I have to agree that dogs do understand words, and it is not just a trained automatic response for a reward. My mother does a lot of gardening in the backyard and somehow (no one trained them, they just started doing this) the dogs learned to chase the squirrels out of the garden. It got to the point where if you looked out the window (and you could be talking to anyone in the room, in any tone of voice, and it didn’t matter who said it) and mentioned the word “squirrel” the dogs would run through the dog door and chase them out of the yard. Eventually, they would do this from any room in the house.
“Mom still having problems with squirrels in the garden?” and the dogs take off running.
“Dad said the squirrels got into the bird feeder again.” and the dogs take off running.
They were never rewarded or given treats for this, it’s just something they started doing. The family’s theory is that they just like chasing squirrels. They seem to like rabbits just fine though and let them hang out all they want.
The older dog, CoCo, used to take off running whenever she heard the word “bath” or the phrase “wash the dog.” Again, this was no matter who said it. Eventually, she realized she gets a bath no matter how far she runs, and now I can say, “CoCo, time for a bath,” and she follows me to the bathroom and hops into the tub.
I can also look at CoCo and tell her to “do a trick” She lift a paw to shake. If I tell her I don’t like that one, she’ll do another (sit up, roll over, etc) until I decide I’ve been mean long enough and give her a treat. This isn’t something I’ve taught her, it’s just something I did to her one day to tease her and found that she would alternate her tricks. Another thing I never taught her, but she did on her own is picking a hand. Teasing the dog again, I put a dog treat in my hand, put my hands behind my back, and held out both fists and told her to pick a hand. The dog then put her paw on a hand. When I told her it was the wrong hand, she moved her paw to the other hand. I was amazed and had to get my parents so they could see this. She has since learned to sniff my hands first so she knows which hand has the food before she picks one.
IIRC, a show on Discovery (or was it Animal Planet) talked about the intelligence of dogs and it was basically saying that they can be as smart as a 2 - 4 year old child. 2 - 4 year old children have a limited vocabulary, so why not a dog if it is indeed that smart?
I would also agree with lissener about the inbreeding. CoCo is a 15-year old mutt. We have no idea how many different breeds went into making this dog, but she is extremely easy to train, very affectionate, and good with kids.
Before I go about my comments, I will say that your point about “burden of proof” is well taken, by me at least. Most of the other posters so far have failed to get this, or many other of your sound points. Bear in mind, however, that a theory is never actually “proved”, but merely supported, with varying degrees of certainty.
Okay, I don’t, by any means, support purebreeding of dogs. It’s a rather deplorable practice, I’d say, but the fact remains that, as has been shown numerous times throughout the thread, dogs very well can be bred for behavioral traits. You initially, IIRC, connected this to sociobiology when it was pondered whether dogs can be bred for vocabulary abilities. I agree with you that this would probably have limited success, but the sweeping assertion that dogs cannot be bred for behavioral traits is quite absurd.
Again, not to put words into Lissener’s mouth, but it seems as if you guys are missing the point. True, you could breed a dog in order that it would have one particular canine trait at the forefront (e.g., herding). But, here’s the catch. Lissener is coming from a background of dog training. A regular ol’ mixed breed dog would be able to be trained to herd also. And the purebred would either equal the mutt in ease of training or actually be harder to train.
Dog breeding is more for physical traits than anything else. Daschunds (??) have been used for rabbit hunting not because they are more mentally adept at it than other dogs, but because they are small weasely. We breed for size and coloring and coat, and not much else.
I still think the idea that selection cannot produce specific behaviors runs counter to the theory of evolution. Everything from the dancing of honeybees to the burrowing of mice is behavior that has been produced by natural selection. Do you really challenge this?
Your assertion that dogs cannot be bred for behavioral traits can be taken as true ONLY in the sense that, yes, it will be easier to shape traits that are already existing, since we are choosing genes out of the normal distribution of traits in the gene pool. So yeah, those behaviors are usually exagerations or suppressions of behaviors already there. But so what? That’s what most of naturally selected behaviors consists of, too. I consider that “breeding for behavior”; any other definition seems tortured to me.
Moreover, in a domesticated species like dogs, occasionally there will be mutations, potentially allowing entirely new behaviors. In the wild (i.e. wolves) these behaviors may not be advantageous and would be eliminated. But we could select FOR them, producing animals with truly new, unique behaviors, just as natural selection could. Is there a flaw in that argument somewhere? Please be specific and give a cite.
The only question left is DOES this happen, not whether it COULD happen. With the mutation rate in dogs it may be very uncommon that a useful new trait would appear very often. In that sense it may be UNLIKELY that an entirely new behavioral trait will be captured by breeders, but it in no way renders it impossible.
Ultimately, you are arguing that a natural process, seen throughout the natural world (selection for behavior), cannot occur. I challenge you to prove this.
I have one request, though. I know that human behavior is a charged subject, filled with a history of racism and extreme revisionist reactions to that racism, as well as other politically and socially tendentious arguments. Besides which, of all animals humans have the most elaborate and extensively learned behavioral responses. So I ask that you confine your proof to the animal kingdom outside of man.
Sorry; I don’t have web access on the weekends and I figured this thread had withered away when I didn’t see it on Monday morning.
To respond to APB9999, I’d like to bring his last paragraph to the top and address it first, at it touches on one of the strongest points I’d hoped to make:
This, of course, is an unreasonable request. One of the foundations of biology and scientific experimentation is that, in many cases, what holds true for one species holds true for related species. This is of course a vast oversimplification, but I mean to suggest that your “request” would invalidate every experiment ever performed on a rat or a monkey with relevance to Homo sapiens. A ridiculous limitation of this discussion which I will by no means agree to.
And you’ve reiterated my point exactly. I’m suggesting that this should be just as “charged” a subject when it’s about dogs as it is when it’s about humans.
And if by “extreme revisionist reactions to that racism” you mean that every time someone has come along and cynically manipulated the tools and language of science in support of a racist agenda they have unequivocally been proved wrong, then I agree, though personally I’m confused by how you express it.
Where this is relevant to the discussion at hand is that racist scientists have been trying for centuries to prove that the behavior they characterize as race based is heritable, and have never been able to do so. Every time they claim a victory, someone else has successfully pointed out fatal flaws in their method and rendered their conclusions to be without merit. (Yes, every time. Read Stephen J. Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man, a comprehensive history of scientifically supported racism. And his review of The Bell Curve, which points out evidence within the book itself, cynically buried in an appendix IIRC, that fatally contradicts the authors’ conclusions.)
In other words, great efforts have been made in this field, with the result that, at least currently, the established scientific view is that–outside, once again, of species-specific potential behaviors–behavior is not heritable.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s the standard you’re required to disprove in order to make your case.
That this work has been done with humans does not in any way render it irrelevant to dogs. In fact, I think it’s even more convincing than if it had been done in reverse: we can be reasonably sure that no single stone was left unturned in these efforts to prove such a politically and socially loaded theory.
These behaviors have been covered and distinguished as species-specific potential behaviors; outside of the province of this discussion.
This is like saying you can make one kid smarter by giving the other kids in his class lobotomies. In that sense, fine, you can probably breed for certain behavioral traits. (Talk about tortured reasoning!)
If you want your dog to seem smarter, then fine, promote the inbreeding of other breeds, and in a few generations, you’ll probably be right. But this in no way supports the popular contention that further inbreeding of a smart breed will make it smarter.
An example: Australian Cattle Dogs are considered by some to be among the best herding dogs in the world. They’re a recent breed, created as it were specifically for herding cattle, by crossing IIRC a Dalmatian, a Pit Bull, a Collie, and a Dingo. Something like that. My point is, mix up the genes a little bit if you want to “breed for behavior.” You’re likely to come up with a stronger, smarter dog. Of course now that the breed has become established the inbreeding can begin. In a few more generations (quite a few; I’m not saying this happens overnight) they’ll have to let in some outside genes to keep the breed strong.
This is nothing new: Dalmatians, for example, as they become more and more inbred, often produce litters that include a high ratio of deaf puppies. (With Collies, it’s blindness; some are even born without eyes.) Scrupulous Dalmatian breeders like to throw in a Black Lab every few generations to keep the genes from disintegrating entirely, with the result that–surprise–they tend to breed healthier dogs. Unfortunately, this practice, though it’s obviously in the dogs’ best interest, is frowned upon by the AKC: a Dalmatian with anything other than a Dalmatian in its family tree is not a “purebreed” and is disqualified from AKC shows (unless this has changed?).
I have never discounted mutations in this discussion. In fact I don’t think mutation has been mentioned as a factor. No one is suggesting that herding ability, or hydrophilia, or retrieving are behaviors caused by mutations. Besides, even without considering the scientific foundation of this discussion–that behaviors are not heritable–can you think of a single, even wildly speculative, behavior that might be a result of a genetic mutation? Psychosis? Telekinesis? Aren’t we getting a bit X-files here?
You are descending into absurdity here. Mutation has never been an important part of this discussion. Fine. I concede that it’s possible for a mutation to create some never-before-seen behavior that is heritable. (Again, you call MY reasoning tortured. Sheesh.)
Redundant, covered. And I need hardly point out that simply stating that selection for behavior is a natural process seen throughout the natural world does not make it so. (Assuming, of course, and again, the distinction between species-specific behavior that all dogs hold in common and the behaviors that are popularly believed to differ between breeds. Which distinction I keep having to make, since you [and others] continually conflate the two.)
Lest we all forget, this thread was about dogs and vocabulary. If you feel the need to continue this arguement that you have concocted please feel free to start your own thread, and stop hijacking this one.
This aspect of the discussion began with a post by APB9999, asking about the linguistic capabilities of dogs as determined by genetics. This seems relevant to the OP. If a thread evolves into a debate rather than a simple yes or no affair, that doesn’t in itself render it a hijack.
In the second place, sorry for posting two responses to one post, but being singled out here kinda has me rankled. I’d just like to add, still in response to aenea:
In regard to beginning a new thread, someone should feel free to do so. I’m not going to, however, since this issue is not a burning question for me: as far as I’m concerned the debate was settled years ago. I answered APB9999’s question by basically mouthing the party line of established science (which, at least in this case, and because of my own corroborating experience, I happen to believe). If others wish to debate this, I’m happy to oblige, as far as I’m able to keep up, but I’m not “asserting” anything, and have “concocted” no argument.
But we’re not talking about homo sapiens. We’re talking about a general biological process, applicable to all life forms that exhibit any kind of behavior. Excluding the single species that is the most charged, and for which any arguments are bound to be tendentious one way or another should not be onerous if we are interested in seeing whether behavior is subject to selection or not. Quite the contrary, our conclusions will be more objective and free from our desire to reach particular conclusions. Besides, again, humans are known to have the most plastic behavior of any animal species; any conclusions drawn about human behavior can NOT be automatically extended to other species (although I will concede that dogs also have very plastic behavior).
You demonstrate the problem yourself by dragging in what “racist scientists have been trying for centuries to prove that the behavior they characterize as race based is heritable” and so on. I’m not racist, thank you, and implying otherwise because I think animal behavior is subject to selection is a complete ad hominem digression that does nothing to support your argument.
I don’t understand this. I’m supposed to show that behavior is not heritable, except for those things that are passed along within species. Huh? I don’t know how to break this to you, but reproduction only occurs within species. So what the hell standard are you talking about? What kind of experiment are you envisioning? Look, I’ll say it again. Animal behavior is obviously shaped by natural selection. Unless you are a creationist, this means that when speciation occurs, NEW behaviors arise. Stephen J. Gould is all well and good, but you can get this from Charles Darwin, Origin of Species.
“This discussion” was my response to your assertion “And breeding for behavioral traits has no scientific basis whatsoever.” That is a broad statement about breeding and behavior. Honeybees and mice breed (or are bred by natural selection) and have behavior.
Your assertion here is simply supported by a straightforward experiment: Show that there is no breed of modern dogs that is smarter than modern wolves. (You can’t use dogs in general, you have to test each specific breed, or else you leave open the objection that maybe intelligence has been more bred for in some breeds.)
Please give a cite.
We’re talking about breeding, right? We’re talking about the human ability to mimic natural selection in domestic animals, choosing traits we find desirable. Isn’t that, at heart, a genetic process? Of course mutation belongs in this discussion! (There are specific mutations that are known to have been “captured” in just about every domesticated species). Their ability to influence behaviors and create new potentialities can’t simply be dismissed. You may argue that the mutation rates are low, but you cannot argue that they are nonexistant.
And as for a behavior that is heritable, sure, there’s lots of examples! Are not the “species-specific behaviors” you keep mentioning heritable? If herding behavior is NOT heritable, where does it come from? Aren’t you contradicting your earlier assertion that this is a trait inherited from wolves?
!?! It is not simply my stating so. It is the observation of every evolutionary biologist who’s ever looked at the matter, for Pete’s sake! I mean, where exactly do you think behavior comes from? Is it imparted to the animal by God through some mystical spiritual process? Seriously, where DO you think behavior originates?
Yeah, you responded, but only by asserting the same thing again, and insisting that you don’t have to support it. It hasn’t been covered, at least not well. If you feel it has already been so laboriously demonstrated, please give me a few references that say “animal behavior is not at least partly the result of natural selection” or words to that effect. I seriously doubt you can.
Okay here you sort of have a point. You have been differentiating between behavior within a species and behavioral differences between species. Most of your assertions have been about species-specific behavior, and most of what I have been objecting to is the grand conclusions that you then swept over all species, about the nature of inherited behavior itself.
However. Species don’t appear in the blink of an eye (um, are you a creationist?). Even in punctuated equilibrium, changes appear quickly on a GEOLOGICAL time scale, not a human one - it still takes thousands of years, at least, for a new species to appear from the old one. If you accept that natural selection is the source of behavioral differences between species (which apparently you don’t, but that’s not the scientific view), then at some point in the transition, at some point during the speciation, we will see new behaviors (or potential behaviors) arising. It’s simple logic. And I don’t care if the pope of biology himself appears and pronounces otherwise ex cathedra, I’m going to want to see strong evidence and hear solid arguments why this is wrong. Uncited sociobiologists talking about Nazi theories aren’t good enough.
. . . and the most extensively researched on this subject.
Our conclusions if we ignore all existing research and reinvent the wheel? That’s really not the way it works.
This is of course exactly why research on one is relevant to the other.
I can’t imagine why think I called you racist! I was talking about scientists who, in the past, have attempted to prove scientifically that race-specific behavior is heritable. I did not include you in that group. I said these particular scientists had a racist agenda.
You misunderstand me. I didn’t say “outside of species.” I said “outside of species-specific behavior” such as the burrowing of a mouse and the nestbuilding of a bird. And I don’t deny that when “speciation occurs, NEW behaviors arise” (though I might say “may arise”) But dogs are all of the same species. Speciation has not occurred. And yes, we agree that Canis familiaris’ ability to herd is a behavior arrived at through the process of natural selection. All I’m saying is that the perceived difference in herding skills between, say, a Border Collie and a mixed-breed dog is not.
“This discussion” was my response to your assertion “And breeding for behavioral traits has no scientific basis whatsoever.” That is a broad statement about breeding and behavior. Honeybees and mice breed (or are bred by natural selection) and have behavior.**
[/quote]
“This discussion” took as a given, I’d presumed, the distinction between “breeding” and “natural selection,” the former being a human activity. Nowhere in any of my arguments have I suggested that natural-selection-driven speciation is entirely interchangeable with the artificial inbreeding of dogs by breeders, as you have. Though the difference between the two is primarily one of scale, nonetheless the scale is monumental enough to make it utterly ridiculous to conflate them.
**
No, you show that there is. I am not making an “assertion” in a vacuum, I’m simply pointing out that your assertion has never been proven. In this whole argument I haven’t seen a more obvious example of where the burden lies: with you. Please give me a cite.
This really is getting ridiculous. Once an argument becomes a series of “I never said that . . .” it’s over.
Of course the core set of potential behaviors each animal has, it got in its DNA (Over and over and over again!). I refuse to just restate points I have already made.
**
You’re arguing with yourself at this point. I don’t know how many times I can try to make the distinction between species-specific behavior and–Oh, forget it.
**
You’ve reduced everything I’ve said to an absurd extrapolation of a refusal to understand a basic distinction I’ve made over and over again. I’m no longer debating any subject with you; there’s nothing left here beyond an argument about argument.
Please feel free to have the last word.
(No need to move it, manhattan; I for one am finished. Way too many nested quotes; I feel like I’m braiding hair in a windstorm.)
I used to train dogs. I specifically trained Brittanys, and English Setters for bench and field. Dogs vary WILDLY in their intelligence level. Just as they vary wildly in temperament. I’ve had dogs that were so dense you were lucky to get them to understand simple one word commands, and others who understood sentences, hand motions, and whistle tone.
I think that 500 low for an EXTREMELY bright dog. But then again, are we talking about single commands, or entire sentences? Do we consider “go” "get “the” “bone” understanding all of the words? I have found in training that being concise is best. I would command “bring bone” and get the same results. “Go” as “down” are too ambiguous for most dogs to understand.
Take the word “down” for example. We ask the dog to get “down” off the sofa, “down” off people, and to lay “down”. For most dogs this is confusing. I used “down” only when he jumped on people (which he doesn’t do anymore). I use “off” for furniture, and hand signals for lay down, although I sometimes use “platz”(sp?).
BTW The smartest dog I’ve ever encountered was a PUREBRED Jack Russell (not including, of course, MY Border Collie which I am a Maniac about saying is the BEST BREED EVER!! Until I get a dog of a bifferent breed, then that one will be the BEST BREED EVER!!). So much for dumbing them with inbreeding.
One more thing. Don’t take an easy temperament for stupidity. I have seen FAR too many people think that their laid back dog was stupid. It usuallly wasn’t.
This is not true at all. If you look into the historical records almost every breed of dog (barring lap dogs which were bred for royalty) had a purpose at one time. For the Daschund it was hunting burrowing rodents, hence the shape and the tenacious temperament. Even the Standard Poodle was at one time a water retriever. That is where the odd coat cut originated. (more for trivia than to add to the discussion) The breed was trained to retrieve fowl in cold water, but it’s coat was unsuitable for field work. It was too cold to cut it all off, so the left hair on the chest to warn the lungs, hair on the on the bottom of the legs for friction during swimming, her over the kidneys (the odd poufs on the butt) and a puff of hair on the tail so you could see it in the water. Oh and hair on the head because it wasn’t prone to getting burrs anyway.
Since I am being given the last word, I will try to be gracious and merely quote the scientific literature. Unfortunately most of the serious work on the question of animal breeding for behavior seems to have been done by Russians and Germans, and a lot of it isn’t available in English (and what is available in English seems often to be really bad English!). But here’s what I could find so far. I have prefaced each article with the point from our debate that I think it relates to. Bolding in the abstracts is mine.
Scientific support for breed-specific behavior.
Selective breeding by man can change the very mechanisms of behavior, rather than simply exagerating or suppressing already-existing traits.
[The first bold statement in the above abstract does not state outright that domestic dogs test more intelligent than wolves, but it strongly implies it. However, I will look for a more direct study and get back to you.]
The nature of human learning and behavior cannot be extended to animal behavior in any straightforward way.
