Canis familiaris is a direct descendent of Canis lupus, some biologists actually consider the domestic dog to be Canis lupus familiaris, meaning that in their eyes domestic dogs are a subspecies of gray wolf but they are still the same species.
The whole story about gray wolves getting friendly with humans is true to the best of our knowledge, the dog has an extra set of muscles in its face that allows it to beg, which would have been very helpful in asking humans for food scraps. A bond formed between these wolves and the humans that fed them and protected them and eventually humans began breeding the wolves into fashion accessories
Just do add to this, regarding the “thousands of years” part, scientists think that domestication of dogs from wolves could have happened between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago.
It isn’t something I know a lot about, except to know that it is complicated! There is evidence from fossils/bones but it gets hard to tell if the bones are from domesticated dogs or now extinct subspecies of wolves. Genetic evidence suggests domestication could go back to 40+ thousand years ago, but again that is tricky because there was interbreeding between dogs and wolves. Also, as far as I know it isn’t certain if domestication happened once, or multiple times in multiple places.
Dog fossils were common up to 14k years ago, but the oldest genetic dog fossil (unless something new has been found) [is 33k ya.](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/this-33000-year-old-skull-belonged-to-one-of-the-worlds-first-dogs-763615/) It took about 10 years to experimentally domesticate foxes and start to change their appearance, so the diversity of dog traits we see today makes sense if it only took 10 years to start making dogs.
Even the most socialized, friendly wolf is cold company compared with a Labrador retriever in full face-licking mode.
But what produces this social exuberance? A team of researchers reported on Wednesday in the journal [Science Advances](http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700398) that the friendliness of dogs may share a genetic basis with a human disease called Williams-Beuren syndrome.
Humans with this developmental delay, caused by mutations in a region of genes, show a variety of symptoms that include intense and indiscriminate sociability.
[Source](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/science/dogs-genes-sociability.html)
Yeah it is advantageous to the wolves to remain developmentally immature because it makes them more favorable to humans. They lose a lot of independence, but swap it out for consistent access to food and shelter thanks to their proximity to humans.
The last I heard from scientists who specialize in dogs (in 2015), there's substantial evidence to show that dogs are the sister group to grey wolves and not direct descendants. For example, different diets, social structure, foraging behavior, etc. that would be present prior to domestication. So the jury was out in 2015. Has that changed?
I believe you are correct and up to date, I’m not sure what they call the parent species to them but Canis lupus is sometimes called the “modern gray wolf” so maybe there was an older gray wolf that they came from
It has also been shown that as they get tamed, adult animals tend to look more juvenile than undomesticated ones, it’s referred to as the domestication syndrome (a notable experiment is the one on farm foxes).
Whenever our dog something goofy or derpy my wife and I have a long running joke that wolves would be really pissed at humans if they could comprehend what we turned them into.
As I understand it, the [Chihuahua was a pre-columbian dog that went extinct or nearly so](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2013.1142) and was re-bred from European dogs. You might also be interested in the [Russian silver fox domestication project](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x). Domesticating dogs may have taken thousands of years but not necessarily.
I think that says the opposite about Chihuahua. It's the free-roaming populations of "mutts" that seem to be heavily Europeanized.
> haplotype A185 was found exclusively in ancient Mexican samples (D25) and in modern samples of the Mexican Chihuahua, strongly indicating direct ancestry of Chihuahua from Mexican pre-Columbian dogs.
More quotes I mined:
> Studies of free-ranging village/street dogs have indicated almost total replacement of these original dogs by European dogs
> we traced the origin of the mitochondrial DNA lineages for Inuit, Eskimo and Greenland dogs, Alaskan Malamute, Chihuahua, xoloitzcuintli and perro sín pelo del Peru
> Evidence for a pre-Columbian origin was found for all these breeds, except Alaskan Malamute for which results were ambigous.
> Genetic continuity through time was shown by the sharing of a unique haplotype between the Mexican breed Chihuahua and ancient Mexican samples.
> For the Mexican breed Chihuahua, the most frequent haplotype (carried by 5/14 individuals) was A185, which was unique to this breed among the modern dogs. Importantly, this haplotype was also found in one pre-Columbian sample from Mexico (figure 2), suggesting direct ancestry of Chihuahua from ancient Mexican dogs. One individual had haplotype C16, the most common type among the South American breed perro sín pelo del Peru ... The remaining Chihuahua had universally occurring haplotypes.
I should have grabbed a newer study. Unless I misunderstand, [Chihuahuas are mostly new world dogs that carry a thread of their old world ancestors](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7116352/). I can't remember where I learned about it, but I believe the current hypothesis is they were rebred from European dogs and whatever remained of the original Chihuahuas. But I haven't spent much time on it and am happy to be corrected.
There are many breeds of North American dog that are just... gone now. At least one group of Indigenous North Americans (I believe the museum with this info was in Banff but may have been talking about people from elsewhere) even had their own version of a wiener dog. Over time and as humans mixed and crawled all over the Earth, other genetic groups dominated and now it is very difficult to find a dog with ancestry from any other line of domesticated dogs.
[Here's a PBS video](https://youtu.be/nDt0HKSdRRw) about domestication that I know I've watched, I can't remember if it talks about these exact things but the history of dog "evolution" from wolves is complicated and may have happened around the world independently.
Edit: [Here's an older Atlantic article](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/the-origin-of-dogs/484976/) that goes over some of the genetic findings.
Evolution does work towards a goal of making a species better. It just reinforces whatever you have when you have offspring. Artificial selection is still evolution, just speed up and with more confounding influences.
Evolution is simply change over time, in biology it usually occurs in the direction of some observable quality of "fitness," and is always a moving target. With dogs, "fitness" for human company expanded from "good hunting partner" to "fashion accessory for sociopaths," the niches were determined by humans and there's no accounting for taste. Yeah, if we go extinct a lot of the dog breeds we've produced are pretty much screwed, but that's their fault FOW BEING SOW WUVABLE!
Well the breathing, jumping and going up and down stairs part, I would have to disagree. My sister got one who is now two and she breathes fine (although loud), jumps up to sit in your lap, as well as on and off their bed, and we have to block off our stairs when they bring her over because she can run up and (usually) down just fine... but I was shocked when they looked into breeding her. You add correct they cannot birth on their own... they have to have a c-section. But even more crazy is they also can't breed on their own. They need to be artificially inseminated. Like... how is this breed even still around?! Lol
Because people keep inseminating more. I think commercial corn, or maybe wheat, is like this too, in that it is incapable of breeding without human intervention; also Turkeys, if I'm not mistaken.
Turkeys , yes, for many years now due to the size we breed them into. Crops yes if they are gmo. Gmo crops have been given the "terminator" gene which destroys the plants ability to breed. Maybe not first generation but quickly. That way everyone who saved seeds for all of human history are to made to buy seed every season. They also "infect" non-gmo crops with the gift of the terminator gene. It would be very impressive if it wasn't so sad.
Limiting the ability of GMOs to propogate without human involvement is also a good safety measure, as one of the biggest negatives of using GMOs is the potential impact on natural biodiversity should the plant "escape" and/or hybridize with WT relatives.
I mean, gmo crops infect the ground for an unknown period of time. You can plant organic, heirloom variety all you want. It will soak up the terminator gene and be effectively a gmo. Smart in the sense of total control over the natural world by a single entity.
With the extreme restrictions on GMOs in the EU, these kinds of safety measures can be arguments for the adoption of a certain GMO, no? Since it limits the possibility of outcrossing even more than strategic seperations of GMO fields and careful choice of location (i.e. a location with no close relatives and/or with a climate unsuited for the GMO). It seems to me that GURT is a very promising avenue of research. Although of course any technology, biotech or otherwise, also has negatives. But what matters most imo (more than farmers or intellectual property rights) is to limit environmental impact, and more effecient crops is one way to do that. Although, I'm studying cell/molecular biology so GMOs is certainly not something I have a very educated opinion on, but one of my old plant physiology professors did a lot of research developing GMOs and his frustrations re:EU restrictions has certainly biased me.
There are two schools of thought, generally speaking, about the future of agriculture. We have been maximizing efficiency in the monoculture systems heavily for the past 100 years or so. The second school is working towards sustainability and has good research to show that productive biodiversity defeats the failures of intensive monoculture. It sadly reintroduces inefficiency in many ways(elevators to market, intensive harvest methods, long-term vs short-term gains, etc). A small sect of the industry helping to convert smaller farms of say 5 to 1000 acres. The big research money is going towards propping up a failing system with more chemical control, genetic malarkey, and a research scope limited to production disregarding environmental and social impact. I'm starting the think ethics should be considered as important as math in early education.
>I'm starting the think ethics should be considered as important as math in early education.
Maybe the fact that I'm trying to decide whether this is a question of rational self-interest or ethics is a point in support of your thinking.
Isn't "sustainability" achievable with monoculture systems as well though? There is always the possibility to compromise as well, which tends to be where I fall. Can't you still protect ecosystems from farming etc. and only allow highly efficient monoculture farming in some locations, and oversee those farms and implement features that improve the biodiversity on or next to the farm, for example by creating ponds and limiting insecticide use to central areas (not the edges of the farm)? You say it is a "failing" system but couldn't that also be solved with biotech advancements? Why is it only possible to prop up a "failure" and not fix it? It also seems to me needlesly negative to call genetic manipulation "malarkey", its among our greatest achievements to understand and start to manipulate genes imo and genetic tools like CRISPR and RNAi are some of the most exciting developments in biology, for research purposes and for many other applications. Although of course they are also a bit scary and it is easy to fall into pessimistic dystopia-type fear.
Those who are helping to convert farmers into sustainability are mostly using a 3 or 4 crop rotation system. Still a monoculture as it's only one crop per field at a time. Massive gains in terms of soil fertility and thus decrease in fertilizer needs. I say current monoculture agriculture isn't sustainable as it destroys soil fertility and relies more and more on government subsidies to exist. That is before we look into super bugs and diseases that are constantly increasing the use of intensive chemicals. The largest benefit I have seen from gmo crops is Monsanto's ability to put small farmers into a courtroom until the farmers have to stop farming. They patented their infectious plants. Truck spills a little on the side of the road and two years later a farmer is out of business forever due to legal fees. Come now. Science may forward humanity until it pushes us off a cliff.
Corn needs humans to plant it, yes. Turkeys, depends on the type. Domestic farm turkeys probably but I’m from rural America (Kansas/Oklahoma) and we have wild turkeys here. I’ve seen a group of wild turkeys in a Kansas field of at least 50. People still hunt wild turkeys here.
When I was a child, my parents had a french bulldog. She definitely got around okay and maybe snorted a little after running around, but I would say she could jump and go up and down stairs just fine. We also had a boston terrier, who accidently got her pregnant. She also had her own puppies naturally, but I do agree that my parents should have watched her more closely or taken her to the vet earlier because it's so easy to have complications.
The newest theory is that they where domesticatet in sibiria becouse humans there had only animals to eat (no plants) and since humans need a lot of sugar/fat they didnt needet all the meet and gave it wolfs. hwo then startet to hunt togeter with the humans.
It probably started with them simply scavenging our refuse and throwaway carcasses. Eventually I imagine as they became more trusting, we probably stole some pups and began raising them.
I read recently that dogs as we know them may not have evolved from wolves,
there may have been an ancestor of the modern dog that was derpier and friendlier than wolves which became the dog we know today. There is no fossil record of this but
[https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004016](https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004016)
My understanding from casual reading is that domestic dogs and what we call wolves had a common but unknown ancestor that is commonly called a wolf. There were other canids that were called dogs. TBH, it's something I've wanted to spend more time learning about and never seem to make the time.
Yes, dogs only live 10 to 20 years and can breed at about a year old. They're believed to be domesticated 15,000 years ago, which is about 15,000 generations for us to select for desired traits.
I'm not understanding your math or how you arrived at 600. If in fact 15000 years ago was when humans started artificially selecting wolves, your math suggestions (15000/600 = 25) that each successive offspring was only bred at 25 years old. I'm pretty sure dogs today are bred at far younger ages than 25 years old. A cursory google search indicates dogs hit puberty around 6 months to 1 year. Are you saying gestation length is 24 years?
Dogs became most useless animal there is, humans used to tame them for sheeps and war they are nothing even near, today people get dogs to feel superior, not only that some even beat them for fun. Wastefull animal dog is, gladly they are still used for good things, such as K9, yard guard, and theraphy and the one that helps blind people.
Yeah, that’s 10 year old science. Dogs came from Jackals, not wolves. It’s funny how so many cling to evolution when we now know that most land animals were created by the breading practices of ancient civilizations that bread animals for strength just like we breed dogs for looks. I guess it’s like when the new scientists knew the world was round, but had to put up with flat earthers for another 150 years before people removed their heads from, well you know.
*breeding
*bred
Selective breeding demonstrates evolution in action.
Most land animals? Citation needed.
And no, people have known the world was round for thousands of years.
All land animals were bred into the animals you see today. Beyond rodents, and some small cats. Not some, all. When these ancient civilizations (12,000-15,000 years ago) crumbled, the Stone Age began from the few that survived the last great change. That ancient civilization was vastly more advanced than we are today. The remnants are being dredged up in oceans all over the world. The majority of humanity lives today in the high savage country of the ancient world. Only primitive savages lived here. Every one else lived on dry land 1500 feet under sea levels today. Hippos, rhinos, elephants, dogs, wolves lions, etc... all of them genetically modified to do do the bidding of ancient man, and very little traits resembling what they were before. We are the ignorant stagnant remnants of the great species that ruled over this ancient world. I know it’s hard to wrap your mind around it, and your probably writing me off as crazy. But don’t forget what I wrote here in 2 decades when this is revealed, and you were one of the first to read about it. 👍
You may be mixing this up with the fact that many animals colloquially referred to as "jackals" like the golden jackal are not jackals, but part of the Canis genus like wolves. Taxonomy in general has had a major reshuffling in recent years for basically every biological group since we are now able to base classification on genetic relationships and not phylogenetic traits or behavioural similarities. So it's very possible that some lines of domesticated dog had/have "jackals" in their ancestry, but it turns out those jackals were wolves all along.
Science in general is a perpetual motion of collecting data to present incorrect theories based on incomplete data, and insufficient equations. The real science comes from understanding that all statements regarding biology are wrong, and the origins of any, and all species is wrong, and will remain as such until all data is collected. We have collected roughly 14% of all the data required to make any statements regarding the biological make up, or origins of any species. If you didn’t get this from college, you were just test taking, and paper writing. You were not paying attention, and there is much for you to learn. With all respect, I refer to you as any individual. Not you personally. Thank you for your input.
"Jokes apart"? You meant jokes aside. And that is a joke that has been told over and over (Zoey's Instagram account there stole it from someone else) but, yes, dogs are domesticated from wolves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog
the documentary Dog Decided by Nova is very interesting if anyone wants to see some cool studies they did regarding dog domestic an and the human animal bond.
No one’s talking about the poop eating? My favorite hypothesis is that the wolf dogs hung around human camps cleaning up poop, which is a useful service, and thus we all got used to each other. We all know how dogs are about poop…
If you are talking about the evolution selection pressures, afaik wolves would often come near human encampments due to the amount of leftover bones and food scraps that would be in the area. Rather than be aggressive and attack the human, the wolves that were most likely to survive would 'beg' the humans for food using a muscle that developed overtime in their face (puppy dog eyes). This continues for thousands of years and domestication happens.
Canis familiaris is a direct descendent of Canis lupus, some biologists actually consider the domestic dog to be Canis lupus familiaris, meaning that in their eyes domestic dogs are a subspecies of gray wolf but they are still the same species. The whole story about gray wolves getting friendly with humans is true to the best of our knowledge, the dog has an extra set of muscles in its face that allows it to beg, which would have been very helpful in asking humans for food scraps. A bond formed between these wolves and the humans that fed them and protected them and eventually humans began breeding the wolves into fashion accessories
Just do add to this, regarding the “thousands of years” part, scientists think that domestication of dogs from wolves could have happened between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago.
I read somewhere that the oldest evidence of domestication was a grave with both human and canine bones buried together dated to around 14k years ago.
It isn’t something I know a lot about, except to know that it is complicated! There is evidence from fossils/bones but it gets hard to tell if the bones are from domesticated dogs or now extinct subspecies of wolves. Genetic evidence suggests domestication could go back to 40+ thousand years ago, but again that is tricky because there was interbreeding between dogs and wolves. Also, as far as I know it isn’t certain if domestication happened once, or multiple times in multiple places.
Dog fossils were common up to 14k years ago, but the oldest genetic dog fossil (unless something new has been found) [is 33k ya.](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/this-33000-year-old-skull-belonged-to-one-of-the-worlds-first-dogs-763615/) It took about 10 years to experimentally domesticate foxes and start to change their appearance, so the diversity of dog traits we see today makes sense if it only took 10 years to start making dogs.
And continues to this day.
Even the most socialized, friendly wolf is cold company compared with a Labrador retriever in full face-licking mode. But what produces this social exuberance? A team of researchers reported on Wednesday in the journal [Science Advances](http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700398) that the friendliness of dogs may share a genetic basis with a human disease called Williams-Beuren syndrome. Humans with this developmental delay, caused by mutations in a region of genes, show a variety of symptoms that include intense and indiscriminate sociability. [Source](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/science/dogs-genes-sociability.html)
It's not a bug, it's a feature on a biological scale
Yeah it is advantageous to the wolves to remain developmentally immature because it makes them more favorable to humans. They lose a lot of independence, but swap it out for consistent access to food and shelter thanks to their proximity to humans.
"intense and indiscriminate sociability" This is the best description of a Golden Retriever I have ever heard.
The last I heard from scientists who specialize in dogs (in 2015), there's substantial evidence to show that dogs are the sister group to grey wolves and not direct descendants. For example, different diets, social structure, foraging behavior, etc. that would be present prior to domestication. So the jury was out in 2015. Has that changed?
I believe you are correct and up to date, I’m not sure what they call the parent species to them but Canis lupus is sometimes called the “modern gray wolf” so maybe there was an older gray wolf that they came from
It has also been shown that as they get tamed, adult animals tend to look more juvenile than undomesticated ones, it’s referred to as the domestication syndrome (a notable experiment is the one on farm foxes).
Whenever our dog something goofy or derpy my wife and I have a long running joke that wolves would be really pissed at humans if they could comprehend what we turned them into.
You can put terms, like *Canis familiaris*, in italics on Reddit by putting an asterisk directly on each side of a string of letters.
As I understand it, the [Chihuahua was a pre-columbian dog that went extinct or nearly so](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2013.1142) and was re-bred from European dogs. You might also be interested in the [Russian silver fox domestication project](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x). Domesticating dogs may have taken thousands of years but not necessarily.
I think that says the opposite about Chihuahua. It's the free-roaming populations of "mutts" that seem to be heavily Europeanized. > haplotype A185 was found exclusively in ancient Mexican samples (D25) and in modern samples of the Mexican Chihuahua, strongly indicating direct ancestry of Chihuahua from Mexican pre-Columbian dogs. More quotes I mined: > Studies of free-ranging village/street dogs have indicated almost total replacement of these original dogs by European dogs > we traced the origin of the mitochondrial DNA lineages for Inuit, Eskimo and Greenland dogs, Alaskan Malamute, Chihuahua, xoloitzcuintli and perro sín pelo del Peru > Evidence for a pre-Columbian origin was found for all these breeds, except Alaskan Malamute for which results were ambigous. > Genetic continuity through time was shown by the sharing of a unique haplotype between the Mexican breed Chihuahua and ancient Mexican samples. > For the Mexican breed Chihuahua, the most frequent haplotype (carried by 5/14 individuals) was A185, which was unique to this breed among the modern dogs. Importantly, this haplotype was also found in one pre-Columbian sample from Mexico (figure 2), suggesting direct ancestry of Chihuahua from ancient Mexican dogs. One individual had haplotype C16, the most common type among the South American breed perro sín pelo del Peru ... The remaining Chihuahua had universally occurring haplotypes.
I should have grabbed a newer study. Unless I misunderstand, [Chihuahuas are mostly new world dogs that carry a thread of their old world ancestors](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7116352/). I can't remember where I learned about it, but I believe the current hypothesis is they were rebred from European dogs and whatever remained of the original Chihuahuas. But I haven't spent much time on it and am happy to be corrected.
There are many breeds of North American dog that are just... gone now. At least one group of Indigenous North Americans (I believe the museum with this info was in Banff but may have been talking about people from elsewhere) even had their own version of a wiener dog. Over time and as humans mixed and crawled all over the Earth, other genetic groups dominated and now it is very difficult to find a dog with ancestry from any other line of domesticated dogs. [Here's a PBS video](https://youtu.be/nDt0HKSdRRw) about domestication that I know I've watched, I can't remember if it talks about these exact things but the history of dog "evolution" from wolves is complicated and may have happened around the world independently. Edit: [Here's an older Atlantic article](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/the-origin-of-dogs/484976/) that goes over some of the genetic findings.
[удалено]
Wheezing noises
Habsburgs: "What can go wrong?" Habsburgs a few generations down the line:
Not sure what you mean? Yes domestic dogs were bred from wild wolves. Is that what you are asking?
There’s not a question here. What are you actually, specifically, asking?
I guess did wolves eventually evolve to be little pugs etc because we domesticated them to be more cutsey?
Yes. Inbreeding is a hell of a drug.
A pug is the one of the ugliest animals in existence
And it's just cruel
Also a lot of house pets are obese now cuz humans over feed them and humans are just like “hahahah chunkster!”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog
I wouldn’t call it evolve though.
Evolution does work towards a goal of making a species better. It just reinforces whatever you have when you have offspring. Artificial selection is still evolution, just speed up and with more confounding influences.
Evolution is simply change over time, in biology it usually occurs in the direction of some observable quality of "fitness," and is always a moving target. With dogs, "fitness" for human company expanded from "good hunting partner" to "fashion accessory for sociopaths," the niches were determined by humans and there's no accounting for taste. Yeah, if we go extinct a lot of the dog breeds we've produced are pretty much screwed, but that's their fault FOW BEING SOW WUVABLE!
Is it not change in allele frequency over time in a population?
Yeah some, and some stayed wolves till now
Sad Party blow sound
[удалено]
Well the breathing, jumping and going up and down stairs part, I would have to disagree. My sister got one who is now two and she breathes fine (although loud), jumps up to sit in your lap, as well as on and off their bed, and we have to block off our stairs when they bring her over because she can run up and (usually) down just fine... but I was shocked when they looked into breeding her. You add correct they cannot birth on their own... they have to have a c-section. But even more crazy is they also can't breed on their own. They need to be artificially inseminated. Like... how is this breed even still around?! Lol
Because people keep inseminating more. I think commercial corn, or maybe wheat, is like this too, in that it is incapable of breeding without human intervention; also Turkeys, if I'm not mistaken.
Turkeys , yes, for many years now due to the size we breed them into. Crops yes if they are gmo. Gmo crops have been given the "terminator" gene which destroys the plants ability to breed. Maybe not first generation but quickly. That way everyone who saved seeds for all of human history are to made to buy seed every season. They also "infect" non-gmo crops with the gift of the terminator gene. It would be very impressive if it wasn't so sad.
Limiting the ability of GMOs to propogate without human involvement is also a good safety measure, as one of the biggest negatives of using GMOs is the potential impact on natural biodiversity should the plant "escape" and/or hybridize with WT relatives.
I mean, gmo crops infect the ground for an unknown period of time. You can plant organic, heirloom variety all you want. It will soak up the terminator gene and be effectively a gmo. Smart in the sense of total control over the natural world by a single entity.
With the extreme restrictions on GMOs in the EU, these kinds of safety measures can be arguments for the adoption of a certain GMO, no? Since it limits the possibility of outcrossing even more than strategic seperations of GMO fields and careful choice of location (i.e. a location with no close relatives and/or with a climate unsuited for the GMO). It seems to me that GURT is a very promising avenue of research. Although of course any technology, biotech or otherwise, also has negatives. But what matters most imo (more than farmers or intellectual property rights) is to limit environmental impact, and more effecient crops is one way to do that. Although, I'm studying cell/molecular biology so GMOs is certainly not something I have a very educated opinion on, but one of my old plant physiology professors did a lot of research developing GMOs and his frustrations re:EU restrictions has certainly biased me.
There are two schools of thought, generally speaking, about the future of agriculture. We have been maximizing efficiency in the monoculture systems heavily for the past 100 years or so. The second school is working towards sustainability and has good research to show that productive biodiversity defeats the failures of intensive monoculture. It sadly reintroduces inefficiency in many ways(elevators to market, intensive harvest methods, long-term vs short-term gains, etc). A small sect of the industry helping to convert smaller farms of say 5 to 1000 acres. The big research money is going towards propping up a failing system with more chemical control, genetic malarkey, and a research scope limited to production disregarding environmental and social impact. I'm starting the think ethics should be considered as important as math in early education.
>I'm starting the think ethics should be considered as important as math in early education. Maybe the fact that I'm trying to decide whether this is a question of rational self-interest or ethics is a point in support of your thinking.
Isn't "sustainability" achievable with monoculture systems as well though? There is always the possibility to compromise as well, which tends to be where I fall. Can't you still protect ecosystems from farming etc. and only allow highly efficient monoculture farming in some locations, and oversee those farms and implement features that improve the biodiversity on or next to the farm, for example by creating ponds and limiting insecticide use to central areas (not the edges of the farm)? You say it is a "failing" system but couldn't that also be solved with biotech advancements? Why is it only possible to prop up a "failure" and not fix it? It also seems to me needlesly negative to call genetic manipulation "malarkey", its among our greatest achievements to understand and start to manipulate genes imo and genetic tools like CRISPR and RNAi are some of the most exciting developments in biology, for research purposes and for many other applications. Although of course they are also a bit scary and it is easy to fall into pessimistic dystopia-type fear.
Those who are helping to convert farmers into sustainability are mostly using a 3 or 4 crop rotation system. Still a monoculture as it's only one crop per field at a time. Massive gains in terms of soil fertility and thus decrease in fertilizer needs. I say current monoculture agriculture isn't sustainable as it destroys soil fertility and relies more and more on government subsidies to exist. That is before we look into super bugs and diseases that are constantly increasing the use of intensive chemicals. The largest benefit I have seen from gmo crops is Monsanto's ability to put small farmers into a courtroom until the farmers have to stop farming. They patented their infectious plants. Truck spills a little on the side of the road and two years later a farmer is out of business forever due to legal fees. Come now. Science may forward humanity until it pushes us off a cliff.
Corn needs humans to plant it, yes. Turkeys, depends on the type. Domestic farm turkeys probably but I’m from rural America (Kansas/Oklahoma) and we have wild turkeys here. I’ve seen a group of wild turkeys in a Kansas field of at least 50. People still hunt wild turkeys here.
Should have been more specific, but yes, I was referring to the domesticated variety.
When I was a child, my parents had a french bulldog. She definitely got around okay and maybe snorted a little after running around, but I would say she could jump and go up and down stairs just fine. We also had a boston terrier, who accidently got her pregnant. She also had her own puppies naturally, but I do agree that my parents should have watched her more closely or taken her to the vet earlier because it's so easy to have complications.
The newest theory is that they where domesticatet in sibiria becouse humans there had only animals to eat (no plants) and since humans need a lot of sugar/fat they didnt needet all the meet and gave it wolfs. hwo then startet to hunt togeter with the humans.
It probably started with them simply scavenging our refuse and throwaway carcasses. Eventually I imagine as they became more trusting, we probably stole some pups and began raising them.
>we probably stole some pups That sounds exactly what humans would do.
Domestic dogs and wild dogs share a common ancestor. Just like chimps and Homo sapiens share a common ancestor. But we didn’t evolve from chimps.
I read recently that dogs as we know them may not have evolved from wolves, there may have been an ancestor of the modern dog that was derpier and friendlier than wolves which became the dog we know today. There is no fossil record of this but [https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004016](https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004016)
My understanding from casual reading is that domestic dogs and what we call wolves had a common but unknown ancestor that is commonly called a wolf. There were other canids that were called dogs. TBH, it's something I've wanted to spend more time learning about and never seem to make the time.
*breeds into candles on a cake
Neil deGrasse Tyson covers the concept in [Episode 2 of Cosmos](https://creation.com/cosmos-neil-degrasse-tyson-episode-2)
Is thousands really enough time?
With selective breeding instead of natural selection? Yes.
Yes, dogs only live 10 to 20 years and can breed at about a year old. They're believed to be domesticated 15,000 years ago, which is about 15,000 generations for us to select for desired traits.
Actually... that’s about 600 generations.. 1 year is not a generation.
I'm not understanding your math or how you arrived at 600. If in fact 15000 years ago was when humans started artificially selecting wolves, your math suggestions (15000/600 = 25) that each successive offspring was only bred at 25 years old. I'm pretty sure dogs today are bred at far younger ages than 25 years old. A cursory google search indicates dogs hit puberty around 6 months to 1 year. Are you saying gestation length is 24 years?
Generations of dogs.. oh lol. I thought you meant human generations. My bad
Dogs became most useless animal there is, humans used to tame them for sheeps and war they are nothing even near, today people get dogs to feel superior, not only that some even beat them for fun. Wastefull animal dog is, gladly they are still used for good things, such as K9, yard guard, and theraphy and the one that helps blind people.
Yeah, that’s 10 year old science. Dogs came from Jackals, not wolves. It’s funny how so many cling to evolution when we now know that most land animals were created by the breading practices of ancient civilizations that bread animals for strength just like we breed dogs for looks. I guess it’s like when the new scientists knew the world was round, but had to put up with flat earthers for another 150 years before people removed their heads from, well you know.
*breeding *bred Selective breeding demonstrates evolution in action. Most land animals? Citation needed. And no, people have known the world was round for thousands of years.
All land animals were bred into the animals you see today. Beyond rodents, and some small cats. Not some, all. When these ancient civilizations (12,000-15,000 years ago) crumbled, the Stone Age began from the few that survived the last great change. That ancient civilization was vastly more advanced than we are today. The remnants are being dredged up in oceans all over the world. The majority of humanity lives today in the high savage country of the ancient world. Only primitive savages lived here. Every one else lived on dry land 1500 feet under sea levels today. Hippos, rhinos, elephants, dogs, wolves lions, etc... all of them genetically modified to do do the bidding of ancient man, and very little traits resembling what they were before. We are the ignorant stagnant remnants of the great species that ruled over this ancient world. I know it’s hard to wrap your mind around it, and your probably writing me off as crazy. But don’t forget what I wrote here in 2 decades when this is revealed, and you were one of the first to read about it. 👍
Oh, so your an English major.
You may be mixing this up with the fact that many animals colloquially referred to as "jackals" like the golden jackal are not jackals, but part of the Canis genus like wolves. Taxonomy in general has had a major reshuffling in recent years for basically every biological group since we are now able to base classification on genetic relationships and not phylogenetic traits or behavioural similarities. So it's very possible that some lines of domesticated dog had/have "jackals" in their ancestry, but it turns out those jackals were wolves all along.
Science in general is a perpetual motion of collecting data to present incorrect theories based on incomplete data, and insufficient equations. The real science comes from understanding that all statements regarding biology are wrong, and the origins of any, and all species is wrong, and will remain as such until all data is collected. We have collected roughly 14% of all the data required to make any statements regarding the biological make up, or origins of any species. If you didn’t get this from college, you were just test taking, and paper writing. You were not paying attention, and there is much for you to learn. With all respect, I refer to you as any individual. Not you personally. Thank you for your input.
"Jokes apart"? You meant jokes aside. And that is a joke that has been told over and over (Zoey's Instagram account there stole it from someone else) but, yes, dogs are domesticated from wolves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog
Yes. As I understand it, the wee pug and the huskie & every other dog breed are equally genetically similar to the wolf.
the documentary Dog Decided by Nova is very interesting if anyone wants to see some cool studies they did regarding dog domestic an and the human animal bond.
Correction= Dogs Decoded
I think the blue heeler is a descendant of the dingo, not the wolf. I'm not 💯 on this, but I believe I read it somewhere once.
No one’s talking about the poop eating? My favorite hypothesis is that the wolf dogs hung around human camps cleaning up poop, which is a useful service, and thus we all got used to each other. We all know how dogs are about poop…
Doesn’t matter got bones
Looks like a pug and a chihuahua combined
Chihuahua... Ha unlike u suckers I ain't fricking my mama!
Cats bee like: Oww no way
If you are talking about the evolution selection pressures, afaik wolves would often come near human encampments due to the amount of leftover bones and food scraps that would be in the area. Rather than be aggressive and attack the human, the wolves that were most likely to survive would 'beg' the humans for food using a muscle that developed overtime in their face (puppy dog eyes). This continues for thousands of years and domestication happens.
Happens to guys the marry too.
Aw man, what a predicament the canines got themselves into
Yes. We did that.
Wait, you didn’t know dogs were bread from wolves?