Where do dogs really come from?

[Zohaar818]

http://bleedingeyeballs.com/basenjiart/egyptiandogs.htm

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Dogs.htm

http://www.indiandogs.com/artdogs1.htm

http://www.dogquotes.com/historyofdogs.htm [the conventional view of dog history without, you'll note, any explanation of the process of domestication or breeding to pedigree]

And a quote from a rather good source:
Dogs are the very first domestic animals to appear in the archaeological record. We have evidence from at least 14,000 years ago of fully domesticated dogs in Eurasia (Figure 1)(1-16). These early dogs share several features, including a much shortened facial region, crowded teeth, and smaller overall size compared to contemporaneous local wolves (4).
Despite what all of us have been taught about domestication, scientists understand very little about the precise biological and/or anthropogenic mechanisms responsible for transforming wild animals into domestic ones (17-22). This has important implications for our understanding of breed development because many assumptions have been made about the nature of the early dog/human relationship that are probably incorrect, as has been shown for long-held assumptions regarding domestication itself (20, 42). Certainly, there is no evidence to suggest that deliberate human actions precipitated domestication in most animals and the present consensus of opinion is that domestication was initiated by the animals themselves (20, 23-25). This conclusion is supported by evidence from recent genetic studies that domestication of wild ancestral species has occurred more than once, in different parts of the world, for virtually all domestic animals (26-40). For example, dogs appear to have been generated on at least three separate occasions (perhaps more) from geographically distinct ancestral populations of wolf (i.e. different subspecies). A similar pattern is seen in domestic pigs, cattle, sheep, goats, horses and water buffalo; all but the chicken show evidence for two or more discrete domestication events in different geographic locations.

Such multiple domestication events from geographically distinct subspecies of wolf could perhaps account for some of the variation we see amongst early prehistoric dogs. It is important to separate such initial variation from variation generated much, which is the result of local adaptation and/or breed creation. Although no comprehensive study of dogs from different geographic regions has yet been done, an examination of published data indicates that early dogs worldwide were remarkably similar in every way except size (42). Early dogs from northern Europe and Russia were the largest (although no larger than a modern dingo), while most from southwest Asia, China and NA were Dalmation-sized. All early dogs from Japan and one from central Europe (5) were somewhat smaller (about the size of a modern Finnish spitz or Keeshound). All were robust and well-proportioned but similar in general conformation: in all cases, slight differences in size are virtually all that distinguish dogs for thousands of years regardless of where they lived (1-16, 42-44).

Amongst dog samples recovered from the last 4,000 years, some regions show a wide range of variation in size while others do not (small dogs have been defined as those with a total skull length of 108-165 mm, accompanied by a humerus total length below 140 mm and femur total length below 160 mm; large dogs are defined as those with a total skull length of 165-196 mm, with humerus length above 140 mm and femur length above 160 mm) (55). For example, archaeological sites in Alaska and Greenland yield predominantly large dogs (although no larger than a modern dingo), while sites in the Kentucky/Alabama region generate mostly small ones (16, 59-60). While different sizes of dogs existed side by side in many regions (such as the US southwest and at the Jaguar Cave site in Idaho)(47), there is little evidence to suggest that populations of small dogs were the result of deliberate selective breeding. In only one of these regions is there associated evidence to suggest that conscious selection for distinct physical attributes was accompanied by controlled breeding – in other word, the necessary elements required to produce a truly distinct breed of dog as defined by modern standards. "
http://www.wsava2005.com/memorias/Di...ropeanDogs.htm

In fact the oldest known dog breed on earth is the Saluki...and I ask you..how much like a wolf does it appear to be, physically? And how would one go about selectively breeding wolves, over how long a time...to get a Saluki would you guess?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...PLsalukis.html
Frankly, I wish I had a million dollars just so i could offer it to any breeder who, in ten generations or less could pull off such a 'miracle' of genetics...
-Sincerely

-Zohaar

[Tormod]

Assume for a second that dogs where engineered, as you say.

What evidence do you have for this, except that you do not accept the current scientific theories?

[nkt]

Originally Posted by Zohaar818

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...PLsalukis.html
Frankly, I wish I had a million dollars just so i could offer it to any breeder who, in ten generations or less could pull off such a 'miracle' of genetics...
-Sincerely

-Zohaar

Interesting. I always through those were greyhounds, now I find they are yet another breed I never heard of!

As for breeding that dog in ten generations, are you nuts? Try a hundred generations, at least, without using genetic engineering and clever tricks like cryogenics and artificial insemination.

Scottie history

(http://www.canismajor.com/dog/scottie.html)
The Scottie is a short-legged British terrier, one of several wire-coated go-to-ground terriers developed in the Scottish highlands. The origins of these terriers is obscure, but it is fairly certain that they all arose from the same basic stock. Progenitors of the fiery Scottie were sent to France's monarch by King James I of England in the 16th Century, but as late as 1882, three different terriers were exhibited as Scotch Terriers. These included the Scottie, Cairn, and West Highland White terriers. The Dandie Dinmont had been included earlier, but this dog's obviously different appearance gained it recognition as a separate breed.

From this we can see that even over a fairly short time, a breed can differentiate. It is only because of agreed breed standards that they converge on these local plateaus of "fitness". The in-breeding issues are also common, as a quick look at the known issues for each breed shows. This is due to the small genetic variation available from dogs and bitches fitting all the other show criteria. Hip x-rays are expensive, and yet common for breeding dogs, to try to reduce the hip displacia trait in many breeds.

[Zohaar818]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Assume for a second that dogs where engineered, as you say.

What evidence do you have for this, except that you do not accept the current scientific theories?

I didn't say they were engineered..I posted an article [of "6 enigmas",] in which the question was raised based on the lack of current theory to explain it satisfactorily
And it is apparent that those who believe in the dog from wolf theory haven't tested the theory...and as one of the respondents here agrees it would take more than 10 generations of deliberate breeeding to get anything like the saluki, the world's oldest breed.
I am also not a fan or adherent to the school of 'science' that comes up with nifty proofs such as: "That dogs evolved from wolves is rather obvious. "
That smacks of the same kind of pseudo-logical reasoning which gave us quotes like..'that the earth is the center of the universe around which all things revolve is rather obvious'' ...which was hurled at Galileo.
If it is so obvious why has no one demonstrated it? Because it would take 100 generations or more?
And frankly, to ask what evidence I have for artificial engineering other than my refusal to accept current theory is a canard..if current theory, upon examination cannot account for the observed phenomena, or if current theory is shown to be implausible given the record..that is evidence enough for me that we must seek a more complete theory..and that we must [once again] open our minds to the possibilities..start from scratch, forget our dogmas and theologies.
I don't say dogs were bio-engineered by ET..or God...I found the article relevant enough and intriguing enough to post..and I didn't say dogs were definitely bio-engineered..I simply asked where they came from.
Other than the 'obvious' answer I get flack, as if it's too dumb a question to even think about when everyone 'knows' dogs descended from wolves [ I mean they look so much alike, right...they're canines, right?..must have a common ancestor, right?].
So where is the evidence of our ancestors breeding wolves into dogs? How was it done...do we have a record of it? Has anyone left us a guide on how to do it 'naturally?''
Where is the intermediate species betweeeen wolf and terrier..the fossils, the skulls, the burial chambers of mummified half-wolf-half-terrier? Why is it not being done now? I mean, aren't all theories supposed to be tested before being taken on blind faith?
Where is the testing of this theory documented..when has it been clearly established through example that our theory of dog from wolf is correct?
I'm happy to say that clever neanderthals who had nothing but time on their hands, invited a competitor species to the campfire and then set about genetically modifying the breed through selective reproduction until they got ferrets, greyhounds and spaniels..if I see the evidence..or even if the dog breeders association had a guide about how to do it; get dog from wolf. But dog breeders do not have any info on this [ I checked !!!]

So what we have is an untested theory of dog descent from wolf...untested because it is too 'obvious' to question...which is held up as sacred writ by those defending 'science'.
Where is YOUR physical, scientific, genetic, anthropological, 'evolutionary', evidence for dogs from wolves via human domestication?
Note that I do realize proving current theory false does not automatically prove the bio-engineered dog theory true.......but surely if holes can be shown in current theory it should raise the eyebrows of those who claim they 'know' the story of the origin of dogs..don't you think?

-Zohaar

[Zohaar818]

It occurs to me that the best way to answer the question as post ed 'where do dogs come from'..and one that was hoping to elucidate from the scientists among us, is to outline a general theory of dog descent [ assuming it is from wolves] in which we start with two wolves.
They needn't be 'alpha male and female', which is the only way wolves breed naturally..
[Leadership Behavior in Relation to Dominance and Reproductive Status in Gray Wolves, Canis lupus
Peterson, Jacobs, Drummer, Mech & Smith, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80 (August 2002): 1405-1412 (8 pp)
We analyzed the leadership behavior of breeding and nonbreeding gray wolves (Canis lupus) in three packs during winter in 1997–1999. Scent-marking, frontal leadership (time and frequency in the lead while traveling), initiation of activity, and nonfrontal leadership were recorded during 499 h of ground-based observations in Yellowstone National Park. All observed scent-marking (N = 158) was done by breeding wolves, primarily dominant individuals. Dominant breeding pairs provided most leadership, consistent with a trend in social mammals for leadership to correlate with dominance. Dominant breeding wolves led traveling packs during 64% of recorded behavior bouts (N = 591) and 71% of observed travel time (N = 64 h). During travel, breeding males and females led packs approximately equally, which probably reflects high parental investment by both breeding male and female wolves. Newly initiated behaviors (N = 104) were prompted almost 3 times more often by dominant breeders (70%) than by nonbreeders (25%). Dominant breeding females initiated pack activities almost 4 times more often than subordinate breeding females (30 vs. 8 times). Although one subordinate breeding female led more often than individual nonbreeders in one pack in one season, more commonly this was not the case. In 12 cases breeding wolves exhibited nonfrontal leadership. Among subordinate wolves, leadership behavior was observed in subordinate breeding females and other individuals just prior to their dispersal from natal packs. Subordinate wolves were more often found leading packs that were large and contained many subordinate adults.]
http://www.wolfology.com/id129.htm

So let's take the view that, humans being compassionate, and all puppies being cute, and females being prone to shower attention and affection on the vulberable..and men needing a comapanion predator on hunts and unforseen circumstances all combining to bring a 'runt' wolf pup or two to the campfire, eons ago in our prehistory..male and female.
And let's say that out of the litter of pups they produced we again, selectively bred the resulting pups to get what we thought were the best qualities into the next generation..something as loyal and comitted as a wolf but not prone to biting the children..


[" In the state of Michigan wolf hybrids are less common than in other states, but they do exist. One such hybrid was kept on a chain in the back yard, but well away from the house. The animal was reportedly 7/8 wolf, although according to one very knowledgeable person who has seen photos and video footage of the animal, he is much lower in wolf content. At best he could be 1/2 wolf. This animal was reportedly good with children and the owners had no reservations about allowing children to play with or around him.

On the 15 of March, 1990, a friend of the animal's owner came over to visit and brought her 2-year-old child. The child had previously "played" with the hybrid and there had been no problems. While the mother was visiting, she put her child into the back yard. Shortly afterward they noticed the animal shaking something -- that something was the child. Most of the throat was torn out; the child was nearly decapitated!...

Have you even wondered why children are told never to run around dogs, especially if they are strange dogs? Running is one of the things that elicits or "triggers" predatory behavior. Crudely put, a "trigger mechanism" releases a specific innate (or instinctive) behavioral response to a specific environmental stimulus. Also, there is a specific threshold for the elicitation of the behavior that varies from animal to animal.

There are many examples of such trigger mechanisms in the animal world. With wolves, pups food-begging from adults will trigger regurgitation; a perceived threat to the den, such as by a bear or man, will trigger barking; hearing a distant howl, will trigger howling, and so on. Just from these few examples one can see how we have altered dogs' behaviors through selective breeding. In general, it's much easier to trigger a barking response from dogs, and much harder to trigger howling, regurgitation, and most importantly, predatory behavior. In the latter case we have either selectively bred against predatory behavior, as in most livestock guarding dogs, or have altered the "threshold" for the elicitation of predatory behavior, as in most other breeds. In fact, the threshold for the elicitation of predatory behavior towards children in many dogs has been raised so high, again through selective breeding, that the likelihood of it ever being evoked is very small. In pure wolves it hasn't been altered at all; hybrids are anybody's guess. Although a wolf hybrid's behavior and appearance will generally fall somewhere between those of a wolf and those of a dog, an individual's behavior can actually be better or worse than either parent.] http://www.wolfpark.org/wolfdogs/chi..._wolfdogs.html

Note the above is an excerpt from a site about wolfs and hybrids...to get a hybrid you need a wolf and a dog..In fact the only chance one has of getting wolf qualities and dog qualities in the proper mix is to start with a wolf and a dog, not two wolves..

To get a long haired breed you'd need to breed the two pups with the longest hair and hope two of their pups , male and female had long hair..or you'd breed one pup with the long haired parent ..and hope for the best.
No doubt, this is plausible as a process until you factor in wolf behaviour, hybrid behaviour, and the problem of recessive genes accumulating as you continue to inbreed and refine the blood line.

In none of my research over the last week and a half have i found any reference to this step by step method of wolf to dog breeding..and in no journal or site can I find any mention of a way to selectively breed wolves to get more docile or dog-like canines..every site which delves into it states [what to me is] the perfectly obvious..in order to get a canine that is less wolf than wolf you need one parent to be at least part dog.
Period.

As for 'the obvious' fact that dogs came from wolves since they look so much alike...

http://www.wayeh.com/aboutsleddogs/wolves.htm

"Wolves, Wolf-Dogs & Phenotypes

Wolf, Siberian Husky, & Alaskan Malamute
-- Three separate animals

Malamutes, Siberians, Wolves, & Wolf-Dogs
This page was written with help from employees and researchers at Wolf Park and Bays Mountain Park and members of many lists, including WolfDogList, Malamute-L, Sibernet-L, and Sleddog-L. All mistakes are mine.

Purebred Alaskan Malamutes and Siberian Huskies are not wolves, or part-wolves, were not bred from wolves, and these breeds were not developed by breeding to wolves anytime recently (that is a separate animal called a wolf-dog). Based on studies by Dr. Robert Wayne at UC Berkeley, sled dogs are no more closely related to wolves than Chihuahuas. There is very little genetic difference between any dog and any wolf, coyote, or jackal, etc., so little, in fact, that genetic tests cannot tell how much wolf is in deliberately bred wolf-dogs. The domesticated canines and their wild cousins CAN interbreed. However, pedigrees on Malamutes and Siberians are available back ~20 generations (to the early 1930s at least) and these dogs are not wolf crosses -- Malamutes are Malamutes, Siberians are Siberians.

But they look like Wolves, or Phenotype
The definition of Phenotype is "the genetically and environmentally determined physical appearance of an organism." In other words, (the parents and) the conditions create the appearance.

Malamutes & Siberians LOOK like wolves, and in certain instances, ACT like wolves, because: All dogs and wolves descended from a common ancestor (or primitive version of the wolf, the debate rages); and,
The phenotype of the Northern Breeds is the best solution to the problem of the Arctic weather and conditions. The Northern breeds did not evolve MUCH past that phenotype, as other breeds have because most variations to the phenotype would be killed off. A boxer would not survive because he wasn't built for the situation."


So maybe dogs don't come from wolves but from coyotes or jackals, hyenas..maybe some gutsy cave-man and his kin took a jackal and a fox and forced them to mate..maybe that's what happened..... and then took that pup and crossed it with...
But seriously, if that's how it was done, why has no one anywhere ever found a piece of evidence to support the claim?

If dogs 'evolved' from a common ancestor that ancestor is long since extinct and humans had nothing to do with it..or maybe..just maybe..they WERE bio-engineered.

Given all of the above can anyone say with certainty that they really know where dogs came from?

-Zohaar

[Tormod]

Zohaar...ease off a bit. I may have been unclear about things but there is no need to act like there is a war going on.

Originally Posted by Zohaar818

I didn't say they were engineered..I posted an article [of "6 enigmas",] in which the question was raised based on the lack of current theory to explain it satisfactorily

Granted - although I question the scientific intelligence of those who wrote that article, which I am in my right to do.

I still pose the question - what is YOUR answer to "Where do dogs really come from" which is the title of this topic.

I am also not a fan or adherent to the school of 'science' that comes up with nifty proofs such as: "That dogs evolved from wolves is rather obvious. "

If you had bothered to read my replies you'd find that I have corrected myself and said they evolved from the same ancestor. You may call this pseudo-science as much as you like but the fact remains that dogs and wolves are closely related. Where dogs come from is no more a mystery than where cats come from.

If it is so obvious why has no one demonstrated it? Because it would take 100 generations or more?

Again, the evidence in evolution is rather strong. I frankly don't see the mystery here. That something is obvious doesn't mean it is wrong. It also doesn't mean that it is by necessity correct, as you point out.

And frankly, to ask what evidence I have for artificial engineering other than my refusal to accept current theory is a canard..if current theory, upon examination cannot account for the observed phenomena

...which it does...

..start from scratch, forget our dogmas and theologies.

Because I accept the current theories does not mean that it is based on dogma and theology. That is a rather strong comment.

So where is the evidence of our ancestors breeding wolves into dogs? How was it done...do we have a record of it?

There is plenty of background here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog

Has anyone left us a guide on how to do it 'naturally?''

Now who would that be?

Anyway, dogs and wolves can still interbreed and have fertile offspring, which suggests extremely close genetic relation - in fact, that they belong to the same species.

Where is the intermediate species betweeeen wolf and terrier..the fossils, the skulls, the burial chambers of mummified half-wolf-half-terrier? Why is it not being done now? I mean, aren't all theories supposed to be tested before being taken on blind faith?

There would be no such thing. There are half-breeds from interbreeding. It is being done now - certain species of dog are mated with wolves to create fight dogs.

Where is the testing of this theory documented..when has it been clearly established through example that our theory of dog from wolf is correct?

I think this entire issue is being turned upside down. What I am trying to convey is not that dog evolved from wolf. They evolved from the same ancestor. That ancestor is known. If you trace the path back you will find that the cat, the weasel, racoons, bears and foxes also come from this line. The wolves' closest living relative today is the dog. Nobody had to engineer a wolf into a dog - they both evolved.

Your question seems to be how on earth did the wild wolf be tamed into dogs. There was no need for this. Human beings domesticated the dog.

but surely if holes can be shown in current theory it should raise the eyebrows of those who claim they 'know' the story of the origin of dogs..don't you think?

What raises my eyebrows is how you fight so much for something that is neither a mystery nor a difficult issue.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Zohaar818's source

"Malamutes & Siberians LOOK like wolves, and in certain instances, ACT like wolves, because: All dogs and wolves descended from a common ancestor (or primitive version of the wolf, the debate rages); and,
The phenotype of the Northern Breeds is the best solution to the problem of the Arctic weather and conditions. The Northern breeds did not evolve MUCH past that phenotype, as other breeds have because most variations to the phenotype would be killed off. A boxer would not survive because he wasn't built for the situation."

Given all of the above can anyone say with certainty that they really know where dogs came from?

Your post pretty much proves my point really - there is no mystery. Dogs and wolves evolved from the same ancestors. Problem solved.

[Zohaar818]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Zohaar...ease off a bit. I may have been unclear about things but there is no need to act like there is a war going on.
..Your question seems to be how on earth did the wild wolf be tamed into dogs. There was no need for this. Human beings domesticated the dog.
...What raises my eyebrows is how you fight so much for something that is neither a mystery nor a difficult issue.

Don't know if you read what I just posted above before writing this...it would seem that you [and few others didn't] before posting this reply. If you did then I don't understand the reply.
Humans domesticated dogs is not eh same as saying humans domesticated wolves from which dogs descended..nor is it saying dogs came from wolves. If indeed dogs and wolves share a common ancestor then by that statemnent alone it should be obvious that dogs did not descend from wolves, that dogs descended from an older relative, now extinct, one less wolf-like but just as loyal and occasionally fierce, one of different physical characteristsics..one not found in the fossil record...and one from which all the current varieties of dog could eventually be traced back to....and these qualites would have been there long before humans ever got their hands on them....in other words they were 'domestic' before being domesticated.

It's not fighting a war to win points for the bio-engineered dog theory..it's fighting to get an answer conforming to the facts. I've posted site after site, including those above in which experts on wolves, their breeding, and their look alikes [malamutes, huskies, etc] are discussed and in which it is made quite clear that no one knows the definitve origin of dogs but in which everyone is sure it wasn't from wolves.
here again is just one quote of dozens I found online which holds for almost any breed you can name...
"Purebred Alaskan Malamutes and Siberian Huskies are not wolves, or part-wolves, were not bred from wolves, and these breeds were not developed by breeding to wolves anytime recently (that is a separate animal called a wolf-dog). Based on studies by Dr. Robert Wayne at UC Berkeley, sled dogs are no more closely related to wolves than Chihuahuas. There is very little genetic difference between any dog and any wolf, coyote, or jackal, etc., so little, in fact, that genetic tests cannot tell how much wolf is in deliberately bred wolf-dogs"

Only here on science forum is there an argument..not being put forward as far as i can see by any qualified geneticist, vet, dog-breeder or paleo-anthropologist or wolf specialist..and the argument I am getting is..'it is perfectly obvious where dogs came from'...supported by theories of domestication which are about as valid as bio-engineering..and maybe less so.

BTW...I am not angry, miffed, pouting or distraught, my blood pressure is normal and I bear absolutely no ill will towards anyone here. ...really.
If my tone is contrary at times it is because i heartily dislike being dismissed with answers that speak more of a cultural programming and bias and a penchant for one-upmanship than a product of scientific reasoning.
...

-Sincerely
-Zohaar

[Zohaar818]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Your post pretty much proves my point really - there is no mystery. Dogs and wolves evolved from the same ancestors. Problem solved.

Read my post below..if they descended from a common ancestor, the dog-like qualities were there before humans 'domesticated them'...
Now then, do we have a fossil of the ancestor or is that part of the theory..that there 'must have been' one?

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Zohaar818

Read my post below..if they descended from a common ancestor, the dog-like qualities were there before humans 'domesticated them'...

Yes and no - the "domestic" qualities would not be there. They were wild animals.

There are also other theories - for example that domesticated dogs evolved from wolves only 14,000 years ago. A lot of fossils seem to show this to be true, so there is a plausible case for this.

More about this in BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2498669.stm

Now then, do we have a fossil of the ancestor or is that part of the theory..that there 'must have been' one?

Yes, there are many fossils - which form part of the theory. Google for it if you like.

Here is an interesting comment from Michael Shermer where he actually mentions the alternative theory I noted above.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...3983414B7F0000

I have no single answer for you. There are many theories and there are some that are more plausible than others. All scientific theories on the wolf/dog relationship are based on evolution, though.