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.'"
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
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.
As is typical in summaries here, and the attention-seeking articles they come from, the content doesn't seem to be as radical as the sales pitch.
Nothing in the summary suggests wolves domesticated humans. It doesn't suggest that they caused us to somehow adapt. It describes a peculiarity in some wolves that turned out to be advantageous, and snowballed into full scale domestication.
Color me surprised.
I never allow my dog to lick my "utensils". He's quite capable of licking his own, thank you very much.
As is typical in summaries here, and the attention-seeking articles they come from, the content doesn't seem to be as radical as the sales pitch.
Nothing in the summary suggests wolves domesticated humans. It doesn't suggest that they caused us to somehow adapt. It describes a peculiarity in some wolves that turned out to be advantageous, and snowballed into full scale domestication.
Color me surprised.
But dogs also caused us to domesticate plants too. It's right there in TFS, so it must be true.
Stop anthropomorphizing evolition. It hates that!
If it hates it so much why did it evolve us to do it?
"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 ?
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.
I think I posted this once here for a different discussion. Imagine two villages - A and B. The people from A for whatever reason - genetics or behavior (or both) are afraid of wolves/dogs more than the people from village B. Village B over time domesticates few wolves and village A does not. Village B now has evolutionary advantage. fast forward - over time, people who cannot be "domesticated" by the wolves disappear just as wolves that cannot be domesticated by humans disappear.
The process goes two ways. Usually we ascribe the "intention" to the human side only, because of the wide-spread fallacy that you need "intention" for the evolutionary process to happen...
SSshhhh. Keep it down or you'll be "disappeared" and placed deep in the tuna-mines.
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.
At one time I had my collie able to find the "red ball" among the blue, red, and yellow ones... Dogs are colorblind, BTW.
No, they are not colorblind. They can see colors, just not as well as we do. Dogs can see two different color 'bands', humans can see three, and certain crustaceans (the mantis shrimp) can see about 11-12 bands. Talk about humans being colorblind. :)
Early color movies only used two color bands, and they look surprisingly good.
c++;
Not quite useless. In colder climates we call them "Self propelled hot water bottles." Get a good ( a matter of luck mostly ) and it will come when its called.
Cats also can be very effective detection systems. Mine will let me know about a dripping faucet, tree branch that has started rubbing the side the house etc; and anything making a new noise. She is very effective pre-diagnostic tool. Also at least a few times over the past years made her self useful as pest control.
Once last summer I opened the porch door to the outside an a mouse ran in (I think they live in garden ). I called the cat pointed at the mouse. She had it in my hand in 5min. I tossed it back into the garden to go about his business. It was unharmed; well physically anyway I am sure it was traumatic. Had I had to corner that mouse myself I would have been moving tables and generally tearing the place apart. The cat just basically watched it for moment and and then pounced.
Now I will readily concede that a dog could have probably do all these things just as well or better as the cat does; even the mousing. That said the cat is very low maintenance by comparison. I have had both. I don't have to walk the cat, I can leave an little extra food down; if I am not coming home some evening. The cat can handle herself for at least 48 hours. Same goes if you actually want to travel with your pet. Dogs on log (14+ hour) road trips are pain.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
A lot of researchers overestimate the importance of their research. It's pretty common.
Garbage piles though could be a common factor. They attracted wolves most likely, and our ancestors would have also observed edible plants sprouting from discarded seeds, which perhaps led to them thinking about deliberately planting some themselves.
That's right, we owe thanks to garbage for helping spur the development of early civilization. Our culture is built on a foundation of garbage!
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...)
it's not a mystery. Dogs ARE wolves. gray wolves specifically.
the gray wolf as a species is one of the most historically successful of all animals, having at one time ranged across the entire planet, on every landmass, not just the cold northern reaches. one of the few single species that has done so besides humans. and also therefore came into constant contact with humans.
the genetic tests have been done and known for years. canines within the same family can crossbreed (hence some coyote hybridization, but the coyote itself could be a descendent of hte gray wolf), but dogs are subspecies of the gray wolf. dogs and wolves are like the races of man in terms of genetics. they are the same species even if the local populations look rather different.
the "wild dogs" you speak of fall into 2 types:
-most are properly called feral dogs; they are descendents of dogs that left human society. Dingos are the ultimate example, and the only one considered by science to be truly "wild" rather than feral. but it still descended from the wolf via domestication that is has since evolved sufficiently to erase
-there are a few species called "dog" that are NOT descended from any breed of dog, and thus not descended from wolves. they are also not related in any way to the domestic dog. they simply got called "dog".
--the Dhole is most closely related to the Jackel family.
--the african cape hunting dog is a distinct canine lineage, seperate from foxes and wolves and jackals. like the Maned Wolf (also a distinct lineage unrelated to any other) it is essentially the only surviving member of its lineage, the rest having gone extinct millions of years ago. 2nd largest canine in the world, nearly the size of the gray wolf.
--Bush dog is another seperate lineage, closest genetic relative is the Maned Wolf, though the link is very slim, given the large difference between the two, and the fact both are their own lineages. they are simply closer tied to each other, than to the rest of canines
--Short-eared dog: a very early offshoot of the fox lineage, splitting off before the actual foxes came to be
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Not exactly. Garbage piles came after fixed settlements.
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.
No. You can't include humans in that unless you are literally referring to people in comatose states or those with severe brain damage.
The gestures they are referrring to are VERY BASIC gestures like 'Pointing in a direction, and understanding that the person is trying to direct your attention to something and not just randomly raising their limb in the air' or if you were looking at someone's face, and their eyes focused on something to the right of you, understanding that they might be looking AT something other than you rather than just spontaneously losing control of their facial muscles.
That's the level of gestures they are referring to, and any human who can't interpret those gestures of expressions are very likely in a vegetative state.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj