Domesticated canines & humans...

[SSgtBaloo]

I do not recall where I first heard this notion. I do remember hearing some anthropologist or other claiming that the "Humans domesticated wolves and wound up with dogs" scenario wasn't quite true. Instead, he claimed what happened between humans and wolves was more a matter of each "domesticating" the other.

By this, I think he meant that the process of domestication was not a matter of humans going out, killing wolves, and raising (some) wolf puppies, but rather, that human/wolf interaction resulted in some wolf packs benefitting from contact with some human tribes (that is what one would call a "pack" of humans, isn't it?) and vice-versa. The amount of contact and interaction between the wolves and the humans increased gradually, until there were proto-dogs allied with humans.

My questions:[list=1] What (if any) scientists espouse this theory?

Is the domestication scenario outlined above "correct?"

If not, what are the theories regarding how humans and canines managed to hook up?

If so, then how have humans been changed by this relationship?
(I doubt it can be one-way, although I'll bet the changes in humans, if any, are more behavioral than physical.)[/list=1]I am rather fond of this theory, as it seems to make sense, but just because it appeasl to me doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

~~Baloo

[light strand]

Here's (http://www.blarg.net/~critter/articles/canines/ancient3.htm) an interesting article on domesication, and an experiment being done now on foxes.

As for some theories on how they hooked up, my guess is that much like today (with feral dogs) wolves were attraced to the remains of human feeding. Bones and other edible tasty morsels were tossed aside, and wolves found them an easy source of free food.

Humans originally benefited from dogs by their working abilities. Dogs were able to assisit them in hunting by their ability to track down food, with their keen sense of smell, that men would have been unable to find other ways. Dogs also were able to use their speed in running down prey like elk. I believe that the oldest breeds are the working breeds, (i.e.the wolfhounds and terriers). They also eliminated pests like rats, and provided protection.

Eventually they were used for companionship by the elites, thus the advent of the lapdog.

[peace]

You are assuming (incorrectly) that "domestication" process involves changing individual dogs or humans (possible) and transferring these changes to the next generation (impossible). Acquired traits are not inherited. Period. First, changes must occur. Then they may or may not be inherited.
Dance from here.

[SSgtBaloo]

Originally posted by peace
You are assuming (incorrectly) that "domestication" process involves changing individual dogs or humans (possible) and transferring these changes to the next generation (impossible). Acquired traits are not inherited. Period. First, changes must occur. Then they may or may not be inherited.
Dance from here. I'm not assuming that at all. I do assume that wolves are not similar to dogs, and speculate that modern humans are, perhaps, different from pre-domestication humans. Just how we might differ from our dogless ancestors I can't say (if we are different at all).

~~Baloo

[SSgtBaloo]

Originally posted by Baloo
I do assume that wolves are not similar to dogs...To clarify, I mean that dogs do not have the same appearance as wolves, and generally exhibit neotenous (immature) wolf behaviors. I am not saying that dogs and wolves are completely dissimilar. In fact, I have recently read that, based on genetic analysis canis familiaris has been reclassified as canis lupus familiaris.

~~Baloo

[Chronos]

peace, I don't see that the OP is assuming that at all. Domestication is an evolutionary process. In the classic, one-way scenario, humans find animals with desireable traits, and breed them in such a way that those traits are enhanced in the offspring. In a two-way scenario, you might suppose that those tribes which were genetically more predisposed to assosciate with canines would have a higher chance of survival, and thus pass on the dog-friendly genes.

[peace]

Baloo, I think that biologically we are not different from our predessors of 10,000 years ago. Culturally, of course. Dog is not a totally separate species, can be successfully crossed with wolfes (produce fecund progeny). The whole story of dog domestication is fascinating and inprecedented/unique. It only shows that evolution can be fast, if the changes in the environment are fast.
Natural behavior is inherited (instincts, etc.). The "wildest" wolf can exhibit some "tameness". Dogs were bred in such way, that only the "tamest" survived and were allowed to produce progeny. What I am saying, is that dogs do not exhibit anything which was not present in the original wolves. If there is something, it is due to spontaneous mutations during breeding. But it is impossible "to bring" anything from outside.

[Colibri]

originally posted by peace

Natural behavior is inherited (instincts, etc.). The "wildest" wolf can exhibit some "tameness".

Behavior in animals as complex as wolves/dogs is not just inherited, it is also partially learned. One reason wolves were so easily tamed was that their social system was co-opted by humans; dogs become part of a human "pack."

A scientist I formerly worked with succeeded in domesticating the Paca (a large tropical rodent related to the Guinea Pig) several years ago, by breaking down its existing solitary social system and converting it to one that would tolerate life in crowded cages. These changes seem to have taken place far more rapidly than can be accounted for by selective breeding.

[Gaspode]

Originally posted by peace
What I am saying, is that dogs do not exhibit anything which was not present in the original wolves. If there is something, it is due to spontaneous mutations during breeding. But it is impossible "to bring" anything from outside.
Possibly not true. Primitive dogs/advanced wolves such as dingos, pariah dogs etc. rarely hunt in large packs or gather together for extended periods and seem to prefer living in pairs. There is speculation around that the reason that they are more solitary creatures than wolves is that humans either deliberately or accidentally bred them with solitary canids such as jackals or coyotes, possibly in an attempt to get samller or more tropically adapted animals (true wolves are only found in the wild as far south as northern India).
As for the affect dogs had on humans, someone not long ago published theory (don't ask me where, but there was quite a bit of publicity surrounding it so it should be easy to track down) that the reason why modern humans succeeded over the apparently more intelligent Neanderthal is becasue we had dogs. This allowed us to forgo both the physical neccesity of comlex nasal and aural structures, and the associated brain functions because we had dogs to smell and hear for us. He further hypothesised that this allowed us to develop the unique facial/pharyngeal structures that give us the wide range of vocalisations we have, as well as freeing up brain space for more abstract thought.
Can't say I agree with it for a number of reasons, but there's one response to point 4 in the OP.

[peace]

Colibri, sorry for my akward phrase. I meant that the social/learned behavior is not inherited. I just repeat what has been accepted since C. Darwin. For the same reason I may understand that dogs helped Homo sapiens to prevail, but I know that dogs or anything else in the environment did not cause humans to develop anything, including "unique facial/pharyngeal structures" . Nor did they loose the ability to smell. They might "unlearn" how to smell, if the didn;t do it day in and day out, but if they had to smell to survive as the species, they would smell.
The Gaspode's example just confirms what I said: jackals and coyotes traits were bred into wolfs. As to Paca,(I am not familiar with the research) the young were born in cages. If the young were born in the wild, the reaction to cages would have been not different. In other words, "selective breeding" did not brought the changes, "selective rearing" did.

[Gaspode]

[Originally posted by peace
the social/learned behaviour is not inherited
Social behaviour is necessarily inherited, otherwise every organism would have the same behaviour patterns as a common ancestor. That would mean that a horse, a honeybee or a coral polyp would all behave the same socially if raised with any other species. This is obviously untrue. A honeybee raised with dogs will remain a honeybee, and a dog raised with sheep won't butt heads to gain social dominance. The social behaviour is hardwired in, not learned.

know that dogs or anything else in the environment did not cause humans to develop anything, including "unique facial/pharyngeal structures"

You have a very strict definition of cause. You would similarly say I suppose that having to swim did not cause dolphins to develop fins, which is technically true. It allowed them to, it gave a greater reproductive advantage to those that did, but it didn't cause it. Do you mean that what did cause it was a stray piece of radioactive material or ray of cosmic radiation? If so fair enough.

Nor did they loose the ability to smell. They might "unlearn" how to smell, if the didn;t do it day in and day out, but if they had to smell to survive as the species, they would smell."

Humans have largely lost the ability to smell. In fact most primates have, one of my problems with the original theory, but humans moreso than most. No matter how hard you try there are concentrations of molecules you simply cannot detect with any amount of hard work and practice. We don't have the chemoreceptors in the necessary numbers, nor do we have the neural areas necessary to process the data. We have lost the ability to smell just as penguins have lost the ability to fly.

Gaspode's example just confirms what I said: jackals and coyotes traits were bred into wolfs."

Yes but using genetic material brought in from outside the wolf pool to produce something diffrent from a wolf.

the young were born in cages. If the young were born in the wild, the reaction to cages would have been not different. In other words, "selective breeding" did not brought the changes, "selective rearing" did.
Apparently not the case. I've seen footage of these animals and the control animals, not selected for any traits, remain very wild. They cringe from humans and chew the bars of their cages as most farm foxes do. All animals have the same degree of human exposure. There have been real changes in brain structure and chemistry in these animals, as the linked article relates.

[Colibri]

originally posted by Gaspode

The social behaviour is hardwired in, not learned.

True in some cases, false in others. Of course it's absurd to compare honeybees and dogs. But a dog raised by humans will behave very differently from one raised by wolves.

originally posted by Gaspode

Apparently not the case. I've seen footage of these animals and the control animals, not selected for any traits, remain very wild. They cringe from humans and chew the bars of their cages as most farm foxes do.

What are you talking about, Gaspode? My original example was about Pacas, which are rodents, not foxes.

[peace]

Gaspode, we agree that something is "wired". You call it "social behavior". I call it instincts. To avoid an unnecessary argument, let's call it "learned behavior" and "ability to learn". A honeybee will "dance" regardless of its "rearing". A puppy will not learn to catch a freesbee faster because his father learned the skill.
Humans did not loose the ability to smell. How do you know that your ancestors had it 10,000 years ago and "lost"? You seem to understand that, in your next sentence: we don't have the chemoreceptors. And the penguins "did not loose the ability to fly". I do not know about the fossil penguins, but our contemporaries never flied: they have no "flyable" wings. The rudimentary wings they have do not support fly. They never had anything bigger, they did not loose anything.
I was confused with foxes and Pacas. And I did not see any
"linked" article.
Finally, I'm not saying that Pacas or rats can't inherently be domesticated. Widely used Fisher rats (white lab rat) is much tamer than its wild relatives (it's not a separate species, even not a subspecies!). The young are born tamer and would not, probably survive in the wild. But it happened only because "preexisting" "tame" traits were allowed to propagate, while the "wild" ones were not.

[cjharker]

Do you think that our domesticated animals, specifically our pets, have become smarter in a more human-like way than their ancestors? Say, my cats are smarter than cats of ten thousand years ago even though some of their primal instincts are gone or in hibernation? Maybe in another ten thousand years we'll be able to really communicate with them.

One of the interesting thing about cats is that they don't meow to each other except kitten to mother and vice versa. Those of you with two adults cats probably notice that they never just "talk" to each other. But they "talk" to me all the time; one of them is a regular chattermouth. Is this the beginning of human-animal communications?

[Moirai]

Originally posted by peace
Baloo, I think that biologically we are not different from our predessors of 10,000 years ago

Um, peace, it has been a while since my last physical anthro class, but I seem to recall certain physical and biological changes were possible in that short a period of time. If a generation is 40 years, then 10,000 years would allow for 250 generations.

Would this be enough time to see physical or biological changes? I really don't know, but it didn't sound right.

[peace]

EJsGirl,
What changes are you talking about? There petentially are changes which are more or less apparent. E.g., it is often said that sharks have existed without changes for millions of years. Evidently, we can only talk about most obvious skeletal changes. If sharks now has different skins or immune systems, how would we know about these changes?

[Gaspode]

Originally posted by peace [QUOTE]A puppy will not learn to catch a freesbee faster because his father learned the skill.
Agreed, but that’s a big step from saying social behaviour isn’t inherited.

Humans did not loose the ability to smell. How do you know that your ancestors had it 10,000 years ago and "lost"?
I don’t know if my ancestors had a better sense of smell 10,000 years ago. I don’t even know where the 10,000 year figure came from. The theory I originally posted suggested that at some stage before modern humans domesticated dogs they had more chemoreceptors and at some stage after they lost them. I can’t prove this, the man who formulated it can’t prove it. That’s why it’s a theory. But if it is true obviously at some stage humans lost the ability to smell, exactly as at some stage a penguin or proto-penguin lost the ability to fly. Do you have any evidence that it isn’t true?

I was confused with foxes and Pacas. And I did not see any
"linked" article.
My bad. I seem to have Confused two unrelated posts. (goes red)

Finally, I'm not saying that Pacas or rats can't inherently be domesticated…... But it happened only because "preexisting" "tame" traits were allowed to propagate, while the "wild" ones were not.

Possibly mostly true, but to give such a positive assertion with no suggestion of other possible causes you seem to be denying current evolutionary theory (which is fair enough). You suggest that the only behavioural traits available to any animal are modifications of those available to its ancestors. By this argument all my behaviour should be consistent with modified worm behaviour. (Now I think about it maybe it is, but my dog’s a lot smarter). Theory says other traits can evolve and, if humans give a reproductive advantage to those animals that develop such traits then eventually the entire population will receive such traits all else being equal. Completely different behaviour can and does evolve.

Originally posted by Colibri QUOTE] But a dog raised by humans will behave very differently from one raised by wolves.

True, and dogs raised on different diets will be different shapes and sizes. This doesn’t make growth or social behaviour a learned response, it is simply a modification caused by environment within a genetically predetermined range of values.

I don’t think animals are getting smarter, probably just the opposite. We are selecting for the less inquisitive, more docile and sociable animals. Wolves for example are much smarter than dogs, but consequently far harder to train or manipulate. Cats I don’t know about. From what I’ve seen of feral cats there probably isn’t much difference between domestic cats and their wild ancestors. I did read somewhere once though that adult cats don’t purr to one another, only humans. Don’t know if it’s true.

[peace]

About smell. 10,000 years was just a number, it doee not mean anythyng. I can't prove that anything is not true, it's a logical impossibility: a negative statement cannot be proven. But a species does not loose anything. The sensory organ is here becase there is a gene (or genes) which "installes" it. Occationally, a human is born with anosmia, i.e., inability to smell. Anosmia is totally compatible with life and does not confer any advantages for its carrier to survive. So, even assuming that it is inherited and can be transferred to the next generation, it is a very rare trait in humans. All humans will become anosmic only if a mutation occurs which will eliminate the gene and this trait is inherited and confer survival advantage. If not, the mutation will be gradually eliminated. Simple "non-use" does not lead to a trait dissaperance in a species. So, unfortunately, you and/or you "man" have to prove this hypothesis. But my friedly advice: do not waste your time.
About dog's (or my) diet. Diet will influence dog's weight, but not "form and shape". The latter are genetically determined.
The only behavioral traits (ability to learn) are only those an individual was born with. Usually it is the same set, which was present in his ansestors ("behavior" is a higher category of traits and may mean different things to different people; I'd prefer to agree on definitions first).
Worm is not your ancestor. Saying so is a typical bastartization of the Darvin's theory. Higher primates ain't your ansestors either. Usually, the evolvement of a species leads to dying out of the immediate predecessor species. Wolves and dogs are a rare exception as the do not compete in the same natural habitat.
Farm minks may appear tamer than their wild relatives because they were born in the cage and were not exposed to wilderness with its natural enemies, disasters, etc. But their progeny is as "wild" as their parents and grandparets were.

[Gaspode]

Should we move this to great debates?

Originally posted by peace
. But a species does not loose anything.
So since the original primates had tails, their descendants must have had tails, and by extension we have tails. Since we obviously don't then at some stage a species must have lost it's tail. Struth, there are breeds of dog and cat today that have lost their tails. This is nonsense.

Simple "non-use" does not lead to a trait disapperance in a species.
Did anyone here ever say it did? But non-use coupled with reproductive disadvantages (in the case of human smell the inability to speak properly caused by having large sinuses and the utilisation of valuable brain capacity for useless tasks) should always cause something to disappear. In general the use it or lose it theory holds true.

Diet will influence dog's weight, but not "form and shape". The latter are genetically determined.
Do you honestly not know that (and I'll add here that all other factors must be equal) the more a mammal is fed while young the heavier it's adult weight, or that lack of vitamin E causes bone deformation, or that the more protein an animal receives the more muscle it produces? Do you believe that genetic drift has led to the height difference between people today and people 800 years ago?

The only behavioral traits (ability to learn) are only those an individual was born with. Usually it is the same set, which was present in his ansestors
Usually yes, but obviously this has to change at some stage or all species would necessarily exhibit the same behavioural traits as their common ancestors: ie. worms or lower.

Worm is not your ancestor. Saying so is a typical bastartization of the Darvin's theory.
Huh?
Ancestor: (2) An early type of animal or plant from which others have evolved. New Oxford Dictionary of English.
Do you have one non-creationist source claiming that modern humans do not have any helminth ancestors? I’ll happily give you any number that state the contrary. Worms are very much my ancestors according to current evolutionary theory, yet at some stage they must have developed a behaviour pattern which allowed them to swim freely rather than crawling.
Higher primates ain't your ansestors either.
Again can you give me one reference that modern humans have no higher primate ancestors. I think what you have misinterpreted is that modern humans have no living higher primates as ancestors (or living helminth ancestors). Men did not evolve from chimpanzees, but certainly did from something like Australopithecus or Ramapithecus, which were both higher primates in every sense of the term. Particularly later ancestors like Homo erectus/H. habilis were obviously higher primates.

[peace]

Q:So since the original primates had tails, their descendants must have had tails, and by extension we have tails. Since we obviously don't then at some stage a species must have lost it's tail. Struth, there are breeds of dog and cat today that have lost their tails. This is nonsense.
If a species loose the tail, it becomes a different species/subspecies. The remainder is correct, but does not apply here. Give me the names of dog/cat breeds which "lost" their tails (e.g., Felis catos, etc. Calico cats males have an exctra X chromoseme, i.e., are abnormal. We are talking normal animals here).


Q:In general the use it or lose it theory holds true.
In an idividual. The individually acguired traits are not inherited[/b]. Try to remember that, it will keep you from believing TV stuff. Genes are very conservative; they are practically sealed from any chages inposed on the organism and not causing genetic mutations. If the gene did not change, the trait cannot be passed down to the progeny. That's why if you feed your Pekinese a very good diet, you'll get a fat Pekinese, but never a German shepard. And they are both freely mixable breeds, not even separate species.

Q: Do you honestly not know that (and I'll add here that all other factors must be equal) the more a mammal is fed while young the heavier it's adult weight
NO.
Q: or that lack of vitamin E causes bone deformation,
Now you switched to diseases. We are not discussing diseases here yet, we can't agree on the norm.
Q: or that the more protein an animal receives the more muscle it produces?
NO. You can experiment on yourself. Starting tomorrow morning, eat exclusively protein. When you start "to produce muscle", report it here. But, BTW, if you do not consume adequate amount of protein, you may loose [i]some
muscle mass. But neither dietary change will be inherited.
Q: Do you believe that genetic drift has led to the height difference between people today and people 800 years ago? NO. What are you talking about? What genetic drift?
Q: Ancestor: (2) An early type of animal or plant from which others have evolved. New Oxford Dictionary of English.
I used the other definition of "ancestor". You and the worm occupy different brances on the evolutionary tree. We still share some common biochemical pathways. There were numerous species between us, 99.99% of them dissapeared.
Q:... yet at some stage they must have developed a behaviour pattern which allowed them to swim freely rather than crawling.
They became a different species at the moment they began to swim.
Q: I think what you have misinterpreted is that modern humans have no living higher primates as ancestors (or living helminth ancestors).
Correct.

[Gaspode]

Originally posted by peace
If a species loose the tail, it becomes a different species/subspecies. The remainder is correct, but does not apply here. Give me the names of dog/cat breeds which "lost" their tails.
The English Bob, The Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle dog and the manx cat are at least three breeds that are genetically tailless. I’m sure that if you do a web search or post a GQ you’ll find many more. So you think these are separate species or subspecies. No one else on earth does to the best of my knowledge. Of course if you can provide a reference to the contrary I’ll concede the original point about species never loosing anything. Alternatively following this nonsense through an albino human being, having lost the genetic ability to produce melanin, becomes a subspecies of human.

In an individual. The individually acguired traits are not inherited.Try to remember that, it will keep you from believing TV stuff. Genes are very conservative; they are practically sealed from any chages inposed on the organism and not causing genetic mutations. If the gene did not change, the trait cannot be passed down to the progeny. ].
Actually I thought my last post made it quite clear that ‘use it or lose it’ can and does happen for populations. In fact I can’t actually think of any examples of it applying to individuals except perhaps termite wings or muscle atrophy. If you didn’t understand the concept I will gladly expand, if you did understand then what is the relevance of ‘sealed’ genes. Of course that is true, but is irrelevant to phenotypic changes resulting in a loss of reproductive fitness.

Q: Do you honestly not know that the more a mammal is fed while young the heavier it's adult weight
NO. [/B]
Then you refuted my original statement without the basic knowledge required to do so, unless of course you have access to opinion making a blanket statement that nutrition does not affect form or size. Do you?

We are not discussing diseases here yet, we can't agree on the norm.
I am. My statement was that nutrition affected size and shape. You refuted this apparently without any thought, much less the knowledge to support your refutation. The fact that I refer too disease does not make my original statement less true. It does make your refutation erroneous unless you care to dispute the effects of rickets.

NO. You can experiment on yourself. Starting tomorrow morning, eat exclusively protein. When you start "to produce muscle", report it here.
So again you refute my statement without the knowledge required to do so without it becoming more than gainsaying. I don’t need to experiment on myself, this has all been done under controlled conditions and published in peer reviewed journals. Again I’m prepared to provide references to back up my statement, can you do likewise. Otherwise you’re simply stating opinion.

But neither dietary change will be inherited.
Thank you, that was exactly my point behind making that statement.

NO. What are you talking about? What genetic drift? .
The one that occurs in the human, or any other population. Is there another possible interpretation? Question resubmitted with clarification.

I used the other definition of "ancestor"..
Which is?
The only other one that my dictionary has stipulates that it must be a person. And even you couldn’t have been using this since you yourself used the term when referring to animals. That having been said every comment I’ve made is, so far as I can see, perfectly grammatically and technically correct, and you have entered into a semantic argument over a technical issue without feeling it necessary to consult an English dictionary to clarify your preconception of a words definition. This makes it very difficult to discuss anything.

They became a different species at the moment they began to swim.
Reference please. This is far radically different from what I learned at university and what is accepted in every ecology journal I’ve read in the past seven years. I’d really like to see the article stating this.

Correct.
Correct as in you misinterpreted what you heard?

[note: I cleaned up the quote tags. Gaspode, preview is your friend. -manhattan]


[Edited by manhattan on 12-05-2000 at 08:22 AM]

[SSgtBaloo]

Please move this thread to GD before it explodes!

;)

[Gaspode]

I'm with Baloo. The original question's been answered as well as looks likely.
Shall we move house Peace?

[manhattan]

[b][Moderator's notes: While there is a spirited disagreement going on, it is a disagreement over facts. This remains a GQ topic. Keep it clean, boys, and no rabbit punches. -manhattan]

[manhattan]

Oh, and one more thing. The very next person to misspell the word meaning "opposite of gain" as "l-o-o-s-e" will be ridiculed by the MPSIMS crowd.

Carry on.

[Gaspode]

Nah. We've decided to take this outside.
Here.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49530

[manhattan]

Well, OK.

But you should still get that lose/loose thing cleared up! ;)

[Gaspode]

Smee again.
For those interested in the OP.
http://www.cthonia.com/atrium/philnose.html