how did humans domesticate wolves to turn them into dogs? wolves are dangerous ferocious beasts.
omega wolves I'm guessing
>>2064537
We're both persistant hunters that travel in social packs and eat the same things. I assime its just a question of cohabitation and time.
>>2064537
Humans traveled and left trash and detritus behind, wolves ate the scraps. Over generations, wolves that were more prone to associate with human beings had a selection advantage due to this extra food, until some wolves started coming to humans for food directly.
It's my opinion that this whole mechanism, going back hundreds of thousands of years, is why dogs "look guilty" when they do something wrong: I think it was an early adaptation that dogs learned to look guilty and pathetic, so people wouldn't kill them when they fucked up.
>>2064537
Some wolves that were overly curious and less adrenaline filled decided that hanging out with humans was the better proposition.
>>2064537
So we're early humans.
We made it through the ice age in mammoth skins and wielding stone tipped spears.
friendship.
The "dangerous ferocious beasts" part is useless wording and doesn't mean anything. They're as dangerous and as ferocious as you.
The whole "dogs came from wolves" thing is probably a myth. At least if by "wolf" you mean what we think of as "wolves" today.
More likely dogs came from a wolf-like common ancestor which they share with modern wolves.
Back in the 90's/early 00's they were all like "dogs came from grey wolves"
now they've backtracked. Look it up.
>>2064537
Wolves used not to fear humans as much as now and were easier to approach.
Most of these easy to approach wolves were p much exterminated when guns appeared.
>>2064565
god fucking dammit sol
>>2064580
They were wolves, you pretentious fuckwit.
not modern wolves, but morphologically, taxonomically, and genetically speaking, they were wolves.
You sound like those people who go "uhm, humans didn't evolve from apes :/ humans and modern apes have a common ancestor"
Guess fucking what, that common ancestor, by every zoological definition, was an ape.
I mean fuck, humans are still technically apes. We didn't suddenly stop being them when we put pants on.
>>2064704
>humans are still technically apes. We didn't suddenly stop being them when we put pants on.
Oh is that so? Then tell me, what happens to the people who spontanously over night evolve from apes into humas today? Do they get killed in the wild by their own family? What if that happens in a zoo? Do those fresh people get citizenship?
>>2064707
Wat
>>2064707
>spontaneously
>evolve
Someone failed biology
>>2064709
I can't tell if he's trying to be funny or he's serious..
>>2064580
You are a moron.
Dogs evolved from wolves.
You've spent 20 seconds looking at evolution and now think you understand it.
>>2064714
I was just channeling my inner american.
The human / dog partnership is literally divine intervention.
There's a reason that in 2016 science is still wholly unable to offer any other explanation for the domestication of the dog. God gave us dominion over animals, and gave us our four-legged friends as proof of that fact.
>>2064724
>this retard
>>2064726
Ever tried to spell "dog" backwards?
Check and mate, atheist.
>>2064724
Damn. So cats are from the Devil. Selfish, aloof, independent...
They also poison your brain with toxoplasmosis that makes you just like them.
>>2064704
>They were wolves, you pretentious fuckwit.
Why do you talk that way? Does it give you some kind of kick to unnecessarily say things like that? I'll never understand people like you.
>not modern wolves, but morphologically, taxonomically, and genetically speaking, they were wolves.
So if you go up to someone with a pet chihuahua will you say, "OMG A WOLF"? No
because "wolf" is to a large extent a cultural term rather than a biologically-based one. It's like "monkey".
>inb4 you somehow misunderstand me and call me names, look it up homeboy, some "monkeys" are taxonomically closer to you and me than they are to other monkeys.
The ancestor of the dog and wolf (according to what scientists are saying now) would have been distinct from wolves as we know them today and easily recognizable as such. And it would not have been a GREY wolf, which is totally different to what scientists were saying years ago when they were like "No dude I know dogs look pretty much nothing like them except the ones that were bred to them relatively recently but trust us, they're grey wolves. Even the pug"
>>2064766
>according to what scientists are saying now
>according to what one scientists says and hundreds of thousands of others don't agree with or care about.
ftfy.
>>2064707
>I don't understand phylogeny/cladistics: the post
>>2064790
>I don't understand jokes: the post
>>2064795
Poe's law.
if you're going to mock creationists you have to make it clear you're joking. Because there is no level of idiocy creationists haven't actually sunk to.
>>2064707
10/10 bait
Could coyotes be domesticated or they too skittish?
>>2064878
Forgot the cute picture I meant to add.
>>2064878
They likely could be domesticated by a long process involving selectively breeding the ones with a tame temperament and killing the ones who have a more "wild" temperament.
After a couple dozen generations I bet you they'd become really dog-like.
How many coyotes would have to die for this, I've no idea. But probably a lot.
>>2064537
they took the pups and then allowed the most placid to breed and continued to breed from the most placid and tame/least aggressive. You can fully domesticate wolves in just a few generations.
Early on, even if you may have a non-aggressive wolf, they are still not able to be fully domesticated and will become overly boisterous and wreck shit etc - it can't be 'trained' out of them at that stage.
>>2064766
>because "wolf" is to a large extent a cultural term rather than a biologically-based one. It's like "monkey".
What the hell are you smoking?
>The ancestor of the dog and wolf (according to what scientists are saying now) would have been distinct from wolves as we know them today and easily recognizable as such.
/facepalm
>>2065064
>What the hell are you smoking?
Nothing. I'm simply being logical.
Ethiopian wolves are considered wolves. Grey wolves are considered wolves.
Coyotes aren't considered wolves. Yet they're closer to the grey wolf than the grey wolf is to the Ethiopian wolf.
Similarly, baboons and Capuchin monkeys are both considered "monkeys", but the baboon is closer to a human being than it is to a Capuchin monkey.
Terms like "wolf" and "monkey" are more cultural than biological. A lot of common animal names are like that.
>>2065069
the MRCA of gray wolves and dogs is a gray wolf.
>>2065076
That was the common belief up until recently but no longer.
>Although initially thought to have originated as a manmade variant of an extant canid species (variously supposed as being the dhole,[3] golden jackal,[4] or gray wolf[5]), extensive genetic studies undertaken during the 2010s indicate that dogs diverged from an extinct wolf-like canid in Eurasia 40,000 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog
>>2065078
it's still common.
one genetic study does not a consensus make.
though it's enough to convince you perhaps.
>>2065078
>This demonstrates that the ancestry of present-day dogs is derived from multiple regional wolf populations
>>2065082
>it's still common.
No one disputed that the dog and grey wolf have a common ancestor. The dispute is the idea that the dog is the direct descendant of the grey wolf, which is false (except to some extent with respect to dog breeds that were crossed with grey wolves during their creation, like the German shepherd or the Czech wolfdog)
The study is literally an analysis of canine genomes. Genomes don't lie.
>A widely held belief is that dogs evolved from gray wolves, but a new study finds that the common ancestor of dogs and wolves went extinct thousands of years ago.
>What's more, the extensive DNA analysis -- published in the latest PLoS Genetics -- found that dogs are more closely related to each other than to wolves, regardless of their geographic origin. The genetic overlap seen today between dogs and wolves is likely then due to interbreeding after dog domestication.
>"The common ancestor of dogs and wolves was a large, wolf-like animal that lived between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago," Robert Wayne, co-senior author of the study, told Discovery News. "Based on DNA evidence, it lived in Europe."
http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets/dogs-not-as-close-kin-to-wolves-as-thought-140116.htm
>>2065083
Yes--but not the grey wolf as we know it today, except in certain cases.
"Wolf" is a term that is to a large extent culturally based. Is the coyote a wolf? There's no genetic reason why it shouldn't be, if by "wolf" you just mean a member of the canis genus.
>>2065084
Also for clarity--these look like two different studies.
>>2065084
>The dispute is the idea that the dog is the direct descendant of the grey wolf,
the problem is genetic studies don't tell us which animals are different species or subspecies even with modern animals. There's often more difference between populations of the same species than there are between one species and another.
so basing a paleospecies on a genetic study is impossible. It has not ever been done, and claiming to do it in this particular case has no evidential basis.
>>2065086
I'm so confused by the point you're trying to make.
Dogs evolved from wolves.
Dogs interbred with wolves, which genetically they had to be incredibly similar.
Also looking at the DNA of dogs as the basis for anything is highly flawed. Our out of control inbreeding of their populations has completely changed their genetics.
>>2065084
Ps I read this study...
You're interpreting it completely wrong.
They compared 3 Gray wolves from different regions and showed that no one is closer to dogs than the other and they made some predictions that their was some bottlenecking occurring in wolves and dogs.
That's it, that's the entire study.
>>2064718
This guy is a mastur at baiting
>>2064789
Implying science is at all based on "most scientists agree" and not "fact states that"
>>2065303
>thinks scientific conclusions are fact
>>2064565
>we're
were.
This thread is why Hitler should have won.
![4c721ca33f2b47abcc0228cf57bafc07[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gTTVCvd.jpg "4c721ca33f2b47abcc0228cf57bafc07[1].jpg")
>>2065052
We have these creatures now, fuck coyotes though they're ugly and dumb. If we're doing anything it should coywolves.
Can't any animal really be tamed over time by playing around with genes? There have been experiments where the less aggressive samples of a certain species are made to mate with each other, then their descendant again the ones that are more comfortable with humans, rinse and repeat until you can see results, some animals even develop physical changes over generations resembling other tamed animals we know now a days.
>>2065052
Oh, here's an example of what I meant
>>2065676
What species is that
I want ten
