "New Research" appears to be misleading. It really should say "New Hypothesis".
There are way more starlings in the world than chickens.
And then there is the common pigeon. One of the fastest fliers.
World population of the Common Starling is estimated to be around 310 million.
Pigeons (rock doves) are estimated to number around 260 Million.
There are an estimated twenty-four billion chickens on the planet.
I'm not clear on this one. Why would humans killing off wolves based on certain traits be fundamentally any different than, say, lions killing off gazelle based on certain traits?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The summary says that mutations happened after they were hanging on, but generally we see wild animals develop those types of mutations after being domesticated or farmed, when the gene pool starts to become more shallow. There is no reason for the dogs to start to differ from the wolf population, till they are fully separated. When you take a look at the challenges encountered by fox fur farmers, you start to see how dogs started to change away from wolves. Although the whole topic if dogs have actually yet speciated from wolves is also of note.
dogs are cool!
It's "Exploited by Wolves."
I have two dogs and two cats. I like cats, and they do seem to have a degree of cognizance as to what the humans are doing... but there is absolutely no comparison to their degree of "connectedness" they have with my family compared to the dogs.
The dogs are far more in tune with the humans than the cats. Certainly the cats react to us, no doubt about it - anyone that refutes that doesn't own cats. But the dogs far outstrip them when it comes to recognizing and even empathizing with human mannerisms.
The fact that my dogs are both fairly large, and are terrified of the cats, notwithstanding. In that case the dos seem to be very strongly trying to pack bond with the cats, but the cats are having none of that shit.
Plus the degree of benefit that dogs and humans derive from each other is fairly balanced - in the case of cats they seem to benefit from the relationship far more than humans, cats eating mice notwithstanding.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Can you convert that to dog power?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Geez, where the heck are YOU from?
I've lived with dogs all my life, in varying "degrees" of suburban areas: more urban, to more white-picket-fence. And I've yet to hear of dogs chasing people unless they were strangers disobeying the property line.
As for poop, it's up to the owners to pick it up. Most of the owners I know pick up droppings when in public but let it lie / stay on their lawn. Sure, there are some that will just leave the mistake on the park grass... but that's the human's fault.
My dog likes people and sits on their feet wanting to be petted. Sure, he barks when someone comes into the house but that's kind of their job. He won't bark at people when they're across the street (or even on the street) or on our neighbors property... but he will bark if someone he doesn't know steps onto OUR property.
So unless you're in a place with lots of wild / homeless dogs (I've heard India has a lot) then I think you're exaggerating.
"This is the secret to the genius of dogs: It's when dogs join forces with us that they become special"
I get what they are trying to say there but honestly dogs are special either way, and have always been so.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I think he's saying that it was only unnatural in the past...?
Wolves are social and very heirarchical. It doesn't seem a very far stretch for a beta wolf to replace one alpha for another. In this regard, Wolves already seemed suited to be domesticated. No "extra adaptations" were required.
IIRC (and possibly specific to North America) the beta also has a strong dominating personality, typically the mate of the alpha. It is common for the alpha to only put pack members of the same sex through the daily submission ritual, while the beta puts the remaining members (those of the same sex as the beta) through the daily ritual. The later's submission is implied through the beta's submission to the alpha. If any wolf is socializing and being submissive towards humans it is probably the omega, the lowest ranking pack members.
Like humans there is a wide range of personalities among wolves. Some intrinsically dominate, some intrinsically submissive. The later would make better partners for humans. The former, even if raised amongst humans as a pup, would most likely end up in the stew pot as it grew older and tried to assert dominance of human members of its "pack".
With Mosquitoes, I'd take my chances.
From what I've read the main "new" idea from this paper was that dogs became successful and began to thrive when they were isolated from areas with wolf populations, and thus not allowed to interbreed with wolves. IIRC this happened (according to the paper) when populations moved with humans south of the Yangtze River, isolating them from wolf populations they originated from. These dogs were, therefore (again according to TFA) the origin for the species we have today.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
That's what I was thinking when I was reading this - by selectively killing the more aggressive wolves, they effectively domesticated dogs, not by nurture, but by "selective breeding" in a primitive sense.
Personally I would take things a little farther, "more aggressive" seems an understatement to me. Domestication would seem to require the rare wolves born with a somewhat inherently submissive personality.
People who have been silly enough to raise wolves eventually learn that nature dominates, not nurture. A wolf pup fits into a human family incredibly well because a pack is essentially an extended family. The humans (and dogs and cats and other predatory species around the house) are just part of its "pack". However if that wolf pup has a dominant personality to any degree then as the wolf matures it will attempt to assert dominance over adult human members of its pack. To a wolf there are **never** peers, another pack member is either higher ranking or lower ranking and if there is ever any ambiguity over the matter it will be resolved through threats of force or actual force. A wolf raised as a dog will still be a wolf and act accordingly. Its not impossible for a dominant personality wolf to live with humans, but all the adult humans need to actively assert dominance over the wolf on a near daily basis. I think it more likely such wolves went into the stew pot in those early days of domestication and the inherently submissive ones lived to breed.
I thought my little phrase summed things up quite succinctly.
As for human interference, in evolutionary terms, we're just another influence on the environment. We're nothing special in terms of the "big picture", no special terms needed for the influence on the environment, if you do, you'll want special terms for solar activity too - its had a pretty major impact on the world, probably bigger than what we've done.
A tame wolf is valuable as soon as it grows up ...
No, that is when the trouble begins. "Tame" is a misnomer. "Socialized to humans" != "tame". A wolf **never** acts like a dog. Typically as it grows up it will want to determine its rank in the pack. That is when it makes threats to pack members it perceives as possibly being "lower ranking" in the pack hierarchy. There is no intention to harm its fellow pack members, just make the other member display submissiveness.
Any wolf expects to be in a pack - and will help its pack to survive.
True, but the important distinction between wolves and dogs is that except for rare wolves with inherently submissive personalities, the wolf will also want to lead the pack.
'Good' would be ridding the world of the mosquito.
No, that would be a terrible idea. A huge number of other species would go extinct because you just chilidishly took away their food supply so you wouldn't have to use deet.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Replace dog, with a cellphone and you could make a similar case...
Mostly, it was the cellphones that approched humans. Early cellphones that were clunky and not user friendly would likely be discarded by humans, those that were bold and user friendly were likely to be tolerated. In a few generations, those cellphones that were user friendly became distinctive from their clunky counterparts with touch glass, accelerometers, and retina screens. As cell phone owners, we take for granted that our cellphones can understand our gestures and requests, but that's something that even our closest relatives — chimpanzees and bonobos — can't read our gestures as readily as cellphones can. With this new ability, these cellphones were worth owning. People who had cellphones during a trip would likely have had an advantage over those who didn't. Finally when times were tough, cellphones could have served as an emergency money supply (you can fence them) and once humans realized the usefulness of keeping cellphones as emergency money, it was not a huge jump to realize tablets could be used in a similar way. This is the secret to the genius of cellphones: It's when cellphones join forces with us that they become special. Cellphones may even have been the catalyst for our modern civilization.
Therefore: Cellphones sought out humans and domesticated us? Stupid.... or is it stupid? ;^)
This is not new research. Pretty sure this was all covered in a 2010 episode of NOVA called Dogs Decoded.
Different dogs are ...well...different.
My last one was half lab and half German Shepherd. So in addition to being on the large side (80 pounds), she was naturally very hyper. She also, for whatever reason, had a very dominant peronsality, so you really had to keep on top of her or she'd try to take over the family. Choke chains and the occasional "physical correction" were an absoulte nessecity. However, she was eminently trainable.
My current dog is half Great Pyraneese and the other half probably some kind of hound. She is naturally very passive. Simlply starting to get upset with her is more than enough "correction". Escalating to any kind of physical contact does nothing further but make her pee herself. IOW: just plain cruelty. Despite years of constant effort, she just cannot be fully house-trained. I looked up the breed, and Great Pyranese are known for that little problem. If picking up dog poo IN THE HOUSE is a no-go for you, then do not get this breed. That's all there is to it.
The fact is that dogs are all different, and may very well have undesirable behaviors that they cannot be trained out of. That includes inappropriate barking, chewing, defication, dominace attempts, and other such canine activities.
Dogs are not inifinately maleable robots. So while their behavior may be their owner's responsibility you cannot say with certianty that you know the cause. You might be right that the owner is a nitwit. However, it also may just be that the animal is that way, and the owner is doing the best they can, short of euthinizing the animal and trying again with a new one.
The Great Dying, after the arrival of the European barbarians in the Americas, killed 70-90 percent of everyone between Point Barrow and Tierra del Fuego. They just recently found that there were high civilizations in the deep Amazon, a place which modern thought had declared could only be inhabited by hunter/gatherers. We'll probably never have a good understanding of everything that was lost.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Holy fracking crap, I didn't know anyone even believed this any more. Too stupid to figure out how to create an account, so I guess I shouldn't be too shocked.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
I'll quote some of the page for you:
Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms. Life would continue as before — or even better. When it comes to the major disease vectors, "it's difficult to see what the downside would be to removal, except for collateral damage", says insect ecologist Steven Juliano, of Illinois State University in Normal. A world without mosquitoes would be "more secure for us", says medical entomologist Carlos Brisola Marcondes from the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil. "The elimination of Anopheles would be very significant for mankind."
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Litter of orphaned wolf puppies found
Puppies grow to maturity, friendly ones are kept and allowed to mate, unfriendly ones are a source of food.
Repeat as required
There's the selective pressure.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Into Your Tent I'll Creep (1957)
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If Darwin would really turn in his grave every time he was misquoted he would be spinning faster than a neutron star. Granted his quote is a little ill put, but what he meant is "Survival of the One Most Fitting to their local environment" NOT the one with the best health! Every time Darwin is misquoted like this it pisses me off, but when knowledgeable and intelligent people do it, it pisses me off enough for me to respond fiercely. Why? because every time this happens we continue the misconception.[/rant] The author cleverly avoided blame by portraying this as the general opinion. But just by saying this Hugh Pickens still does keep the misunderstanding alive. Hence rant. Sorry to bother you.
So according to this, dogs are responsible for the birth of civilization and they were the ones who domesticated us. By extension, doesn't that mean that civilization began in Soviet Russia?