I saw that program, and the proposal makes a lot of sense to me. I look at my own life, and can see a lot of parallels:
I bought the house I did because it has a good yard for my dogs. My kitchen is laid out in such a way that I can easily feed the dogs. My wife and I get more exercise because we take the dogs for walks and to the dog park.
Having dogs has affected my location, my environment, and my health. It’s not that big a leap to see how dogs might have affected all of humanity.
And yet I don’t have a dog, have never had a dog, and have never made any decisions in my life that had anything to do with a dog. Point being, our own personal anecdotes are not a good source of scientific conclusions about the evolution of our species.
Where Pavlov blew it was not realizing dogs salivate on every damn thing, let alone a dinner bell.
I don’t think we would ever have built our own homes, if not for wanting to get away from the damn dogs.
Not having seen the show, it’s my personal opinion that the lazy, or genetically inferior (survival of the fittest) wolf became man’s predecessor’s best friend (aka the dog) because they couldn’t compete with the bigger, stronger, faster, smarter wolves.
Hey Fido, Spot, Fluffy! Come see what I’ve found. It’s a pack that actually throws food away. And they don’t try to bite me. We can all live like alpha males without having to do the actual work. Let the rest of the wolves bust their ass 24/7 trying to stay alive. We’ll have this new pack picking up our poop in no time.
Given that there are several orders of magnitude more dogs than wolves, one simply can’t call them genetically “inferior”. The survival of the fittest game is about survival and reproduction. The dog wins by a mile against the wolf in that measure.
It sounds like you are saying selective breeding/artificial selection is not evolution?
I can see where a symbiotic relationship with wolves could have led to a higher protien diet. Wolves have a heirarchy and it is not too big of a stetch to imagine them allowing an aggressive human to feed first just as they do alpha wolves. The higher protien could have easily improved the thinking skills of humans and led to humans to more selectevely breed to each other for inteligence.
I’m suggesting that the first dog was a genetically inferior WOLF, not that a dog is a genetically inferior animal or species.
If survival of the fittest means survival in the wild, without the aid of humans, then a modern dog will become a fine meal for a wolf.
I’m willing to bet, though, that many of your ancestors *did *have dogs, though- remember, we’re talking cumulative effects throughout history, not just my personal anecdote.
My point was that having dogs has *dramatically *shaped my life- and I’m not alone. There are millions of dog owners today (47% of American households have had dogs at one point or another), and we humans have had dogs alongside us for hundreds of thousands of years. That’s a heck of a lot of interaction, and that relationship *must *have had some effect our society and possibly our evolution.
The thing that sets modern humans apart from previous stages on the evolutionary path is our domestication of animals. Every other creature on the planet was either prey or predator. Early humans - yes, even with our pointy sticks - were stuck firmly in the middle until we domesticated (or were domesticated by) wolves. Now suddenly there’s a third category of creature: Now there’s prey, predator, and partner.
This was the real leap for humanity. Working with a partner species necessitated humans to develop an increase in self awareness. Recognizing, for instance, that the dog smells things that humans can’t requires humans to think objectively about the relative strengths of humans and animals.
That leap in the development of self awareness is what enabled the rest of mankind’s development - the objective assessments that led to the domestication of other animals, the breeding of modern grains, the development of long term storage solutions.
What sets modern humans apart is our constant questioning how we can change the world to better fit our needs. This started with wolves bringing humans into their pack structure.
And by the way - many above posters keep referring to wolves scavenging human scraps. I would bet everything I own that it was the other way around. Wolves are better hunters than humans are and they cache their kills for future meals. It was probably humans scavenging off wolf kills that brought the two species together. Think about it - It was the monkeys copying the wolves that adapted their family structure to the other.
Most of this will never be proven of course. It’s all too nebulous. But we wouldn’t be the people we are without our best friend challenging our perceptions of self.
Not really. Some ants have domesticated other insects. And I be very surprised if any actual biologists agreed that the domestication of animals was “the thing” that stands out in the evolutionary history of our species. If anything, that would be language or control of fire, or upright walking or the precision grip.
It’s just not accurate to talk about evolution that way. Dogs carved out a different niche than wolves did. Why aren’t wolves genetically inferior dogs, since the dog lifestyle is more successful?
Why would it mean that?
Wolves rarely hunt other predators for food.
I agree - way I’d put it is that it is not any one thing that sets humans apart from other animals (you can find other animals that use tools, or communicate, or work in packs, or live symbiotically with other animals) - but rather, a whole complex of things.
What sets us apart from other animals is our unique DNA. 
Yeah, it’s rather absurd to try and find “the one thing” that sets us apart. But one thing that sets us apart is this crazy need to decide what sets A apart from B.
I’m under the impression that the species of wolves that made it, made it on their own. The dog’s lifestyle had help from humans, or soon-to-be humans.
OK, I believe survival of the fittest means survival in the wild. “Wild” meaning “mother nature” as opposed to the deliberate intervention of some bipedal, carbon-unit, ancestor of mankind. Hot house flowers can be grown anywhere, if the floriculturist is willing to put in the time and money.
“Survival of the fittest in the wild” would mean plants and animals being subjected to natural occurrences brought about by continental drift, planet axis shift, drought, monsoons, unusual cold spells, unusual hot spells, ice ages, volcanoes, etc., and in the case of wolves - pack life. Pups are born, learn how to be a wolf, learn pack life, if they survive to mating age, they’ve learned their place in the pack and what’s required to move it on up.
What’s the incentive to give up pack life for a chance to hang out with our human ancestors (or whatever these people were called)? Were the first wolves trapped? Did they surrender willingly? Were they weaker than other wolves? Had they been driven away from their pack for conduct unbecoming?
Some studies suggest that Domestic dogs evolved from a group of wolves that came into contact with European hunter-gatherers between 18,800 and 32,100 years ago and may have since died out.
The dog and wolf shared a common ancestor but that common ancestor didn’t make the survival-of-the-fittest cut. I guess no one stepped up to save the wolf. Maybe the exact opposite happened?
Wolves and humans would have almost naturally come together to some degree symbioticaly.
Man might chase the wolf away from the kill but only take enough to carry, while man may also leave large portions of the kill for the wolf to feast on. Not hard to see the two of them working closely as game animals were often too big to carry off completely. The wolf may have improved mans access to protien significantly enough to improve his thinking and logic. This may have played a key roll.
Dogs came into their own long after we had become human. No need to use the modifier “soon-to-be”.
If you told me you “believed” in Leprechauns, I’d tell you you were wrong. Same thing here.
It’s unclear whether the original dog population came about by a deliberate act of humans. We really don’t know. In fact, it’s unlikely that it was deliberate in the sense of the way dogs are bred today.
Dogs and wolves are, indeed, the same species. And there are plenty of feral dogs* around that live on the edges of human settlements and aren’t cared for like we typically think of caring for pets.
Not to mention the plethora of other organism that depend on humans to survive, including such notables as Body Lice.
*usually referred to as pariah dogs
(post left completely intact)
OK, in the In My Humble Opinion forum, it’s your opinion that my opinion is wrong. What is your definition of survival of the fittest?
*Survival of the Fittest -
Noun 1. survival of the fittest - a natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment
Synonyms - natural selection, survival, selection
Related Words - natural action, natural process, action, activity - a process existing in or produced by nature (rather than by the intent of human beings); “the action of natural forces”; “volcanic activity”*
http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2010/06/14/monday-pets-the-russian-fox-st/
Which leaves us to discuss the possibilities of how wolves/dogs first chose to associate with man, or if man first chose to associate with wolves/dogs. Since we lack the use of a TARDIS, even the researchers can only speculate as to what actually happened.
That’s why it’s my position, or personal opinion, that the lazy, or genetically inferior (survival of the fittest) wolf became man’s predecessor’s best friend (aka the dog) because they couldn’t compete with the bigger, stronger, faster, smarter wolves. I’m suggested that the first dog was a genetically inferior WOLF, and not that a dog is a genetically inferior animal or species.
Wouldn’t it make more sense just to look at scraps-leaving hominids as just another food source to be exploited? Wolves in the wild scavenge (when given the chance) as well as hunt; it isn’t like the inferior ones scavenge, and the superior ones hunt - being pack animals, the stronger ones tend to get first dibs on both.