Dominance or insecurity?

That's one reason why protection dogs tend to work better on their own territory and with their handler standing behind them. Especially if the dog and handler have a strong bond. It gives them something to fight for. As for the selective pressure man puts on animals like elk from hunting, it is a limited form of artificial selection. That's why those populations develop instinctive fear of humans over time. As for the pseudo-natural selection of LGDs, I don't see it as natural selection more like lazy artificial selection. If they had a dog born from an accidental breeding who started killing the herd by the dozens, they would select against those individuals with consistent selective pressure. That may not affect their phenotype or their predator fighting abilities but that's artificial selection to make a herd friendly dog. If one were born who was good with the sheep but terrified of wild animals and was producing a lot of accidental pups who were cowards would they wait for him and all of the pups the starve somehow while the herd was unprotected? If one were a great dog who would kill wolves and bears with ease but didn't produce that with the female he wanted to breed with, wouldn't they try to find another female to breed him to in hopes of capturing the traits that made him great? If not then they would starve themselves and fall victim to the natural selection against foolish humans. So I'd say all the successful LGDs and primitive human shepherds will be using artificial selection for the things they care about, even though natural selection may affect some aspects of the animal.

[quote1326747935=davidfitness83] When does dominance become a display of insecurity. [..] But how can you decipher if a dog is really rank driven or if it is just acting tough to hide it's insecurity and instability?[/quote1326747935] One way is to observe the other dog(s). Do they willingly and happily submit to a dog's dominance or do they act irritated or appalled. Dogs can sense insecurity very well. However, in my personal experience the BEST judgement of insecurity belongs hands-down to wolves. I once had an encounter of my well trained SchH GSD with a pack of captive wolves. One female approached me and my GSD and "scanned his brain" with an indescribably intense stare. After a brief moment she turned around in disgust and walked away; none of the wolves even acknowledged his presence there after. My dog was great and all, but deep down I knew he wasn't the most secure (by birth), he turned out to be an exceptional dog nevertheless due to heavy socialization and PP training. But that just masked what was truly in him, ... and the wolf sensed that. Unfortunately, we don't always have a wolf around to test whether a dog is insecure. LOL

[quote1326748853=MidgardKennels] As for the pseudo-natural selection of LGDs, I don't see it as natural selection more like lazy artificial selection. If they had a dog born from an accidental breeding who started killing the herd by the dozens, they would select against those individuals with consistent selective pressure. That may not affect their phenotype or their predator fighting abilities but that's artificial selection to make a herd friendly dog. If one were born who was good with the sheep but terrified of wild animals and was producing a lot of accidental pups who were cowards would they wait for him and all of the pups the starve somehow while the herd was unprotected? If one were a great dog who would kill wolves and bears with ease but didn't produce that with the female he wanted to breed with, wouldn't they try to find another female to breed him to in hopes of capturing the traits that made him great? If not then they would starve themselves and fall victim to the natural selection against foolish humans. So I'd say all the successful LGDs and primitive human shepherds will be using artificial selection for the things they care about, even though natural selection may affect some aspects of the animal. [/quote1326748853] Well, I guess it's gonna be your theoretical speculation against what actually happens in reality and has been well documented by scientists in the relevant literature. You apply YOUR worldview and breeding paradigm to a very different part of the world with very different modes of survival. You apply western logic and rationale to judge a fundamentally different culture and lifestyle and make hypothetical conclusions based on what YOU think makes sense. But that's all OK, I'm just sayin'. :)

I'm open to the idea that they might not even notice the dogs and the success or failure of them may be irrelevant. But if the hype about LGDs is to be believed that doesnt just accedently happen. Wild breeding doesn't produce working dogs it produces pariah type dogs like dingos that don't work with people. If in reality LGDs just hang out near herds waiting for a calf to stray for them to eat but they are too afraid to attack the adults and are just a pack of opertunistic wild dogs defending their food source like inner city stray packs fight over the garbage cans, then I can see natural selection producing that. And let's clarify western doesn't mean stupid and eastern doesn't mean smart, I've run into that feeling a lot around here.

[quote1326750426=MidgardKennels] And let's clarify western doesn't mean stupid and eastern doesn't mean smart [/quote1326750426] Hell no! It's just two different world views that are best fitted to make it in its respective world context. So let me clearly point this out, western doesn't mean stupid and eastern doesn't mean smart, just as western doesn't mean smart and eastern doesn't mean stupid. If we can agree on that, we're all in perfect agreement. :)

[quote1326750809=MidgardKennels] just a pack of opertunistic wild dogs [/quote1326750809] Not wild dogs, domesticated village dogs with the general appearance of pariahs. (please see my earlier reference to aeons of [u]passive[/u] pre-selection) Bottomline, there was NEVER a master plan! (that is, until they were formally cast into an official breed)

[quote1326751123=sunnyAK] The user who posted this thread was banned by the site administrators and the post deprecated. This action is final. [/quote1326751123] What the heck is he talking about lol ?

I for one am definitely not going to see eye to eye with you on this one Lee. I have very strong feelings about the topic, I agree with the scientists like coppinger who say man "creating" dogs is an arrogant myth, that we're really kidding ourselves to think we're like gods, rather than say sea anemones, or water buffalo (both of which are in relationships with other animals, animals that have adapted to being in that relationship with them. Clown fish and ox-pecker birds respectively). Yes we've played our part but like dumb apes just opportunistically exploiting a situation to benefit ourselves, rather than omniscient god-like entities. Niches have opened up connected to human society which dogs have taken upon themselves to fill. Once they got their foot in, new niches developed and the dogs evolved to be suited to them. This relationship with dogs is responsible for our almolst "super natural" success, it's the reason we've lifted above nature in some ways and ironically is the reason we're so ready to believe we're so special that we could mastermind the dog/human relationship and create dogs. We're special because we fell into an alliance with dogs and it gave us a frankly unfair advantage over the natural world.

@davidfitness83, It just means that an administrator finally had enough and banned sunnyAK from MD. And whatever sunnyAK had posted in his post was deleted and replaced by the admin with above statement. This has nothing to do with you, who posted the thread itself. :)

[quote1326752175=Tonedog] I agree with the scientists like coppinger who say man "creating" dogs is an arrogant myth, that we're really kidding ourselves to think we're like gods, [..] Niches have opened up connected to human society which dogs have taken upon themselves to fill. Once they got their foot in, new niches developed and the dogs evolved to be suited to them. [/quote1326752175] Excellent!! And very much to the point! There isn't much to add from my part to further illustrate this position. Coming to think of it it's never been easy to accept a concept that puts humans further into their place. (i.e that the world doesn't revolve around humans' earth, that humans weren't special at all but evolved such as any rat, horse or insect did. That genetics isn't as trivial as we initially thought it is. The world of history is paved with scientific evidence chopping down the inflated self-perception of humans.)

Thanks for clarification :) I need to read everything that became of this thread on a real monitor. My iPhone is not cutting it lol great info and I want to express gratitude for this who took their time and knowledge to write a response.

[quote=Astibus] After a brief moment she turned around in disgust and walked away; none of the wolves even acknowledged his presence there after. [/quote] Unless you have mental telepathy, you are left to assume that is what the wolf thought...and personally, I think you are personifying the wolf too much. Now, if instead you would say the wolf wasn't concerned about your dog...that might be more rational. [quote1326766089=Tonedog] I for one am definitely not going to see eye to eye with you on this one Lee. I have very strong feelings about the topic, I agree with the scientists like coppinger who say man "creating" dogs is an arrogant myth, that we're really kidding ourselves to think we're like gods, rather than say sea anemones, or water buffalo (both of which are in relationships with other animals, animals that have adapted to being in that relationship with them. Clown fish and ox-pecker birds respectively). [/quote1326766089] There are many error in this post here... 1. While humans are not gods, we certainly have ILLUSTRATED the power and intelligence of dominion over so many aspects of other species...God given dominion or simply our evolutionary progression to be the most intelligent and powerful species on earth. 2. I already illustrated that mutualism does occur in synergistic relationships...but you failed to supply a single reference to ANY mutualistic relationship that included 3 species all at once without one of those species actually being humans that produced such a situation via artificial selection. 3. Science is not a person. It is a process. Anyone can call themself a scientist if they perform the right practice...and anyone that does NOT use that practice properly isn't being really scientific. You have to look at the WHOLE PICTURE. [quote1326766427=Astibus] Excellent!! And very much to the point! There isn't much to add from my part to further illustrate this position. Coming to think of it it's never been easy to accept a concept that puts humans further into their place. (i.e that the world doesn't revolve around humans' earth, that humans weren't special at all but evolved such as any rat, horse or insect did. That genetics isn't as trivial as we initially thought it is. The world of history is paved with scientific evidence chopping down the inflated self-perception of humans.) [/quote1326766427] The world doesn't revolve around humans...but we have certainly dominated the world more so than any other species...and via artificial selection we have certainly developed an inter-dependent relationship with nearly every species we have domesticated...and via artificial selection, we have even mutated those species to display behaviors to unproportionate levels that would never be seen in nature because it serves our interest. To deny this is NOT scientific...for the evidence is not just there...the proof is there. You just have to be willing to accept it. But, there is no skin off my back for those that don't wish to.

Oh I agree western also doesn't mean smart and eastern doesn't mean dumb. I think I'm where Lee was, we may just have to agree to disagree. Once artificial selection stopped being the driving force in their population, they would stop being working dogs and revert back to pariah types. Because there is no selective advantage in a naturally breeding population to fight to defend a food source and not eat it. The more pariah like dogs would have a huge advantage over the more LGD like dogs. Unless there was another pressure tipping the scales like human selection. That's still artificial selection because humans are controlling the overall direction of the populations development. Even if it's not a dedicated breeding program like the program that created the dogo.

[quote1326776060=LeeRobinson] [quote=Astibus] After a brief moment she turned around in disgust and walked away; none of the wolves even acknowledged his presence there after. [/quote] Unless you have mental telepathy, you are left to assume that is what the wolf thought...and personally, I think you are personifying the wolf too much. Now, if instead you would say the wolf wasn't concerned about your dog...that might be more rational. [/quote1326776060] OMG!! Are we really going to argue over literary inference and metaphorical speech, just to make a point?? LOL No, I do not have telepathic powers ( .... but if your head just slammed hard on your desk, I may have telekinetic powers lol). Nor did the wolf sign a notarized document declaring its emotional state of mind. So I can't know for sure. She was simply very eager to approach my dog before, and after said intense stare her interest went abruptly down to zero (appearing grossly turned off). The other wolves followed a bit the development from the distance and after she returned none of them granted my dog a second look. As if my dog wasn't there anymore. I used "disgust" loosely here, but assumed that was allowed in casual prose. Your overly detail obsessed responses sometimes remind me of Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory. LOL [quote1326776060=LeeRobinson] 3. Science is not a person. It is a process. Anyone can call themself a scientist if they perform the right practice...and anyone that does NOT use that practice properly isn't being really scientific. [/quote1326776060] Yeah, but these guys aren't anyones! They're on top of their field. [quote1326776060=LeeRobinson] [quote1326766427=Astibus] Coming to think of it it's never been easy to accept a concept that puts humans further into their place. (i.e that the world doesn't revolve around humans' earth, that humans weren't special at all but evolved such as any rat, horse or insect did. That genetics isn't as trivial as we initially thought it is. The world of history is paved with scientific evidence chopping down the inflated self-perception of humans.) [/quote1326766427] The world doesn't revolve around humans...but we have certainly dominated the world more so than any other species...and via artificial selection we have certainly developed an inter-dependent relationship with nearly every species we have domesticated...and via artificial selection, we have even mutated those species to display behaviors to unproportionate levels that would never be seen in nature because it serves our interest. [/quote1326776060] Mhm, now go ahead and try the same with say cats. And suddenly our genius and world domination won't help us crap to repeat the "artificial selection" in creating the same diversity that we apparently performed on dogs. The reason? It's called genetic plasticity with unusually high levels in canine genomes. Now was it US who designed their genomes in such ways that they allowed for dramatic alteration of dog phenotypes? Or did we just somehow stumble on it, because canines "offered" themselves for a symbiotic relationship with humans? What do you think?! (rhetorical question as this has been already conclusively answered by scientists)

[quote1326808273=Astibus] ...appearing grossly turned off... [/quote1326808273] I think such statements require too much assumption and personification that a canine is not truly capable of. [quote] Your overly detail obsessed responses sometimes... [/quote] It takes two...and your not immune to this either. Besides...let's stay on topic instead of resorting to stuff that could be taken as potentially personally attacks...especially when such statements go both ways. Deal? :) Besides, isn't that what a good scientist should do...consider everything? The truth can sustain such scrutiny. [quote] Yeah, but these guys aren't anyones! They're on top of their field. [/quote] So is Steven Hawkin...a scientist that stated he came up with his theory because it was no theory on the subject existed and being a theoretical field no one could prove him wrong. My point is titles don't quantify legitimacy. The subject and data does. This is why I stated science is a method...and objective science looks a the WHOLE PICTURE. [quote] Mhm, now go ahead and try the same with say cats. And suddenly our genius and world domination won't help us crap to repeat the "artificial selection" in creating the same diversity that we apparently performed on dogs.The reason? It's called genetic plasticity with unusually high levels in canine genomes. Now was it US who designed their genomes in such ways that they allowed for dramatic alteration of dog phenotypes? [/quote] I would say we have modified cats considerably. [u]CONSIDERING[/u]...they have been domesticated for LESS time and by LESS cultures...and with far LESS purpose. Again...you have to keep the whole picture in perspective. Now, that said, the plasticity of the genome certainly plays a role, but it doesn't solely cause a species to be influenced or not by artificial selection. Also, WHY is the canine so placid? Is that a normal phenomenon, or is that a product of us ISOLATING various types over time? Are wolves as placid as a line bred domesticated breed? How many cats do you see like this in nature? I could go on...but the point is while less variation is seen among cats than is seen in canines...distorted forms via artificial selection can't be denied. [quote] Or did we just somehow stumble on it, because canines "offered" themselves for a symbiotic relationship with humans? What do you think?! (rhetorical question as this has been already conclusively answered by scientists) [/quote] Dog's certainly offered their relationship with humans to some degree...but that really has nothing to do SPECIFICALLY with the LGD alone...NOR does it have much to do with how we have artificially selected them to distort their traits to our liking.

[quote1326824897=LeeRobinson] [quote] Yeah, but these guys aren't anyones! They're on top of their field. [/quote] So is Steven Hawkin...a scientist that stated he came up with his theory because it was no theory on the subject existed and being a theoretical field no one could prove him wrong. [/quote1326824897] That is a geek's attempt at a joke! His field is called THEORETICAL PHYSICS ... as historically there has ALWAYS been a rivalry between Theoretical Physics and APPLIED PHYSICS. (Both fields consider themselves much more important and look down on the respective other one). This self-deprecating statement was intended for a HAHA response, not to be taken literally. (I happened to major in Theoretical Physics [and Biology], so just as every other college student in Physics I've participated in those pointless philosophical questions of which came first and why it's more important) [quote1326824897=LeeRobinson] My point is titles don't quantify legitimacy. The subject and data does. This is why I stated science is a method...and objective science looks a the WHOLE PICTURE. [/quote1326824897] So if scientific reputations don't have any weight in their field, then that would mean that YOU could just come up with a counter theory to Hawking's and they would be equally legitimate? I didn't think so. The same goes for your view on the canine matter at hand versus the explanations of world reknown scientists in Biology and Anthropology. (Both of which btw aren't theoretical but predominantly based on observation and study of hard data) [quote1326824897=LeeRobinson] Dog's certainly offered their relationship with humans to some degree...but that really has nothing to do SPECIFICALLY with the LGD alone... [/quote1326824897] Of course not! Nobody ever stated that this had to do "SPECIFICALLY with the LGD alone". The LGD is NOT the ancestor of all working breeds. NEITHER is it the reason why we have domesticated dogs today. We are talking about one branch in the early evolution of dogs. One branch. Anyways, I am admittedly growing tired of this argument. So let's declare that you are right and Coppinger et al as well as geneticists and anthropologists are all wrong. "For it is" the shortcoated dog and our god-given power to artificially mold canines into whatever we desire that created robot dogs strictly following their prey-fight-rank program. Oh yeah, and Americans are naturally the best at this. Amen.

[quote1326829882=Astibus] That is a geek's attempt at a joke! His field is called THEORETICAL PHYSICS ... as historically there has ALWAYS been a rivalry between Theoretical Physics and APPLIED PHYSICS. [/quote1326829882] I understand that...but that is why I mentioned it. Joke...or actually ironic truths?..or perhaps both. [quote] So if scientific reputations don't have any weight in their field, then that would mean that YOU could just come up with a counter theory to Hawking's and they would be equally legitimate? I didn't think so. [/quote] It would depend upon the DATA. We need to give the BEST theories the credit they are due. Einstein was a patent clerk from 1902-1907 was he not?...yet, his studies and research rivaled the field at that time...in fact, ahead of his time. Perhaps because he was willing to step out of the box to consider the bigger picture. Titles are great...but they need to be kept in their perspective. Data and truth trumps titles alone. [quote] The same goes for your view on the canine matter at hand versus the explanations of world reknown scientists in Biology and Anthropology. (Both of which btw aren't theoretical but predominantly based on observation and study of hard data) [/quote] Parts of such are factual, but parts are indeed theoretical. As mentioned, we are not god's yet...and we do not have mental telepathy with animals that are here...much less ones that are long gone. So, we look at the facts (factual) but then guess about the holes (theoretical) in order to fill the gaps. The best theories/guesses are the ones that look at the entire picture in order to keep things (the data) in its proper perspective to the larger idea. [quote] [quote1326824897=LeeRobinson] Dog's certainly offered their relationship with humans to some degree...but that really has nothing to do SPECIFICALLY with the LGD alone... [/quote1326824897] Of course not! Nobody ever stated that this had to do "SPECIFICALLY with the LGD alone". The LGD is NOT the ancestor of all working breeds. NEITHER is it the reason why we have domesticated dogs today. We are talking about one branch in the early evolution of dogs. One branch. [/quote] Referring to dogs offering a relationship is NOT the same as offering the ability to heard livestock without reward. If there is reward based upon task completion, that alone would designate artificial selection. [quote] Anyways, I am admittedly growing tired of this argument. So let's declare that you are right and Coppinger et al as well as geneticists and anthropologists are all wrong. "For it is" the shortcoated dog and our god-given power to artificially mold canines into whatever we desire that created robot dogs strictly following their prey-fight-rank program. Oh yeah, and Americans are naturally the best at this. Amen. [/quote] Reverting to nonsense doesn't help your argument/point of view. Truth can withstand scrutiny...regardless. That said, Einstein stated, "Great minds have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Your sarcasm is just that...sarcasm...and is off topic. People that use sarcasm resort to such as a redirection of the topic typically due to frustration...and they do so when they are unable to endure intelligent discussion from objective parties. If you want to discuss the topic...cool. If not...that's cool too. It makes no difference to me...but the truth doesn't have to run and hide from questioning or resort to sarcasm. Doing so projects a weakness in your argument/point of view. Meanwhile, I'm not upset in the least...and if you wish to move on for the purpose of saying it is time to agree to disagree...that makes sense...but sarcasm and comments like "you're overly detail obsessed responses sometimes..." well, that is just nonsense...and of course pointless. As far as Coppinger goes...I don't believe Coppinger is the only one that has offered opinions on the process of natural selection vs artificial selection. In fact, I know he is not the only one. His conclusions and theories may have some evidence, but since no one can go back thousands of years ago and actually observe what happened in a factual manner...ultimately, your acceptance of his view/conclusions/theories is one of faith since direct observational evidence from the time of the LGD's development is lacking. In closing, let me say one final thing. [u]It's all good. If you are ever in my neck of the woods...however unlikely it may be...you are welcome to stop by for a visit. I consider you an intelligent guy with different opinions or beliefs than my own. [/u] Of course, I think you're a bit mislead by biased teachings...but so what. I have pointed out many HOLES in your view, yet you haven't pointed out a single flaw in my view, but again...so what. If you wish to change your mind, cool. If you change my mind, cool. Hopefully, we will both be students until we die. Until then though, I will seek the truth or defend what I know is true the best I know how...and when someone comes along that knows more truth than I do...well, I will be able to see such truths as they are presented objectively...and not because "I said so." I am sure you can understand that. God bless.

[quote1326836161=LeeRobinson] I don't believe Coppinger is the only one that has offered opinions on the process of natural selection vs artificial selection. In fact, I know he is not the only one. His conclusions and theories may have some evidence, but since no one can go back thousands of years ago and actually observe what happened in a factual manner...ultimately, your acceptance of his view/conclusions/theories is one of faith since direct observational evidence from the time of the LGD's development is lacking. [/quote1326836161] False. While this has been going on "thousands of years ago" as you say, transhumance can be observed to this day in certain regions of the world. Macedonia being one of them (Coppinger actually is specifically referring to his observations in Macedonia, a while ago he has also asked me if it was still safe to travel to Macedonia as he intended additional excursions). Other regions on this earth provide insight into nomadic cultures, that haven't much changed over the centuries. Conclusions are made on current observations in combination with a plethora of archaeological, biological, genetic, anthropological, geological, historical, cross-cultural, epidemiological, mathematical and physical data. That is how science is done these days. And lastly, the "no time machine" argument is getting old, and it prohibits any discussion of anything that doesn't provide actual video footage. See a pattern here? [quote1326836161=LeeRobinson] Referring to Einstein, he stated, "Great minds have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Your sarcasm is just that. [/quote1326836161] LOL! You DO realize that I am arguing on behalf of a new understanding, while YOU are holding on to an old world view that has already been dismissed by modern science, right? ... "Great mind"... haha ... you're high-ness. [quote1326836161=LeeRobinson] We don't need sarcasm...a redirection of the topic due to frustration on your part...because your view is unable to endure intelligent discussion from objective parties. [/quote1326836161] Not at all frustrated, just bored ...... of running in circles with you. Internet discussion are just entertainment to me; ................ infotainment at best really. :)

[quote1326840668=Astibus] transhumance can be observed to this day in certain regions of the world. [/quote1326840668] Seriously... 1. transhumance today doesn't equate to always represent reality during the adaptation stage thousands of years ago. You should know this. [quote] Macedonia being one of them (Coppinger actually is specifically referring to his observations in Macedonia, a while ago he has also asked me if it was still safe to travel to Macedonia as he intended additional excursions). [/quote] 2. I would say this statement begins to reveal WHY you are so biased upon this belief...An association with the researcher tends to remove objectivity...via creating a subjective endorsement of an affiliate. [quote] [quote1326836161=LeeRobinson] Referring to Einstein, he stated, "Great minds have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Your sarcasm is just that. [/quote1326836161] LOL! You DO realize that I am arguing on behalf of a new understanding, while YOU are arguing for an old world view, right? ... "Great mind"...okay then ... you're high-ness. [/quote] New and old doesn't matter. The general public as a whole is not well versed on either idea, but that is besides the point. Instead of ranking validity on how old the idea is...REAL science ranks the validity of a subject on the ABILITY to withstand scrutiny by objective evaluation. Your sarcasm again reveals a weakness. Sarcasm, prejudice remarks against short haired dogs, discriminating statements against Americans, and such reveal ignorance and shallow minded views of people with limited experiences and knowledge...and therefore reflects upon the foolishness of the person that resorts to such tactics more-so than anyone else. If you want to be taken seriously, I would suggest you stick to the topic.

[quote1326841203=LeeRobinson] I have pointed out many HOLES in your view, yet you haven't pointed out a single flaw in my view [/quote1326841203] Mhm, tell yourself that. Is this the twilight zone or something? LOL Do my arguments only show up on my screen? [quote1326841203=LeeRobinson] [u]It's all good. If you are ever in my neck of the woods...however unlikely it may be...you are welcome to stop by for a visit. I consider you an intelligent guy with different opinions or beliefs than my own. [/u] [/quote1326841203] Fair enough. I travel a lot, so who knows.

[quote1326842304=Astibus] Mhm, tell yourself that. Is this the twilight zone or something? LOL Do my arguments only show up on my screen? [/quote1326842304] Nope...but your arguments were flawed, so they didn't hold any legitimacy. ;) Take care...I keep a cup of coffee...or something else around for you. :)

I just lost the hugest post. Ugh... The point of it was that you actually CAN go back in time, you can look at primitive cultures. Different cultures really represent different stages in the development of humans. They're not just from different places, they represent different eras, different dots on the timeline. My example was papua new guinea, a place I have a close connection to (my girlfriend is from there). In papua new guinea you can actually see an extremely early stage of the dog/human relationship. When you look at it you are actually "looking back in time" to how it all started. No you don't see man crawling into wolf caves to take pups that he intends to raise to do his bidding, no, that's because this is an absurdly outdated fable which all advancements in understanding are exposing to be wrong, a fairy tale that should be abandoned. No instead what you see is dogs weaseling their way into a relationship with reluctant human beings. The humans begrudgingly tolerating them, they're essentially vermine, but they keep the place clean (the staple of their diet is actually human feces), they can be eaten when times are tough, and they also have sharp senses that can be benefitted from when they take it upon themselves to come along on hunts. But they are not cared for at all, not only not "bred", not fed, nothing. They're just a wild beast that found a niche on the fringe of tribal human society, adapting to it and thusly evolving into "dogs" rather than wolves. Man didn't mastermind it at all, if anything the dogs are masterminding it, and man is more like an ox that's given up on slapping the flies off it's butt. From these frosty beginnings, the relationship blossomed, with dogs easily as responsible for the twists and turns it took as man. Really more so. One only needs to look at the directions the relationship did take to know. It wasn't like man had cows, and thought to himself "gee it would be nice if I had something to herd these cows, I'm gonna turn a dog into that thing", no, dogs went up and started herding cows, and then man thought "alright, nice, I have cows now". Dogs were the ones that had the ancestral instinctive knowledge about herding, man had no concept of what herding is, it has nothing to do with the animal he is. Every direction the dog went, was already dictated by the facets that exist in the wild wolf, it's natural array of behaviours and tendencies, the types of dog that emerged are merely each of these behaviours and tendencies under a magnifying glass. Now I know the kind of people even today who are accompanying dogs on these respective journeys down specialised paths, and I say this with the greatest respect and affection but they are not wolf biologists. They weren't in the past either, the further back you go the less and less people understood dogs, and today serious working-dog people still don't understand dogs. To suggest they masterminded the directions of the dog is just really ludicrous, because a deep knowledge of what the wolf had to offer is evident in everything the dog has become, and this is something scholars and scientists grapple with today (as in, in the last 3 or 4 years they're starting to shed a dull light on it sort of), serious "dog men" have no clue about any of it and never have. What has always known, is the natural instincts in the dog. They have been dictating where the dog went, and indeed where the human/dog alliance went. Humans have played their part for sure, but humans didn't domesticate dogs. Dogs domesticated themselves, arguably they domesticated and "tamed" man, and then as a team the dog/human alliance went on together to domesticate other animals, which ultimately allowed for civilisation to come into being, when large quantities of food could be provided for large groups of people, together in limitted space, who no longer had to focus on obtaining food and could instead focus on advancing knowledge and technology and etc. Basically the old view is just extremely insulting to dogs, doesn't give them a fraction of the credit they deserve, and it's way way too complimentary to humans who still to this day haven't exhibited the abilities it attributes them with. It's just a case of understanding the way the human/dog relationship really is, still today, and really was in old primitive cultures. You can see the way it works and it just doesn't mesh with the old theory of dog domestication. It's just not the way it happens.

[quote1326841771=LeeRobinson] [quote1326840668=Astibus] transhumance can be observed to this day in certain regions of the world. [/quote1326840668] 1. transhumance today doesn't equate to always represent reality during the adaptation stage thousands of years ago. You should know this. [/quote1326841771] And how would YOU [u]know[/u] any of this? Have you ever left the US? Or is this all TV knowledge? BTW, to show to you once again how you are misinterpreting what is actually being said, I didn't say that it equated to transhumance in the adaption stage thousands of years ago. I said it can be observed to this day. Certain realities that exist in transhumance today most certainly have existed thousands of years ago. That's quite a different statement than what you are objecting to. But carry on. [quote1326841771=LeeRobinson] [quote] Macedonia being one of them (Coppinger actually is specifically referring to his observations in Macedonia, a while ago he has also asked me if it was still safe to travel to Macedonia as he intended additional excursions). [/quote] 2. I would say this statement begins to reveal WHY you are so biased upon this belief...An association with the researcher tends to remove objectivity...via creating a subjective endorsement of an affiliate. [/quote1326841771] Laughable, and insulting. Moreover, your affiliation with the South and Mississippi is considered neutral in your bias towards your dog type? [quote1326841771=LeeRobinson] New and old doesn't matter. The general public as a whole is not well versed on either idea, but that is besides the point. Instead of ranking validity on how old the idea is...REAL science ranks the validity of a subject on the ABILITY to withstand scrutiny by objective evaluation. [/quote1326841771] Ya, but what I am telling you is that this ship has sailed already. Your world view on canines is considered obsolete. The evidence is simply against it. Just the same as the old belief that all these hundreds of breeds today go back for thousands of years. Most pure breeds were created during the Victorian Era, mostly for reasons of vanity, entertainment and prevailing racism. Yet people still hold on to the myths about purebreds. Despite clear genetic evidence. People don't like reality checks that make them look less glamorous. Same goes for our self-perceived ingenuity about the creation of dogs. We simply weren't that clever! If anything, it was the dogs that were "clever". (Based on population numbers dogs can be considered quite successful in their "survival" strategy) OK, now I'm officially bored. (no sarcasm) .... and busy. Toodles.

You are being pretty annoying lee... your view is definitely one at odds with modern research and the new wave of advancements in understanding dogs, so some humility at least would seem appropriate. Your argument is old as hell and I for one am so confident it's wrong it's hard to even bother talking about it, feels like taking a step backwards. You seem to have irrational fear and/or disrespect for the scientific community, are you a creationist by any chance? On my end the discussion can just cease now if you are. If you haven't been convinced by the bulk of evidence for evolution I'm sure as hell not going to match that in quantity, I sincerely doubt anything could topple your wall of resistance if this is the case. If not I apologise. I just see some of what are usually tell-tale signs of a professional agenda-driven reality-denier.

[quote1326843182=Tonedog] My example was papua new guinea, a place I have a close connection to (my girlfriend is from there). In papua new guinea you can actually see an extremely early stage of the dog/human relationship. When you look at it you are actually "looking back in time" to how it all started. [/quote1326843182] You're probably risking to be lectured how this explains why YOU are biased towards Coppinger, as he actually used this very example in one of his books. [quote1326843182=Tonedog] No you don't see man crawling into wolf caves to take pups that he intends to raise to do his bidding, no, that's because this is an absurdly outdated fable which all advancements in understanding are exposing to be wrong, a fairy tale that should be abandoned. [/quote1326843182] Precisely. It was actually proven that this is practically impossible due to the difference in the developmental stages of wolves and dogs. (If you have written that, then I apologize. I started writing before I could finish your post, as I have to hurry back to work now).

[quote1326843828=Tonedog] man is more like an ox that's given up on slapping the flies off it's butt. [/quote1326843828] Priceless!! LOL OK, now I gotta run. :)

[quote1326849483=Tonedog] The point of it was that you actually CAN go back in time [/quote1326849483] When you start a post off with faulty foundation...it is hard to continue...because it is based upon error. We can NOT go back in time. All we can do is LOOK AT EVIDENCE that we have HERE TODAY. This is NOT the same as actually observing things when the happened...because when you see it happen it is fact, but when you guess what happened it is theory. [quote1326849599=Astibus] And how would YOU [u]know[/u] any of this? Have you ever left the US? Or is this all TV knowledge? [/quote1326849599] I have left the country...and have been to the opposite side of the globe. As far as my knowledge, I'm sure you know you are not the only one with a degree in science here...both my B.S. and M.S. are in science. Your continual disrespect in debate really illustrates a lack of solid theory. Solid theory doesn't need to resort to childish nonsense. [quote] BTW, to show to you once again how you are misinterpreting what is actually being said, I didn't say that it equated to transhumance in the adaption stage thousands of years ago. I said it can be observed to this day. [/quote] What would be the point of looking at it today in a topic that is DISCUSSING the EVOLUTION of the LGD if you were not suggesting it to be a representative of thousands of years ago? [quote] Certain realities that exist in transhumance today most certainly have existed thousands of years ago. [/quote] So, you are using it to compare to thousands of years ago. LOL. Make up your mind. Is it a reference to the evolution of the LGD or not? If so, I would say it is not an accurate one...as the LGD today is ALREADY produced...and only needs to be maintained. If not, then I would say, why even bother mentioning it? Either way, its pointless as it doesn't refer to the original evolution of the LGD as a breed. [quote] Laughable, and insulting. Moreover, your affiliation with the South and Mississippi is considered neutral in your bias towards your dog type? [/quote] Laughable and insulting? So, you can make direct attacks...and that is ok...but if point at a SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC FACT that objectivity is best determined by neutral parties...you consider that offensive? Sorry, OBJBECTIVITY is necessary in true science...and the PROPER WAY TO DO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is to have 3 parties research the data...not associates. I don't make the rules, but I do live by them. As far as my dogs go...who cares? What does that have to do with the hypothetical evolution of the LGD as being artifically or naturally selected? What I do or don't do with my dogs today has nothing to do with LGDs. AND, in my opinion how the LGD developed doesn't alter the quality of those dogs either. They are what they are regardless of their history. Dogs don't read books. Referring to my dogs is simply a pointless rant IMO. I'll say it again...you should stay on topic. [quote] Same goes for our self-perceived ingenuity about the creation of dogs. We simply weren't that clever! If anything, it was the dogs that were "clever". (Based on population numbers dogs can be considered quite successful in their "survival" strategy) [/quote] So, after dogs showed man they were interested in having a relationship with humans...do you REALLY WISH TO STATE that man isn't intelligent enough to kill a dog that hunts, kills, and eats the the man's livestock? Thanks for the laugh.

[quote1326850741=Tonedog] You are being pretty annoying lee... your view is definitely one at odds with modern research and the new wave of advancements in understanding dogs, so some humility at least would seem appropriate. Your argument is old as hell and I for one am so confident it's wrong it's hard to even bother talking about it, feels like taking a step backwards. You seem to have irrational fear and/or disrespect for the scientific community, are you a creationist by any chance? On my end the discussion can just cease now if you are. If you haven't been convinced by the bulk of evidence for evolution I'm sure as hell not going to match that in quantity, I sincerely doubt anything could topple your wall of resistance if this is the case. If not I apologise. I just see some of what are usually tell-tale signs of a professional agenda-driven reality-denier. [/quote1326850741] This entire post is a personal attack, and I take offense to it. The fact that you are a moderator on the forum is EXACTLY WHY you should refrain from such low life behavior. Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic...and is harassing in nature...and it does NOT do honor your friend Gary, the board owner the respect or professionalism he deserves on his forum.

For some reason, it seems as if you are suggesting I don't believe dogs came to man...following us around during our initial relationship with the canine. I already know that is the case. My position doesn't deny this belief, but instead takes this belief and adds to it. I only add the fact that once domestication occurred, we selected for the traits we desired by making an effort to eliminate the parasitic relationships that dogs may have initially desired. Dogs didn't "seek mutualism." They seeked resources. Those that worked with us, obtained resources. Those that did not...man desired to eliminate as they were parasitic. For this reason, man artificially selected the canine into a mutualistic relationship.

Amen. People should be able to discuss dog related topics on a dog forum in a respectful and professional manner.

[quote1326906543=LeeRobinson] [quote1326849483=Tonedog] The point of it was that you actually CAN go back in time [/quote1326849483] When you start a post off with faulty foundation...it is hard to continue...because it is based upon error. We can NOT go back in time. [/quote1326906543] Lee, I will try to say this with respect and devoid of emotion. This here is a classic example of you misinterpreting entirely what is being said. You take it LITERALLY, even though it is clear to everyone but you that Tonedog means this figuratively to demonstrate how modern scientists bypass that obstacle to nevertheless obtain valuable and moreover valid data from our past. This is very obvious. He continued to explain this in detail but you chose to cut that part out. Your stubbornness and ignorance in those cases of literal and misconstrued interpretation can be frustrating to continue a discussion. It is what makes your argumentation annoying at times. This isn't meant as a personal insult at all, it just illustrates how your discussion style is perceived on the other end. You don't win an argument, you just frustrate people until they give up talking to a robot. We still are convinced that your position is NOT representing the truth (in those specific instances, not in general), and it is most certainly not because we are unwilling to learn. It is because stubborn ignorance in repeating the same mantra doesn't equate to a truly convincing point in discussion. This I would assume is why Tonedog drew parallels to debating a creationist. Those debates go in circles as well and never lead anywhere, not because creationists don't have a legitimate leg to stand on next to science, but because they seem immune against logic and reason. Instead they stubbornly adhere to their obscure views. Nevermind that the catholic pope himself has irrevocably declared that evolution can not be considered a theory any longer but that it is indisputable scientific fact. I am not sure if your debating strategy is intentional or inherent, i.e. whether you're not aware of how your discussion style is perceived. Either way, I am certainly aware that none of what I just wrote may reach you without being entirely misinterpreted (probably into personal attack, even though it is far from it). Well, maybe others can follow my attempt at an explanation. Or hey, maybe Tonedog and I are completely dillusional and just get easily frustrated by the ever present truth, who really knows, right? Having said that, I seem to spot some agreement between our two positions. I think you stated that you do not object to the idea that man didn't crawl into caves and removed wolf pups but that dogs somehow self-evolved into generic village dogs and offered themselves for a symbiotic relationship. So far we'd be all in agreement. Then you continue to argue that after this it was man that took the initiative and masterminded various niches for working dogs and shaped them into feasible tools. Much like dogs are bred to certain tasks today. We on the other hand are arguing that all those niches were already predetermined by the repertoire that wolves offered to begin with. Each niche is a small subset of all skills in a wolf. We continue to argue that village dogs "offered" something that they already had at their disposal to please humans (in exchange for being tolerated and maybe even passively protected from the wild - by living in humans' close proximity). Some dogs started to join humans on their routes to hunting grounds, some even attempted to help in the hunt; they participated based on what they had to offer descending from wolves. And it turns out they were good at it, because wolves happen to have many skills that to this day are foreign to man. And if you ask yourself now, why village dogs would go through such lengths to offer their services to humans, that would be another incredible skill from wolves, making dogs phenomenal social animals that are able to coordinate a task (i.e. hunting in packs) with their peers (in this case humans) without being explicitly told what to do. Their instincts make them "know" intuitively how to hunt. We are further arguing that thousands of years ago it was very similar in animal herding .... or livestock protection for that matter. (This is where I pointed out that LGDs are only one branch of working dogs, others being early hunters, early herders etc). Much like village dogs that voluntarily accompanied humans in the hunt (see primitive tribes in Papua New Guinea) were tolerated and here and there took the initiative when they felt they could help out their humans, some village dogs voluntarily accompanied tribes on their nomadic routes to seasonal pastures for herbivorous animals and later livestock. They followed the humans because it was advantageous for their very survival, and they were still merely tolerated, nothing more. To this day nomadic tribes are accompanied by dogs, nobody there is a dedicated breeder, in fact nobody gives a damn which dog copulates with which dog. And even if they did give a damn, in a nomadic lifestyle it is virtually impossible to control breeding. This is a fact that holds true today, it is a fact of nomadic life that undoubtedly held true thousands of years ago. It would actually be absurd to think that thousands of years ago nomadic tribes actively bred dogs, whereas it proves virtually impossible for today's nomads to achieve that task. This is why [u]some[/u] aspects and observations in todays nomadic cultures can be reliably extrapolated to the past. While you may dismiss such methods as speculative, these inferential methods are well accepted in the scientific community; [u]especially[/u] if they can be confirmed by a plethora of evidence from many other disciplines (i.e. archaeological artifacts, cross-cultural similarities, population genetics). Proto-LGDs developed over time as they once again applied what they had at their disposal from the varied repertoire of the wolf. Now HERE is probably where all the friction happens. You seem to think (correct me if I am wrong) that because humans intervened when some dogs showed undesired behavior (i.e. attacking livestock), it would cease to be natural selection and instead become artificial selection. You also imply that there was intentional breeding on behalf of humans (best performer gets to procreate). Now, I will agree with you that humans would have removed the occasional odd apple. But what I am saying to you is that this was rarely the case in actuality because the dogs were born into this life and throughout their puppy hood they could observe beneficial behavior over time. Even today LGDs in their early youth aren't always what you'd expect them to be, they nibble on animals, chase them etc. They grow out of it by mimicking successful adults. Some do anyway. What we are arguing is that the vast majority of non-performers dies by the hand of nature. Humans don't give a crap what happens to their dogs, they are busy surviving themselves. Moreover, there's really no need to take action. The predatory livestock killing canines have been decimated aeons ago, during the adaption phase to the niche of village dogs. In fact, they evolved away from it as they sought the proximity of humans to begin with (see Balyaev et al). And as for simply non-performing dogs, they get lost, they get into accidents, they get trampled to death by cattle, they get killed by wolves. Statistically speaking, they don't reach a respectable age (for example to procreate) because of the harshness of this particular life, so humans don't have to worry about them too much. AND lastly, non-performers don't get extra scraps. Here is probably where you shout "AHAA!!". Well, in a way you are right, humans will prefer to give extra left-overs to those dogs that deserved it. In this way it wouldn't be natural selection in its purest form, there is a tiny bias. My point is that this is still far from artificial selection, as it does not determine which dog will breed. Moreover, feeding doesn't happen as we know it. Nobody gets the bowls out and feeds each dog canned food. These dogs first and foremost supplied themselves with going through trash, hunting vermin and scavenging on dead animals. Their diet was mostly opportunistic. In fact, in some nomadic cultures and to a degree in transhumance, it still is that way. The very infrequent "reward" from benevolent individuals does exist, but most nomads really disregarded dogs altogether. Most importantly however, these dogs breed as they please, it is virtually impossible to control procreation on a nomadic journey. And all the adversities that nature throws at them represents the dominant selective regime. And in nomadic and semi-nomadic lifestyles that remains a cruel fact to this day. Nevertheless, dogs had a much better chance of survival with the humans than on their own. To this day getting lost during transhumance translates into a dogs sure death. Nobody goes out to find "Timmy"; if a dog get's lost, tough luck. We continue to fight over whether this is truly "natural" selection, or whether it is already "artifical" selection. Regardless of what I believe personally, it is merely a fight over semantics, because neither of the two is ever really pure (with the exception of controlled lab experiments perhaps). I call it predominantly natural selection, whereas you draw the line at any human interference, regardless of how miniscule. I will not argue this any longer. But what should be apparent to everyone is that even your insistence that it must be artificial selection nevertheless is a far cry from intentional breeding. There simply aren't any dedicated nomadic LGD breeders. Throwing an occasional bone to a dog that did a good job that day is a far cry from a masterminded plan with systematic breeding or strategy, as it happens today in the modern world. A dog that is rewarded with extra "food" for positive behavior may not be much different in its essence (speaking from a selection stand point) than a wolf in the wild that is rewarded with meat for skillful hunting. Both are proving successful in their respective niches. Positive behavior leads to increased resources. Sure, one is voluntary by nature, whereas we can safely assume that the prey didn't volunteer its own ribs to the wolf. But both instances fundamentally solely play a role of disparity in resource allocation. An animal better suited to a particular niche will have an advantage of obtaining resources. Before you state that this is why it must be artificial selection by definition, please keep in mind that this source of resources only represents a minor fraction of a dogs diet. Moreover, it is not being used as a strategic breeding tool. The nomads don't intend to shift the odds of genetic procreation towards performers to obtain better offspring downstream. Nomads didn't have much to spare (if any), they still don't. (Again, we can safely assume that this wasn't any different thousands of years ago). I assert again, that the major factors in the early evolution of LGDs are predominantly of natural selection. Not purely, not entirely free of bias, but fundamentally determined by nature. A new niche is filled by dogs that attempt to survive in that given niche. While humans were the reason that this niche opened up, they didn't mastermind it. (They didn't even know what a niche is) A selective regime consisting of exhaustion, combat, disease, climate, limited resources etc consistently prunes the population to create a canine working type that humans at the time had no clue about. None of this was masterminded by anyone. They didn't even really care, nor do some of them care today. If you insist that what I have described above is qualitatively the same as your own breeding programme, then there isn't much left to talk anymore. If you insist that I misrepresented the ways nomadic tribes and cultures of transhumance live, then you are challenging what world reknown biologists and anthropologists have observed throughout the world. It would be your antiquated world view against theirs (and mine).

That's a bit long...so I will read it later...but in your first sentence you suggest I took his statement literally about going back in time. Come on. I realize he is talking figuratively. But, you should realize that figurative statements about going back in time does not equate to literally going back in time...and that is the distinction I was pointing out.

@Lee, Thanks for your clarification. But this did not come across in your previous post - at all. Of course we will all agree that Tonedog's proposed indirect examination of various historic eras does not equate to literally going back in time. I mean, Duh! Since you brought up Theoretical Physics before, this today - more than ever - proves to be nothing but a centuries old fantasy; travel back in time is impossible afterall, whereas travel forward is very possible. Anyways, the proposed method of cross-cultural examination for the purpose of circumventing our dilemma of impossible actual travel back in time is considered a valid scientific tool by virtually every scientist. Let's just accept that. We also cannot ask a rock or piece of fossilized wood how old it is ... or be present at its actual creation, but we have an arsenal of scientific methods to infer this reliably well. If we can't agree on the validity of accepted scientific methods, then further discussion is moot.

[quote1326921130=KeyserSoze] So who is dominant and who is insecure? lol [/quote1326921130] Speaking of going back to a distant past... ;)

Man I lost you guys a long time ago...

@davidfitness83, Well, I DID try a few times to maneuver the discussion back to that time, but it seems time travel in discussion to when we lost everyone is impossible as well. Sorry mate.

It's a good read regardless lol

[quote1326920951=LeeRobinson] [quote1326850741=Tonedog] You are being pretty annoying lee... your view is definitely one at odds with modern research and the new wave of advancements in understanding dogs, so some humility at least would seem appropriate. Your argument is old as hell and I for one am so confident it's wrong it's hard to even bother talking about it, feels like taking a step backwards. You seem to have irrational fear and/or disrespect for the scientific community, are you a creationist by any chance? On my end the discussion can just cease now if you are. If you haven't been convinced by the bulk of evidence for evolution I'm sure as hell not going to match that in quantity, I sincerely doubt anything could topple your wall of resistance if this is the case. If not I apologise. I just see some of what are usually tell-tale signs of a professional agenda-driven reality-denier. [/quote1326850741] This entire post is a personal attack, and I take offense to it. The fact that you are a moderator on the forum is EXACTLY WHY you should refrain from such low life behavior. Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic...and is harassing in nature...and it does NOT do honor your friend Gary, the board owner the respect or professionalism he deserves on his forum. [/quote1326920951] Well that's a huge overreaction... if you genuinely feel that offended, I apologise. But your argumentation in this thread, on this topic, is kind of annoying to me. I'm just noting for your benefit that it's kind of making me feel annoyed/frustrated, and I have little doubt astibus as well, and anyone following who happens to share this particular perspective that is starting to develop in accordance with modern science and research. Is that your goal? If not I would think you'd actually want to know, I would. You're just making it very clear you will resist what is being said if it is at all possible. "You can't prove I'm wrong 100% so there, I win" sort of attitude, which I find perplexing given the topic at hand. You see this kind of attitude and strategy employed by creationists who have their obvious agenda to stick to their view at all costs. What is your agenda? I don't know, but I don't feel it productive to have this style of debate, well ever, but definitely not on a topic like this where we're trying to progress to a new more accurate understanding and drift away from old antiquated views. This can be difficult at the best of times because so much of common perception is built around the old way of thinking, and then on top of that you're purposefully digging your heels in to keep us there and it's just not helpful at all and mega frustrating. And the big question of "why?" just keeps popping up in my head. Astibus' last post said everything I want to say basically about the actual issue, and we're not in "kahoots" we've just obviously come to understand the same thing. Basically yeah man's hand has been involved, to varying degrees depending on strains, but it's not helpful or accurate to suggest this changes it at a fundamental from natural selection. Humans are just apes and so in their mutual relationship with canids they represent another factor or even hazard in the natural selection of dogs. Things have changed very very recently for SOME strains where man has consciously completely taken control, and I think then it's safe to start calling it "artificial selection". The concept of purebreeding is to me synonymous with artificial selection, that represents when man became the god of certain dog strains. It only happened in some circles when man became detached from nature, from needing dogs, and had the luxury and free time to take up dog breeding as a hobby. That's when genuine artificial selection came to be, in my perspective. As in something fundamentally different to natural selection. The breeding of working dogs I would say still is more in line with natural selection, than it is artificial selection. EVEN if the human does pair dogs together. At best this is replacing "sexual selection", taking that away from the dogs. This happens in natural social units of baboons, mole rats and even wolves anyway, where the leaders of the pack/troop/whatever dictate who breeds. This doesn't fundamentally bring down the fabric of natural selection and turn it into something else. The dogs still are required by nature to survive and thrive within a social unit they share with hominids. The human/dog relationship, while unique in many respects (and wonderfully so), is still fundamentally in line with being a natural social unit of living organisms. Arguably always, even when old ladies are breeding pekingese for fun or whatever, but if there's a line to be drawn it is where humans start consciously creating a "breed" for it's own sake. The emergence of kennel clubs and purebreeding, and also the emergence of man designing dogs with the intent of creating this or that. Is really when things started to change on a meaningful level. Before that man wasn't the director or manager, but rather just a pressure, and occasional hazard. Basically man started believing the myth of him knowingly creating dogs, and thought he'd continue the "tradition", and thought they could just be stewed up in a pot, having no understanding of the reality that nature was really in control all that time making all those dogs, and that's precisely when some dogs started going to sh!t with countless genetic health conditions and deformities and etc etc. Because their god was now an ape, and while apes are clever, they're ultimately just beasts and creating lifeforms is a bit beyond their capacity.

[quote1326929127=KeyserSoze] I was watching the series Ancient Aliens and they were saying that homo sapiens were created from alien DNA and prehistoric humans with all kinds of evidence from all over the world. It got me thinking that maybe man's best friend was created from alien DNA and the wolf. [/quote1326929127] Alright, I will try to tackle this. If we assumed that this premise were indeed a plausible possibility, then we could never really know for sure unless we had an actual peek at concrete alien DNA. Without any evidence of its actual existence or information, we cannot claim that dogs contain any. Moreover, wolves and dogs breed freely and create fertile offspring, so for all genetic purposes these two genomes are 100% compatible. Personally, I am subscribed to Occam's razor, so generally I tend towards the most probable explanations. Alien DNA ain't one of them. [quote1326929127=KeyserSoze] I just don't see how the wolf has any DNA that some dogs do now. [/quote1326929127] Well, actually the wolf has ALL the DNA that various dogs do. Dogs only exhibit small subsets of aspects of a wolf's inherited repertoire. To illustrate what I mean, one could compare this to a tree and a piece of wooden furniture. One may not be able to see how a tree has any of the stuff that some pieces of wooden furniture do, but as a matter of fact various pieces of wooden furniture all share what a tree has to offer, namely a big chunk of wood. In essence, wooden furniture represents nothing but different shapes of the same thing. Now throw in a bunch of genetic syndromes and you get the whole modern breed variety of the AKC.

[quote1326931714=KeyserSoze] I just find it odd that there are no documented wolves that exhibit any of the traits that various dogs, whether it be a short coat or muzzle, it just doesn't appear. [/quote1326931714] Same could be said about humans with dwarfism, cranial malformations or many genetic syndromes. Genetic diversion from the norm doesn't necessitate alien abduction. In wolves, malformations are (and have been) radically culled by nature. So their incidence rate (and allele frequency) is very low. In dogs, not so much, that's all. [quote1326931714=KeyserSoze] There is one characteristic of homo sapiens that has remained a mystery and that is the fact that man's brain size has tripled in just the past few thousand years while man has been around for a few hundred thousand years. [/quote1326931714] True! Not everything in genetics has been discovered yet (not even close). There are many mysteries and surprises left for future generations.

Oh, I guess I didn't pay enough attention to the time scales on the second part. The brain size tripled over the last ~1-2 million years, not a few thousand. Nevertheless, pretty astounding. What's also worth thinking about is that the Homo neanderthalensis (~50,000 years ago) had a larger brain than the modern Homo sapiens sapiens (us today). What does THAT tell us?! LOL

The human brain needs protein to function. For the early humans to survive and thrive they had to have meat in their diet. That is why the domestication of animals occured. Since all of this was happening waaay before the invention of firearms, who was better suited to help guard this prescious resource than man' best friend? When we play, or work, with our pooches we seem to forget the vital role the pooches played in human development. Now I will go and give my LGD a hug and a kiss.