Dogs May Understand a Human's Point of View.

[fairsheet]

I could go on about dogs and cars - in that order- all day long! Thanks for the thread.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Yep, absent selective breeding there does seem to be a “default” dog that emerges fairly quickly. Not surprisingly, that animal looks like the semi-feral dogs one sees all over the world. It's interesting that some of the physical attributes we see in the “generic” dog are also seen in the foxes that have been bred since 1959 in Russia to be tolerant of being around humans. Traits such as a piebald coat, floppy ears, a curly tail...

One hypothesis about the domestication of dogs is that dogs began to diverge genetically from wolves all on their own as populations took to hanging around human encampments and scavenging food. It would be to their advantage to be less wary of humans. Only later, according to this hypothesis, did humans begin to adopt the animals, selectively breed them, and more systematically take advantage of their usefulness as guards, watchdogs, hunting companions, and so on. Some suggest that intensive selective breeding didn't occur until we began to grow crops and keep other domesticated animals and even though we kept company with dogs for tens of thousands of years before that, they were “paleo-dogs” that were morphologically very similar to wolves.

Chickens and eggs...

The genetic evidence is still uncertain, except that we're fairly sure that all our domesticated dogs descended from wolves that lived in Asia and/or the Middle East. It's also well accepted that cross breeding back with wolves took place at various times and places down through the years. As to when and how this all occurred, well, we'll likely never know for certain. Still, it's clear that our two species have been intertwined for a long, long time.

Cheers.

This is an interesting post. Thank you. It seemed as though there is a discrepancy between the genetic evidence for the domestication of dogs and the archaeological evidence. Archaeologists find no real evidence of domesticated canines until roughly around 15,000 years ago, yet the genetic evidence seemed to indicate a divergence going back as long as 100,000 years ago. And such discrepancies bother those of a scientific bent. I suspect that your hypothesis as outlined in your second paragraph here may well be the resolution to this discrepancy. By the way, a very recent genetic analysis seemed to suggest that the initial domestication took place in Southeast Asia, which is a bit of a surprise. [I'll try to find a link on that, to add to the interesting discussion here.] But dogs truly are man's best friend, and his oldest friend.

 

[fairsheet]

"""It's interesting that some of the physical attributes we see in the “generic” dog are also seen in the foxes that have been bred since 1959 in Russia to be tolerant of being around humans. Traits such as a piebald coat, floppy ears, a curly tail...""" -Havelock

-This study is absolutely fascinating for a few reasons. On background, the humans selectively bred the foxes that were the more docile and less fearful. The first interesting outcome was that the study disproved the prior accepted wisdom, that foxes couldn't be domesticated. The second surprise, was just how QUICKLY (how few generations it took) to domesticate them. Our common assumption is that it takes thousands if not millions of years to accomplish this sort of thing, but instead, it took well less than one human lifespan.

And the third very interesting outcome - that Havelock alludes to - is that as these foxes were selectively bred towards domesticity, they also started to take on physical characteristics that differentiated them from their undomesticated bretheren.

I could be wrong, but I think the best explanation they came up with for that, was that in the process of selecting for behavioral docility, the humans were perhaps unwittingly choosing out the foxes they found more physically appealling, or "cute". Thus for instance, a fox with a curlier tail looks "nicer" than one without.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

"""It's interesting that some of the physical attributes we see in the “generic” dog are also seen in the foxes that have been bred since 1959 in Russia to be tolerant of being around humans. Traits such as a piebald coat, floppy ears, a curly tail...""" -Havelock

-This study is absolutely fascinating for a few reasons. On background, the humans selectively bred the foxes that were the more docile and less fearful. The first interesting outcome was that the study disproved the prior accepted wisdom, that foxes couldn't be domesticated. The second surprise, was just how QUICKLY (how few generations it took) to domesticate them. Our common assumption is that it takes thousands if not millions of years to accomplish this sort of thing, but instead, it took well less than one human lifespan.

And the third very interesting outcome - that Havelock alludes to - is that as these foxes were selectively bred towards domesticity, they also started to take on physical characteristics that differentiated them from their undomesticated bretheren.

I could be wrong, but I think the best explanation they came up with for that, was that in the process of selecting for behavioral docility, the humans were perhaps unwittingly choosing out the foxes they found more physically appealling, or "cute". Thus for instance, a fox with a curlier tail looks "nicer" than one without.

I just wonder how domesticated dogs will react to domesticated foxes!!

I've seen interesting studies of how domesticated dogs react to robotic dogs......

 

[Havelock]

This is an interesting post. Thank you.

Thank you, LeRoy. I appreciate your contributions.

It seemed as though there is a discrepancy between the genetic evidence for the domestication of dogs and the archaeological evidence. Archaeologists find no real evidence of domesticated canines until roughly around 15,000 years ago, yet the genetic evidence seemed to indicate a divergence going back as long as 100,000 years ago. And such discrepancies bother those of a scientific bent. I suspect that your hypothesis as outlined in your second paragraph here may well be the resolution to this discrepancy. By the way, a very recent genetic analysis seemed to suggest that the initial domestication took place in Southeast Asia, which is a bit of a surprise. [I'll try to find a link on that, to add to the interesting discussion here.]

There are still some questions that remain to be answered, for sure. If they can be... I think it's safe to say that the genetic evidence remains incomplete. But the studies are ongoing and fascinating. I think it's entirely possible that multiple "initial" domestication events took place and it's almost certain that repeated infusions of wild-type wolf genes occurred here and there over time. And it's quite possible, even probable, that all of this took place in the context of one or more populations that were drifting away from a common ancestral wolf on their own accord. Likely there's quite a tangled web to unravel... I've heard some fairly... unorthodox theories about the process at one time or another. Anyway, it's all quite intriguing.

But dogs truly are man's best friend, and his oldest friend.

Little doubt about that...

Cheers!

 

[Havelock]

"""It's interesting that some of the physical attributes we see in the “generic” dog are also seen in the foxes that have been bred since 1959 in Russia to be tolerant of being around humans. Traits such as a piebald coat, floppy ears, a curly tail...""" -Havelock

-This study is absolutely fascinating for a few reasons. On background, the humans selectively bred the foxes that were the more docile and less fearful. The first interesting outcome was that the study disproved the prior accepted wisdom, that foxes couldn't be domesticated. The second surprise, was just how QUICKLY (how few generations it took) to domesticate them. Our common assumption is that it takes thousands if not millions of years to accomplish this sort of thing, but instead, it took well less than one human lifespan.

And the third very interesting outcome - that Havelock alludes to - is that as these foxes were selectively bred towards domesticity, they also started to take on physical characteristics that differentiated them from their undomesticated brethren.

I could be wrong, but I think the best explanation they came up with for that, was that in the process of selecting for behavioral docility, the humans were perhaps unwittingly choosing out the foxes they found more physically appealing, or "cute". Thus for instance, a fox with a curlier tail looks "nicer" than one without.

I expect we'll learn a good bit more as our knowledge of genetics and linked traits grows and our tools for studying bioinformatics become more sophisticated. One general hypothesis is that some of these “domestication” traits are a result of preserving juvenile attributes into adulthood or, in a more complex scenario, altering the “wild” course of development so that morphological changes linked to maturation in wild populations are either retarded or accelerated in a somewhat piecemeal fashion in domesticated canines. For example, look at young wolf pups or fox kits; their tails look much more dog-like than do the tails of the adults.

Most likely there are a number of interrelated factors at play here. And yes, I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that both conscious and unconscious selection for “cuteness” played a role. As for how long it didn't take to domesticate silver foxes, I think that just shows the power of intensive selective breeding. We see it all the time, but we're somewhat inured to its power when we witness its effects in already-domesticated species of plants and animals. Still, there's no denying the ways in which it can transform a species in ways both predictable and unpredictable. And that lends credence, I think, to my belief that we're on the cusp of seeing relatively enormous changes to our own species thanks to advances in biotechnology.

Well, we're starting to range fairly far afield there. Sorry about that... Anyway, thank you for participating in this thread. It's been fun and informative. I could go on all day about dogs (and cars) too, I reckon.

Cheers!

 

[gabriel]

the insect desires existence. that's enough reason

 

[fairsheet]

I forgot all about that angle as to how the less mature foxes were more inclined toward domesticity. I've heard that that may be one of the prime differences between a dog and a wolf. The dog is in a sort of permanent puppy-hood stage.

 

[fairsheet]

the insect desires existence. that's enough reason

Yes but....the mosquito desires existence as well, but I feel no pangs whatsoever, when I squash her like the bug she is. I don't know if I make some sort of instant value judgement/comparison between the pretty bug and the mosquito...or what?

That's why my bug story is so perplexing - to me anyway. I can't say WHY I felt compelled to save that bug. All I can say is that I WAS compelled!

 

[gabriel]

youre 180 degrees outta whack there pal. what should be perplexing to you is why you have no feelings when you take the life of the mosquito.you saving of the other bug was the skillful action that came from the right place.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Yes but....the mosquito desires existence as well, but I feel no pangs whatsoever, when I squash her like the bug she is. I don't know if I make some sort of instant value judgement/comparison between the pretty bug and the mosquito...or what?

That's why my bug story is so perplexing - to me anyway. I can't say WHY I felt compelled to save that bug. All I can say is that I WAS compelled!

I've been known to capture spiders in my house and release them outside, instead of killing them.....

 

[NightSwimmer]

I've been known to capture spiders in my house and release them outside, instead of killing them.....

Not a bad idea. Spiders are very effective bug killers. Guess they lack Buddha Nature?

 

[gabriel]

theyre in good company

 

[Queen Titania]

I've been known to capture spiders in my house and release them outside, instead of killing them.....

I only clear cob webs a couple of times a year ...loooooool when my daughter is coming to stay ! No probs with flys or midges in my house, big huge spider guards catch em and eat em before they get to me

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

I only clear cob webs a couple of times a year ...loooooool when my daughter is coming to stay ! No probs with flys or midges in my house, big huge spider guards catch em and eat em before they get to me

Well, but I don't want spiders in my home. I DO like to entertain guests every once in a while, you know.....and women, in particular, tend to get freaked out by spiders.......

 

[fairsheet]

Yeah...I've got a soft spot for spiders as well. And, they really tug at my heart strings (such as they are), when I find them trying to crawl their way out of something like a bathtub. Those fellows ALWAYS get a boost!

Anyway....on Saturday, I'm going a coupla hundred miles to pick up my new Rat Terrier girl. It's all as good as it gets.

 

[gabriel]

all dog dna is from the wolf. the dogs domesticity is a result of selective breeding for non aggression. and Russian experiments with silver foxes showed that they do not stay domesticated.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/dogs-decoded.html

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

all dog dna is from the wolf. the dogs domesticity is a result of selective breeding for non aggression. and Russian experiments with silver foxes showed that they do not stay domesticated.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/dogs-decoded.html

My sister once owned an animal that was 75% wolf, 12.5% German shepherd, and 12.5% coyote. Dogs and wolves can freely interbreed with both coyotes and jackals, so there is some minimal genetic input into dogs from coyotes and jackals, even though dog DNA comes overwhelmingly from wolves.

 

[gabriel]

then she was taking a big chance. a few years ago a family 1/2 wolf in seattle tore the arm off an infant.

 

[fairsheet]

My sister once owned an animal that was 75% wolf, 12.5% German shepherd, and 12.5% coyote. Dogs and wolves can freely interbreed with both coyotes and jackals, so there is some minimal genetic input into dogs from coyotes and jackals, even though dog DNA comes overwhelmingly from wolves.

My youngest sister picked herself up a pitbull from the pound, 7+ years ago. My sister isn't your prototypical pitbull owner (not that there's anything wrong with them!). She's been more of a very dog-indulgent, yuppie-type, who I kinda think chose "Daisy" in order to make a personal statement. Daisy IS as sweet as a pea, even as she's a bit of a bull in a china shop.

Still though, it's almost unimaginable that one of my little mutts would "go off", just as it's almost unimaginable that Daisy would "go off". But...if one of my guys went off, I might owe someone a new pair of socks. If Daisy went off, my sister might owe someone a new arm. That's why I shy away from her type!