Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dog breeds and speciation: Some interesting information

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Mainly about the history of intelligent design of dogs, for better or worse. Fascinating stuff about the turnspit dog. Also. here:

In order to understand how a breed can go extinct, first we need to get into what a breed is. And in order to get into that, we need to get into what a dog is.

According to the fossil record, the canine was first domesticated between 11,000 and 32,000 years ago. One theory is that ancient humans trapped the pups of ancient wolves, raised them as pets, and used them to hunt. This theory is known as the “hunter hypothesis.”

Another popular theory is known as the “scavenger hypothesis.” From an expert opinion in National Geographic:

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 either hypothesis — hunter or scavenger — wolves found themselves among humans. In such an environment, a wolf did best if he had certain traits: tameness, obedience, and a general tendency to treat humans as neither predators nor food. Ancient humans had food and shelter to share with the kinder wolves, and weapons and cunning to fight the more aggressive ones.

As consequence, those boldest and friendliest wolves flourished, procreated, and begat later generations.

Good thinking. But the dog origins story may be too simple.

For one thing, it is hard to focus on two ends of a spectrum at once. Kinder wolves make better fireside pets but not good junkyard dogs. Ancient humans, like modern humans, needed to preserve canine qualities in balance, obviously. That’s design. It would require identifying and keeping breeds apart from the beginning.

The only animal the working security dog needs to not attack for sure is his handler (or other friendly dogs/handlers). Otherwise, the dog does whatever his handler tells him, whether it is vicious or not.

But if he were living in a wolf pack, he would—in the same way—need to know enough not to attack the alpha wolf. Also to get along with other wolves.

It may be that the real human achievement was to preserve separable qualities in different breeds. Thoughts?

Of possible interest to some:

The perfect therapy dog (you fall asleep just looking at him)

Guide dogs for the deaf

Note: Cats have fared better than dogs, if you go by the fact that a feline is pretty much the same, no matter what. But then, the cat always wins, right?

Comments
Yikes, bornagain77! Did I hit that nail on the head or what!? Can't wait until my theory becomes mainstream and some of the Crusading Darwinists here will try to convince us that I was just lucky. ;-) -QQuerius
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Querius: "gut flora have been extremely successful in distributing themselves by generating mobile, self-reproducing organisms" You are not going to believe this, (well actually you've been around so perhaps you may believe it), but a Darwinist actually said this to me: "Well, bacteria do make up most of the planet’s biomass and numbers. However, from what we understand, they are keeping humans around as an investment in interplanetary sporulation. Gotta keep your eye on the future!" https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/adam-and-eve-existed-says-the-guardian-but-never-met/#comment-556769bornagain77
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
bornagain77, Neo-Darwinian theory can be used to explain anything but can reliably predict nothing (except in retrospect, which is not really predicting at all). Thus, a far more logical neo-neo-neo-Darwinian prediction is that a subset of the most rapidly evolving and successful organisms on the planet, bacteria, are responsible for the evolution of all their host species, including humans. Just as loF spreads intellectual feces here, gut flora have been extremely successful in distributing themselves by generating mobile, self-reproducing organisms. Certain strains of gut flora specialized into gametes, and the rest is, as they say, history. ;-) -QQuerius
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
lack of substance:
As is predicted, and confirmed, by evolutionary theory.
Reference please. We all know that you are bluffing.
Did the designer provide the large genetic variation in the original wolf population so that we could produce greyhounds, chihuahuas and pikanese?
Yes, because of recombination. Artificial selection just brings about combinations that would never happen in the wild. Add the recombination that already occurs and badda-bing, badda-boom, a new, albeit weaker, variation of the original. The starting population would be as genetically differentiated as possible. Heterozygosity would be at its peak.Joe
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
"As is predicted, and confirmed, by evolutionary theory." So neo-Darwinism predicts that genetic information will be lost during supposed 'speciation' events??? Funny, that is exactly what Genetic Entropy (i.e. limited variation within kind) predicts as well. Moreover, the fact that humans (and inbred dogs) are deteriorating genetically is an established fact. What is not an established fact is the question of whether Darwinian processes can genetate a single gene/protein much less generating wolves (or humans) in the first place! Question: did humans originate because of a culling of information that was in the original human population, or was it a culling of information from the original ape population? Or perhaps a culling of information from the original bacteria population?bornagain77
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
"In fact, the entire spectrum of dog sub-species has been found to have less genetic diversity than the parent wolf species:" As is predicted, and confirmed, by evolutionary theory. The theory that Joe claims doesn't exist. Did the designer provide the large genetic variation in the original wolf population so that we could produce greyhounds, chihuahuas and pikanese?lack of Focus
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
In fact, Natural Selection (and Artificial Selection as in dog breeding), although repeatedly invoked by Darwinists as this 'great creative engine' for evolution that knows no bounds to its power, in reality, away from the Darwinian rhetoric and imagination, actually consistently reduces the genetic information of organisms.
"...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk From a Frog to a Prince - video (17:00 minute mark Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information) - No Beneficial Mutations - Gitt - Spetner - Denton - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClleN8ysimg&feature=player_detailpage#t=1031
In fact, the entire spectrum of dog sub-species has been found to have less genetic diversity than the parent wolf species:
,,the mean sequence divergence in dogs, 2.06, was almost identical to the 2.10 (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (please note the sequence divergence is slightly smaller for the entire spectrum of dogs than for wolves) http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdf
As well, contrary to Darwinian thought, inbreeding (Artificial Selection) is a very big problem in 'Pure Breds' that must be carefully guarded against in animal husbandry since it promotes genetic degradation:
Inbreeding - Pros and cons Excerpt: The ultimate result of continued inbreeding is terminal lack of vigor and probable extinction as the gene pool contracts, fertility decreases, abnormalities increase and mortality rates rise. http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm 100 Years of Breed “Improvement” – Comparison photos of Pure Breds from 100 years ago to today – Sept. 2012 Excerpt: "Several "pure bred" dogs are now so incredibly inbred they have many genetic problems that severely reduce their quality of life." The dogs on the left are from the 1915 book, ‘Breeds of All Nations‘ by W.E. Mason. The examples on the right are modern examples from multiple sources (which show the progressive genetic deterioration of the pure breds). http://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/ The Bizarre Truth About Purebred Dogs (and Why Mutts Are Better) - Adam Ruins Everything - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo&t=2m42s
Of supplemental note: Dogs are found to have originated a single time from wolves instead of several times as was previously thought:
Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of Dogs - January 2014 Excerpt Discussion: We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations (Figures 4–5, Table S10),, Our analysis suggests that none of the sampled wolf populations is more closely related to dogs than any of the others, and that dogs diverged from wolves at about the same time that the sampled wolf populations diverged from each other (Figures 5A, 5C). http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004016
Verse and Music:
Matthew 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. bow wow wow yippy yo yippy yay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KML0NxxGe-k
bornagain77
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
Many times neo-Darwinists, such as Richard Dawkins did, will claim dog breeding as an example of macro-evolution.
Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - Mar 22, 2014 Excerpt: Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists (claim) that dog breeds prove macroevolution. However, virtually all the dog breeds are generated by losses or disturbances of gene functions and/or developmental processes. Moreover, all the three subfamilies of the family of wild dogs (Canidae) appear abruptly in the fossil record. http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/interview-with-wolf-ekkehard-lonnig/ What Darwin Didn't Know - Robert Carter - 2014 video (21 minute mark,,, jackals, wolves, and huskies interbred by Russians to be drug sniffing dogs) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1fdJJCQOPk
But actually, contrary to what neo-Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins think, dog breeding is a excellent example of 'limited variation within kind' wrought by the culling and deterioration, of preexisting genetic information.
podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00 The Dog Delusion - October 30, 2014 Excerpt: In his latest book, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany takes on the widespread view that dog breeds prove macroevolution.,,, He shows in great detail that the incredible variety of dog breeds, going back in origin several thousand years ago but especially to the last few centuries, represents no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels. Michael Behe writes: "Dr. Lönnig shows forcefully that one of the chief examples Darwinists rely on to convince the public of macroevolution -- the enormous variation in dogs -- actually shows the opposite. Extremes in size and anatomy come at the cost of broken genes and poor health. Even several gene duplications were found to interfere strongly with normal growth and development as is also often the case in humans. So where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution now?" The science here is indeed solid. Intriguingly, Lönnig's prediction from 2013 on starch digestion in wolves has already been confirmed in a study published this year.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/the_dog_delusio090751.html Caveman’s Best Friend, Evolution’s Newest Upset - October 2011 Excerpt: Our view of domestication as a process has also begun to change, with recent research showing that, in dogs, alterations in only a small number of genes can have large effects in terms of size, shape and behavior.,,, It should be noted that dogs and wolves can interbreed,,, http://crev.info/content/20111029-cavemans_best_friend
bornagain77
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Your position cannot account for the genetic variation in wolves- it cannot account for wolves. And only a moron would think we could make a wolf from a dog.Joe
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
The genetic variation necessary to change from a wolf to all of the different breeds we see today were either present in the original wolf population or arose through mutations in the last few thousand years. Humans didn't design any of it other than limiting which dogs bred with each other. If you continue to claim that they are designed, please take a pair of chihuahuas and artificially select a wolf by selective breeding of their offspring. I will even make it easier. You can include the entire population of pure bred chihuahuas in your interbreeding exercises. Good luck with your efforts. And the argument that we have not observed the evolution of new species is a false argument. It is humans who define what a species is. Lions and tigers can produce viable (non-sterile) offspring, but we call them different species. But a Great Dane and a chihuahua will never produce viable offspring without serious intervention. But we don't call them different species. Yet we consider wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs to be different species even though they routinely interbreed and produce viable offspring.lack of Focus
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
"Artificial selection has proved very poor at crossing the species boundary — my Pomeranian is still a wolf." Artificial Selection is old fashion. SheepMan will be designed - not the result of a pregnancy. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7681252/ns/health-cloning_and_stem_cells/t/scientists-create-animals-are-part-human/ New species are designed, not selected.ppolish
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
bFast:
While artificial selection is clearly the act of intelligence, I see nothing that artificial selection can do that natural selection cannot do.
Natural selection couldn't produce the dog breeds. Oops...
It is the limits of artificial selection that make a compelling case against natural selection.
Absolutely as natural selection has less power than artificial selection.
While artificial selection is an intelligent design agent, it is very much a minor player.
In the case of dog breeds and all we humans have a hand in, yes.Joe
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Seems like we're missing the point of genomics here, by assuming that breeding is the crucial factor in eliminating some characteristics. Every dog has all the necessary qualities to some degree, and breeding only 'turns down' some qualities. Even a pug, the most domestic and frightened and 'workless' of breeds, can be a herder if given the chance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYq9S8rE80spolistra
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
lack of Focus, "It may be “directed” but it is not design as I understand it from what I have read on UD." Lack, I so agree with you. While artificial selection is clearly the act of intelligence, I see nothing that artificial selection can do that natural selection cannot do. It is the limits of artificial selection that make a compelling case against natural selection. Artificial selection has proved very poor at crossing the species boundary -- my Pomeranian is still a wolf. While artificial selection is an intelligent design agent, it is very much a minor player. If it is not, then the ID hypothesis is moot.bFast
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Guesswork is the hallmark of Evolution. It absolutely kills me when you hear as if it was fact "man needed to look above the tall grass, so they started to walk upright" Constantly turning to Lamarkism to explain the un-explainable.. Evolutionists are so confused that they simply tell stories, like the above "hypotheses", and act as if this is somehow an evolutionary example - but all they are saying is, the environment changed, so the organism changed to match it... really? Now even Finch beaks are turning out to be epigenetics in action, not anything random - nothing in life is random - if it were, it would never have gotten started, let alone achieved such variety. No matter what they teach we are learning that each kind or variety of animal has a toolkit, and its cells cognitively search for the right genes to work on, even to the point of experimentation..... "Natural Genetic Engineering" what is next? "Natural programming" ?[email protected]
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
@lack of Focus:
It may be “directed” but it is not design as I understand it from what I have read on UD. Humans select the traits that they prefer, but those traits must already exist.
Eugenics, computer programming, dog breeding, are all intelligent design mechanisms.JWTruthInLove
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Lack of focus Can a person really be that ignorant? Darwin based natural selection on the fact of artificial selection. He reasoned that if intelligent breeders can create artificial selection then nature can do so also. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/collections-at-the-museum/museum-treasures/charles-darwin-pigeons/ NumbnutsAndre
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Says reality. Dog breeds wouldn't exist if not for humans. Period, end of story. But then again we know you won't let the facts get in the way of your opinion. ;)
Were the various traits that artificial selection depends on designed by humans?
Is that a requirement? Why?Joe
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
"That is due to your obvious lack of focus. Artificial selection is an intelligent design mechanism." Says you. But what do the other design proponents say? Were the various traits that artificial selection depends on designed by humans?lack of Focus
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
It may be “directed” but it is not design as I understand it from what I have read on UD.
That is due to your obvious lack of focus. Artificial selection is an intelligent design mechanism.Joe
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
"Ancient humans, like modern humans, needed to preserve canine qualities in balance, obviously. That’s design." It may be "directed" but it is not design as I understand it from what I have read on UD. Humans select the traits that they prefer, but those traits must already exist.lack of Focus
April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply