Next time you want a dog

[Coyote]

Human hubris, fucking up Nature as usual.

DERP

There are no "natural" dogs, fucktard. Dogs are a creation of man.

Yes and no....dogs co-evolved with humanity. If you want to look at "natural" dogs - look at what are commonly called "village dogs" or "pariah dogs" or "street dogs". The whole purebred dog thing is actually a creation of the Victorian era.

Nope.

Dogs were bred from wolves. Camp wolves were domesticated and using selective breeding ALL of the dogs that exist now were created.

{
Dogs were just a loose category of wolves until around 15,000 years ago, when our ancestors tamed and began to manage them. We fed them, bred them, and spread them from continent to continent. While other wolf descendants died out, dogs grew into a new species. We invented the dog.

We didn't pick just any wolves for this project. We picked the ones that could help us and get along with us. Dogs are dumber than monkeys and other mammals in many ways, but they excel at one thing: interpreting human behavior. Three years ago, scientists tested this talent in wolves, adult dogs, puppies raised in households, and puppies raised in kennels. The wolves couldn't read humans well, but the puppies could—even the puppies raised in kennels. Through selection, we've hardwired human compatibility into dogs. We've made a species in our image.
}
Our creepiest genetic invention: the dog.

Now Slate is a Nazi hate site that spews the kind of shit that Pillowbite does, but they are right on the science part.

There's some dispute with that actually. Have you ever read Ray Coppinger's book on dogs? It's really well worth the read and it (among other research) takes a different path on the domestication of dogs, one which in my view makes a lot of sense. Domestication usually begins with a species that gradually evolves to live close to human habitats - the flight/fight response is suppressed. Dogs evolved from a common wolf ancester - but they evolved, they weren't selectively bred until later. They evolved as scavengers - a role they still have as ferals around the world. Their jaws are weaker than any wolf, their instincts are different - unlike wolves they have evolved to bond with humans. There are a lot of interesting experiments on the differences between wolves and dogs (your link is one). This also explains why wolves never really become like dogs. Even if you bottle raise a wolf pup from birth - it is still a wolf. It is shy, powerful, not strongly bonded to humanity - it's not useful to a primitive human as a hunting partner. It's hard to imagine primitive people starting with a wild wolf and selectively breeding - that is resource intensive and doesn't make sense in a survivalist society. But if you start the process with an animal that is already partly domesticated through close association with human habitats - it's a bit easier. To me it makes sense that they co-evolved.


Dogs, But Not Wolves, Use Humans As Tools (this one might be based on the one you linked to)

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/09/why-dogs-turn-us-help

There is a documentary somewhere where the Russians did a long experiment with caged wolves. Some of them almost never came to trust or work with humans, while others VERY quickly trusted humans and easily became domesticated. It has to do with the genetics of the wolves themselves, humans didn't breed anything into wolves 10,000 years ago. Some wolves were predisposed to form a symbiotic relationship with humans which was beneficial to both.

They did something like that with foxes as well and that was interesting - they selected for the "tamest", most easily handled, least frightened. The other side of that selection process was that they also started to see altered morphology. The animals showed white markings, more "infantile" characteristics (in many ways, selecting for tameness is also selecting for traits that occur in the very young) - they were seeing more domed heads, dropped ears for example.

 

[Coyote]

California is considering legislation that would require all businesses that sell animals to get their stock from shelters rather than breeders. As you can imagine the breeders are freaking the hell out. I think a mix would be best, no need to put all those people out of business but certainly it would be preferable to save animals already born. This genetic degeneration that the OP points out is something I had never heard of before but it makes sense. It is the same as the few human families that used to rule Europe. They inbred with each other exclusively and they developed many genetically caused diseases among their small population.

Research has found that bears and wolves, even in a national park the size of Yellowstone, need a larger breeding population to stay genetically healthy. Biologists are finding that the breaking up of natural range of these animal populations which goes from the central US to Northern Canada, because of privately owned land, cuts off populations and they are relegated to what in essence is a genetic island. Steps are being taken to work with land owners to reestablish the normal very large range for these large animals to keep their gene pools healthy.

I am very pro rescue and shelter dog but I wouldn't agree with that. There are good breeders who are dedicated to producing solid, healthy dogs - they don't breed often, they health test...there is space for them and purpose bred dogs like working stock dogs etc.

A lot of pure breeds have bottle necks in their genetic pools - sometimes there are just too few, sometimes it's a "popular sire" syndrome - but once the studbooks close, that is that. Breeds like Bernese Mountain dogs have a very small genetic pool and a high high rate of certain cancers. What I dislike about the AKC (and othe registries) is that the emphasis is on the "pure bred" dog NOT the healthy dog. Years ago dalmation breeders wanted to eradicate the gene in their breed that leads to high uric acid concentrations (almost every dalmation is a carrier or afflicted) - they bred back to a pointer (one of the breeds that made up the dalmation) and then selectively bred for a dog that looked like a dalmation but did not carry that gene. The end result looked, acted and bred true like a dalmation. Caused HUGE consternation, they were blocked from registry and finally allowed to be registered but with a special designation (that they weren't quite pure). It was ridiculous - better "pure" then genetically healthy!

 

[bodecea]

A little off topic...we had an elderly couple here in North San Diego County that got caught hording dogs...mostly Yorkies.....the final count was about 190! It was horrible. Some had to be put down due to malnutrition, in-breeding etc. but we were fortunate to adopt one of them. Poor thing lost about half her teeth, 7 years old and we've had to house train her and socialize her with our other dogs and she had some bowed leg issues, probably rickets. I guess she may have had a few litters tho she's fixed now. She's a sweetheart!

 

[Coyote]

A little off topic...we had an elderly couple here in North San Diego County that got caught hording dogs...mostly Yorkies.....the final count was about 190! It was horrible. Some had to be put down due to malnutrition, in-breeding etc. but we were fortunate to adopt one of them. Poor thing lost about half her teeth, 7 years old and we've had to house train her and socialize her with our other dogs and she had some bowed leg issues, probably rickets. I guess she may have had a few litters tho she's fixed now. She's a sweetheart!

Hoarder (and puppy mill) dogs can be very challenging to adopt - they have special needs, especially social. Bless you for taking one on

 

[Coyote]

DERP

There are no "natural" dogs, fucktard. Dogs are a creation of man.

Yes and no....dogs co-evolved with humanity. If you want to look at "natural" dogs - look at what are commonly called "village dogs" or "pariah dogs" or "street dogs". The whole purebred dog thing is actually a creation of the Victorian era.

Nope.

Dogs were bred from wolves. Camp wolves were domesticated and using selective breeding ALL of the dogs that exist now were created.

{
Dogs were just a loose category of wolves until around 15,000 years ago, when our ancestors tamed and began to manage them. We fed them, bred them, and spread them from continent to continent. While other wolf descendants died out, dogs grew into a new species. We invented the dog.

We didn't pick just any wolves for this project. We picked the ones that could help us and get along with us. Dogs are dumber than monkeys and other mammals in many ways, but they excel at one thing: interpreting human behavior. Three years ago, scientists tested this talent in wolves, adult dogs, puppies raised in households, and puppies raised in kennels. The wolves couldn't read humans well, but the puppies could—even the puppies raised in kennels. Through selection, we've hardwired human compatibility into dogs. We've made a species in our image.
}
Our creepiest genetic invention: the dog.

Now Slate is a Nazi hate site that spews the kind of shit that Pillowbite does, but they are right on the science part.

There's some dispute with that actually. Have you ever read Ray Coppinger's book on dogs? It's really well worth the read and it (among other research) takes a different path on the domestication of dogs, one which in my view makes a lot of sense. Domestication usually begins with a species that gradually evolves to live close to human habitats - the flight/fight response is suppressed. Dogs evolved from a common wolf ancester - but they evolved, they weren't selectively bred until later. They evolved as scavengers - a role they still have as ferals around the world. Their jaws are weaker than any wolf, their instincts are different - unlike wolves they have evolved to bond with humans. There are a lot of interesting experiments on the differences between wolves and dogs (your link is one). This also explains why wolves never really become like dogs. Even if you bottle raise a wolf pup from birth - it is still a wolf. It is shy, powerful, not strongly bonded to humanity - it's not useful to a primitive human as a hunting partner. It's hard to imagine primitive people starting with a wild wolf and selectively breeding - that is resource intensive and doesn't make sense in a survivalist society. But if you start the process with an animal that is already partly domesticated through close association with human habitats - it's a bit easier. To me it makes sense that they co-evolved.


Dogs, But Not Wolves, Use Humans As Tools (this one might be based on the one you linked to)

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/09/why-dogs-turn-us-help

There is a documentary somewhere where the Russians did a long experiment with caged wolves. Some of them almost never came to trust or work with humans, while others VERY quickly trusted humans and easily became domesticated. It has to do with the genetics of the wolves themselves, humans didn't breed anything into wolves 10,000 years ago. Some wolves were predisposed to form a symbiotic relationship with humans which was beneficial to both.

They did something like that with foxes as well and that was interesting - they selected for the "tamest", most easily handled, least frightened. The other side of that selection process was that they also started to see altered morphology. The animals showed white markings, more "infantile" characteristics (in many ways, selecting for tameness is also selecting for traits that occur in the very young) - they were seeing more domed heads, dropped ears for example.

As a side note - I have a friend who raises domesticated deer. Unlike cattle or sheep they are still pretty wild, with a high flight ratio. Fawns MUST be bottle raised or they are just like wild deer. In selecting for more domestic traits, deer farmers are also coming up with white markings - like dogs, like horses, like cattle

 

[ChrisL]

Anyhow, moving along (and ignoring the weirdos - lol).

A friend of mine got the cutest little Westy recently. I love those cute little things. She puts a little barrette in her hair. Her name is Elvira. If I was to get a dog, I would give consideration to a Westy because of this dog. SOOOO adorable. Getting a dog right now is just not feasible for me though, I'm too busy to be there for it.

Her name is Tabitha, not Elvira. Oops. I knew it was some witchy sounding name though.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

There is a documentary somewhere where the Russians did a long experiment with caged wolves. Some of them almost never came to trust or work with humans, while others VERY quickly trusted humans and easily became domesticated. It has to do with the genetics of the wolves themselves, humans didn't breed anything into wolves 10,000 years ago. Some wolves were predisposed to form a symbiotic relationship with humans which was beneficial to both.

You are a very ignorant and uneducated dolt. You REALLY should take a night school class in the basics of science.

{
The ancestral wolves that evolved into domestic dogs may have carried genetic mutations that made them socialise more readily with people. What’s more, the same genes cause excessive sociability in humans.

It was already known that even if wolves have been raised with humans from birth, they never become as close to people or look at them as often as dogs tend to.

Several years ago, Bridgett vonHoldt at Princeton University in New Jersey and her colleagues linked this “hypersociability” to a 28-gene stretch of the dog genome that includes canine versions of the genes responsible for Williams syndrome – a human disorder characterised by extreme sociability. However, they had no direct proof that these genes caused it.





To find out whether they do, vonHoldt and her team tested the behaviour of 18 domestic dogs and 10 wolves, all of which had been raised identically with constant human contact. Each animal was scored for its hypersociability towards humans. As expected, the dogs scored higher than the wolves.

The researchers then sequenced the key region of each animal’s genome in fine detail and searched for structural variations – deletions or insertions of genetic material – that seemed to match well with their social behaviour. They found four, including two in genes called GTF2I and GTF2IRD1. These genes are known to cause the hypersociability involved in Williams syndrome in humans, and GTF2I has also been shown to cause hypersociability in mice.}


First dogs may have been extremely sociable wolves

Science, you miserable troll, is not the mindless hate you read on DailKOS, but rather actual study.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The AKC and the show rings have done catastrophic damage to dogs.

Human hubris, fucking up Nature as usual.

DERP

There are no "natural" dogs, fucktard. Dogs are a creation of man.

Yes and no....dogs co-evolved with humanity. If you want to look at "natural" dogs - look at what are commonly called "village dogs" or "pariah dogs" or "street dogs". The whole purebred dog thing is actually a creation of the Victorian era.

Nope.

Dogs were bred from wolves. Camp wolves were domesticated and using selective breeding ALL of the dogs that exist now were created.

{
Dogs were just a loose category of wolves until around 15,000 years ago, when our ancestors tamed and began to manage them. We fed them, bred them, and spread them from continent to continent. While other wolf descendants died out, dogs grew into a new species. We invented the dog.

We didn't pick just any wolves for this project. We picked the ones that could help us and get along with us. Dogs are dumber than monkeys and other mammals in many ways, but they excel at one thing: interpreting human behavior. Three years ago, scientists tested this talent in wolves, adult dogs, puppies raised in households, and puppies raised in kennels. The wolves couldn't read humans well, but the puppies could—even the puppies raised in kennels. Through selection, we've hardwired human compatibility into dogs. We've made a species in our image.
}
Our creepiest genetic invention: the dog.

Now Slate is a Nazi hate site that spews the kind of shit that Pillowbite does, but they are right on the science part.

There's some dispute with that actually. Have you ever read Ray Coppinger's book on dogs? It's really well worth the read and it (among other research) takes a different path on the domestication of dogs, one which in my view makes a lot of sense. Domestication usually begins with a species that gradually evolves to live close to human habitats - the flight/fight response is suppressed. Dogs evolved from a common wolf ancester - but they evolved, they weren't selectively bred until later. They evolved as scavengers - a role they still have as ferals around the world. Their jaws are weaker than any wolf, their instincts are different - unlike wolves they have evolved to bond with humans. There are a lot of interesting experiments on the differences between wolves and dogs (your link is one). This also explains why wolves never really become like dogs. Even if you bottle raise a wolf pup from birth - it is still a wolf. It is shy, powerful, not strongly bonded to humanity - it's not useful to a primitive human as a hunting partner. It's hard to imagine primitive people starting with a wild wolf and selectively breeding - that is resource intensive and doesn't make sense in a survivalist society. But if you start the process with an animal that is already partly domesticated through close association with human habitats - it's a bit easier. To me it makes sense that they co-evolved.


Dogs, But Not Wolves, Use Humans As Tools (this one might be based on the one you linked to)

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/09/why-dogs-turn-us-help

There is some of what I view as psuedo-scientific dispute regarding the origin of dogs, led by those who see social goals rather than fact as the goal of research. Sadly, Europe and America have spent the last generation mal-educating people to the point that political impact rather than the discovery of fact are the primary imputes of virtually all university based research, Political goals are defined and all results MUST conform with the political agenda, the days of going where the facts lead are gone. We do not teach that facts are supreme, but rather that political and social goals are the primary duty of researchers.

My field of research deals with the movement of products through manufacturing and logistical processes. My Ph.D. is in supply chain management and I closely follow the work of my mentor, the late great Dr. Eli Goldratt. I am thus shielded from perversions that have infected most of the scientific community. Make no mistake though, we have entered a new dark age, science is the servant of of the leftist agenda in the West and must always conform, as heretics are dealt with harshly

It is sad that in the days of Mao, China was forced to conform all scientific research to the goals of the party. Now China has far more freedom of intellectual pursuit than the West, does, far more. The Left has assumed the role of the Catholic Church in the days of Copernicus.

So there are indeed those who carry water for the PETA agenda, but rarely can their research hold up to more than cursory examination.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

As a side note - I have a friend who raises domesticated deer. Unlike cattle or sheep they are still pretty wild, with a high flight ratio. Fawns MUST be bottle raised or they are just like wild deer. In selecting for more domestic traits, deer farmers are also coming up with white markings - like dogs, like horses, like cattle

So they breed for desired traits. This is what animal husbandry is all about.

 

[Coyote]

[

As a side note - I have a friend who raises domesticated deer. Unlike cattle or sheep they are still pretty wild, with a high flight ratio. Fawns MUST be bottle raised or they are just like wild deer. In selecting for more domestic traits, deer farmers are also coming up with white markings - like dogs, like horses, like cattle

So they breed for desired traits. This is what animal husbandry is all about.

Yup, but what I find interesting is the unintended traits that come along with the temperament selected for and it's across species.

 

[Coyote]

Human hubris, fucking up Nature as usual.

DERP

There are no "natural" dogs, fucktard. Dogs are a creation of man.

Yes and no....dogs co-evolved with humanity. If you want to look at "natural" dogs - look at what are commonly called "village dogs" or "pariah dogs" or "street dogs". The whole purebred dog thing is actually a creation of the Victorian era.

Nope.

Dogs were bred from wolves. Camp wolves were domesticated and using selective breeding ALL of the dogs that exist now were created.

{
Dogs were just a loose category of wolves until around 15,000 years ago, when our ancestors tamed and began to manage them. We fed them, bred them, and spread them from continent to continent. While other wolf descendants died out, dogs grew into a new species. We invented the dog.

We didn't pick just any wolves for this project. We picked the ones that could help us and get along with us. Dogs are dumber than monkeys and other mammals in many ways, but they excel at one thing: interpreting human behavior. Three years ago, scientists tested this talent in wolves, adult dogs, puppies raised in households, and puppies raised in kennels. The wolves couldn't read humans well, but the puppies could—even the puppies raised in kennels. Through selection, we've hardwired human compatibility into dogs. We've made a species in our image.
}
Our creepiest genetic invention: the dog.

Now Slate is a Nazi hate site that spews the kind of shit that Pillowbite does, but they are right on the science part.

There's some dispute with that actually. Have you ever read Ray Coppinger's book on dogs? It's really well worth the read and it (among other research) takes a different path on the domestication of dogs, one which in my view makes a lot of sense. Domestication usually begins with a species that gradually evolves to live close to human habitats - the flight/fight response is suppressed. Dogs evolved from a common wolf ancester - but they evolved, they weren't selectively bred until later. They evolved as scavengers - a role they still have as ferals around the world. Their jaws are weaker than any wolf, their instincts are different - unlike wolves they have evolved to bond with humans. There are a lot of interesting experiments on the differences between wolves and dogs (your link is one). This also explains why wolves never really become like dogs. Even if you bottle raise a wolf pup from birth - it is still a wolf. It is shy, powerful, not strongly bonded to humanity - it's not useful to a primitive human as a hunting partner. It's hard to imagine primitive people starting with a wild wolf and selectively breeding - that is resource intensive and doesn't make sense in a survivalist society. But if you start the process with an animal that is already partly domesticated through close association with human habitats - it's a bit easier. To me it makes sense that they co-evolved.


Dogs, But Not Wolves, Use Humans As Tools (this one might be based on the one you linked to)

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/09/why-dogs-turn-us-help

There is some of what I view as psuedo-scientific dispute regarding the origin of dogs, led by those who see social goals rather than fact as the goal of research. Sadly, Europe and America have spent the last generation mal-educating people to the point that political impact rather than the discovery of fact are the primary imputes of virtually all university based research, Political goals are defined and all results MUST conform with the political agenda, the days of going where the facts lead are gone. We do not teach that facts are supreme, but rather that political and social goals are the primary duty of researchers.

My field of research deals with the movement of products through manufacturing and logistical processes. My Ph.D. is in supply chain management and I closely follow the work of my mentor, the late great Dr. Eli Goldratt. I am thus shielded from perversions that have infected most of the scientific community. Make no mistake though, we have entered a new dark age, science is the servant of of the leftist agenda in the West and must always conform, as heretics are dealt with harshly

It is sad that in the days of Mao, China was forced to conform all scientific research to the goals of the party. Now China has far more freedom of intellectual pursuit than the West, does, far more. The Left has assumed the role of the Catholic Church in the days of Copernicus.

So there are indeed those who carry water for the PETA agenda, but rarely can their research hold up to more than cursory examination.

This actually has nothing to do with PETA, nor am I in any way a supporter of PETA. Their goal is to end the existence of domestic animals. I'm not sure why you are dragging politics into this at all.

My chosen field is animal behavior and the evolution of domestic animals. I'm also very interested in genetics and current research in these areas, have been for years. If dogs are something you interested in you should check out that book. It is not political

 

[Coyote]

[

There is a documentary somewhere where the Russians did a long experiment with caged wolves. Some of them almost never came to trust or work with humans, while others VERY quickly trusted humans and easily became domesticated. It has to do with the genetics of the wolves themselves, humans didn't breed anything into wolves 10,000 years ago. Some wolves were predisposed to form a symbiotic relationship with humans which was beneficial to both.

You are a very ignorant and uneducated dolt. You REALLY should take a night school class in the basics of science.

{
The ancestral wolves that evolved into domestic dogs may have carried genetic mutations that made them socialise more readily with people. What’s more, the same genes cause excessive sociability in humans.

It was already known that even if wolves have been raised with humans from birth, they never become as close to people or look at them as often as dogs tend to.

Several years ago, Bridgett vonHoldt at Princeton University in New Jersey and her colleagues linked this “hypersociability” to a 28-gene stretch of the dog genome that includes canine versions of the genes responsible for Williams syndrome – a human disorder characterised by extreme sociability. However, they had no direct proof that these genes caused it.





To find out whether they do, vonHoldt and her team tested the behaviour of 18 domestic dogs and 10 wolves, all of which had been raised identically with constant human contact. Each animal was scored for its hypersociability towards humans. As expected, the dogs scored higher than the wolves.

The researchers then sequenced the key region of each animal’s genome in fine detail and searched for structural variations – deletions or insertions of genetic material – that seemed to match well with their social behaviour. They found four, including two in genes called GTF2I and GTF2IRD1. These genes are known to cause the hypersociability involved in Williams syndrome in humans, and GTF2I has also been shown to cause hypersociability in mice.}


First dogs may have been extremely sociable wolves

Science, you miserable troll, is not the mindless hate you read on DailKOS, but rather actual study.

You realize those same mutations are what allowed those ancestral wolves to hang out in human habitations and scavenge, to successfully exploit a new niche?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Yup, but what I find interesting is the unintended traits that come along with the temperament selected for and it's across species.

Selective breeding is a tricky thing. You get the whole genetic package from the breeding pairs. This brings some unwanted attributes along with the desired ones.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

This actually has nothing to do with PETA, nor am I in any way a supporter of PETA. Their goal is to end the existence of domestic animals. I'm not sure why you are dragging politics into this at all.

My chosen field is animal behavior and the evolution of domestic animals. I'm also very interested in genetics and current research in these areas, have been for years. If dogs are something you interested in you should check out that book. It is not political

I bring politics in because of the OP.

But thank you, I will read the book you suggest.

 

[Compost]

Anyhow, moving along (and ignoring the weirdos - lol).

A friend of mine got the cutest little Westy recently. I love those cute little things. She puts a little barrette in her hair. Her name is Elvira. If I was to get a dog, I would give consideration to a Westy because of this dog. SOOOO adorable. Getting a dog right now is just not feasible for me though, I'm too busy to be there for it.

Westies are spunky! It's a terrier thing. I've heard from Westie owners that they are very demanding about attention. They will not be ignored!

I'm kind of a hard core herding dog enthusiast, but currently have two "oddball" dogs I never thought I'd have. One is an Akita mix, the other is a terrier (maybe rat terrier?) - border collie type mix. And damn...that terrier side, it's the dark force He critters so intensely NOTHING can break the concentration!

It's a fascinating and curious thing about mixed breeds. I read somewhere that the part of the mix that is most evident physically, tends to also be the dominant personality/temperment trait(s) as well. I used to walk other people's dogs for a living. One of my favorite customers was a Lab/Akita mix. She had the prick ears and the curled tail of an Akita. Indeed she had the intensity of the Akita and very little of the goofiness of the Lab. One day we were walking and a squirrel ran right under her nose. She picked it up. I told her to drop it. She gave me a look that said, "sorry, no can do". She bit down and dropped the now dead squirrel and moved on.

On the other hand, I once had a little dog of unknown ancestry. Her appearance strongly suggested some terrier, though. One day in the yard, a ground squirrel happened by. She grabbed it. I told her to drop it. She did. She was such a good girl. When a puppy she'd dig in the yard. It only took two times of banishing her after digging to get her to stop. That trainability is so unterrier. LOL