Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Researchers: Purebred dogs are not “biological species”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

No? Who thought they were? The controversy we are more familiar with here at Uncommon Descent is whether dogs, period, are a biological species, as opposed to a much-manipulated variety of wolf. The authors of Dogs: A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution have studied the habits of dump dogs who live off human garbage closely:

The dog is a shape that has evolved to a new niche that was created when people switched from hunting and gathering to growing grain. The waste products of that activity created a food supply that supports village dogs. Were there dogs before the age of agriculture? Probably not, but if there were, they had adapted to a different niche.

A dump dog has few foraging costs compared with its wild relatives, which must put a huge effort into obtaining food. When one compares the cost with the benefit, dump dogs are way ahead. Getting calories is mostly easier for them.

The reason dogs make good pets is in large part because they have this innate behavior of finding somewhere to sit and wait for food to arrive, which is exactly what our pet dogs do. Their niche is scavenging food from humans. They are like ravens and foxes that scavenge food from wolves or humans. Where is that dog food supply? Look for humans, and there it is. Why are dogs nice to people? They are the source of food. Dogs find some food source that arrives daily and they sit there and wait.

One question we might ask, in order to find any foraging difference between dog and wolf, is whether wolves could scavenge the Mexico City dump as well as dogs do. All of a sudden when we ask the question that way, we begin to realize how well designed the dog is for its niche. Remember the design costs. It takes 1,000 calories a day to maintain a dog, and it takes 2,500 calories for a wolf just to hang around acting doglike. Raymond Coppinger & Lorna Coppinger, “Only Street Dogs Are Real Dogs” at Nautilus

The Coppinger team’s basic argument is that what distinguishes the dump dog from the wolf is his low maintenance cost, on account of his tendency to sit around and wait for humans to provide him with refuse. But now, if most humans started incinerating their garbage, would dump dogs slowly start becoming more wolf-like?

Their assertion shows, of course, what a mess the biological species concept is. If anyone does think all those breeds of dogs are really species, well…

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Researchers: Tooth studies show that Neanderthals “split” from modern humans 800 kya, not 300-500 kya If Neanderthals “diverged” from “modern humans” 800,000 years ago but many of us have Neanderthal genes (yeah, 23andMe stuff, for sure), what chance is there that much of the contention is based on the fact that we don’t really know enough to be sure of very many things?

Researchers: Sediba is not a human ancestor after all. Back to Lucy, but… The anthropologist is right, the fossil record IS full of surprises. But the news that Lucy is only “the best candidate” is worth some reflection. It sounds like we have little to go on and Lucy is at best plausible.

and

A physicist looks at biology’s problem of “speciation” in humans

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
I find it interesting that IDists think that the fact that the distinction between species is messy somehow vindicates ID, completely ignoring the fact that the entire concept was developed to classify an intelligently designed universe.Brother Brian
May 17, 2019
May
05
May
17
17
2019
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
MS, we haven't got a clue as to what a species is, as a comprehensive, coherent notion. If we had only seen dogs as fossils, we would never have deemed them a single subspecies, domesticated wolves in effect. On the other hand in the 80's, divergent species of Galapagos finches were breeding successfully. Red Deer and American Elks introduced to New Zealand apparently happily and successfully bred together. Here, maybe 15 years ago European Collared Doves were introduced (probably by hitching rides on ships). For a time they were very visible, but then it seems they interbred with native Zenaida doves and have blended in. Try citruses. Years ago, they used to talk about two species of Gulls in Europe and how as one goes around the pole, gradual gradations of one reach the other and then you are back in Europe: circumpolar species. I gather it is a bit more complicated now but the basic point is there. There is a lot more, and BTW, neither ID nor even Young Earth Creationism are committed to fixity of species as listed in taxonomies; ID is not Biblical Creationism, but a research programme on the empirically grounded, analytically plausible origin of especially functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. Species is not a target focus, origin of life and of linked main body plans is, notice e.g. discussion on the Cambrian revolution of body plans. You will observe that over the years here at UD I spoke to body-plan level origin. YECs use "kinds" or the Heb "baramin," which is more flexible, ranging up to the Family in at least some cases. KFkairosfocus
May 17, 2019
May
05
May
17
17
2019
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
KF, then what's ID's solution? As Mimus said, this is ID's chance to show it's scientific credentials. You could start by telling us just exactly what the 'mess' is. From an evolutionary stand point, things look about as we would expect. You separate a species (wolves in this case) into two groups ( wolves and dogs) and prevent them from interbreeding and they gradually get more and more different until finally some vital DNA changes so much it doesn't match up between the two groups and they can't breed at all. Then you declare the new group a separate species. What's ID's theory here? Why does an intelligent designer take such a long, drawn out process to make a new species? Whatever happened to "poof!"? Or, to restate the problem, why does an Intelligent Designer go to so much trouble to make it look like evolution?MatSpirit
May 17, 2019
May
05
May
17
17
2019
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
MS, the species concept is the problem, it is in all kinds of trouble. KFkairosfocus
May 17, 2019
May
05
May
17
17
2019
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
"We need a more robust concept than “species” to cover what we observe." Well, "we" don't. Darwinian evolution describes what we see pretty well. ID is the theory in crisis here. If new species are designed by an intelligent designer, why aren't they distinct from the get-go?MatSpirit
May 17, 2019
May
05
May
17
17
2019
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
We need a more robust concept than “species” to cover what we observe.
So would a successful concept look like? Seems like an opportunity for ID to prove it's scientific credentials..Mimus
May 16, 2019
May
05
May
16
16
2019
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
Matspirit at 1, how about the answer is neither because the concept is a flawed one. We need a more robust concept than "species" to cover what we observe.News
May 16, 2019
May
05
May
16
16
2019
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
"Their assertion shows, of course, what a mess the biological species concept is. If anyone does think all those breeds of dogs are really species, well…" Which is odd, when you think about it. If species are designed, why are species such a mess? On the other hand, if species evolve, this is about what you'd expect.MatSpirit
May 16, 2019
May
05
May
16
16
2019
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply