Natural Selection?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Age of Enlightenment
  3. » Natural Selection?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

William
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 07:14 am
Natural Selection.

God's building blocks. Ha An epiphany.......yep, that's what it is all right.........yep, yep, yep, Ha (Ducky-LAND BEFORE TIME)

Can we tamper with that which is natural. Nope If we did, then it wouldn't be natural. It would be interfered with. Ta daaaaaah

We don't like these interim's that segments time; you know.......death and all. We think if we can just figure it all out and we think our intelligence can have an effect of that and call it natural, we can prolong life. NOT Death is and that is just the way it is. Accept it.

What is natural is.....spot on perfect. From the least micro-organism to the Human Being. All that was before contributed to our being. Entirely to perfect to be considered random. Only those who are the most afraid do that; they created the word "random", ha Then it made sense, ha NOT

Those who call themselves evolutionist's are trying to put a puzzle together with so very many pieces...............................missing; so they create there own......................pieces. Ha

Envision an individual obsessed with working a jig saw puzzle with a pocket knife lying along side. Ha The knife is there for frustration, when a piece of the puzzle they are trying to make fit, doesn't, so they change the shape with the knife so it will.

For Darwin to think as he did had to be instigated by his observance of those relationships of man to man, with little thought given to all the ways man is different to animal. In thinking we evolved from animal would explain those animalistic behaviors, not what fear of the unknown meant.

Darwin was just trying to satisfy his intellectual curiosity, nothing more. He wanted an explanation and had no faith to understand any other way.
Why, today, if he were still alive, he would deny what he thought then. It's a little too late for that now. What he suggested for the greedy was just what the doctor ordered.

Just because one is said to be a scientist, doesn't mean what they are doing is good and true. Man's greed to live has no boundaries and is the reason humanity is in the shape it is in today.

It is understandable why those who adopted this lame notion would do so. Everyone wants to live and it is thought if we could just sever that link, physically, of what we are now to what is the animal, we would be totally...................human!

When we excuse fear, and give it erroneous definitions, we learn to adapt to it and regard it as a constant; and that is what is being done.

When we observe the animal and recognize their behavior as "survival of the fittest", that is our reasoning as it relates to us, and that is so very wrong. The animal has no idea of what "being fit" represents. There is a food chain involved and that is all that it is. Their being and all they offered set the stage for US. WE WERE NOT THEM; one has to have a very sharp knife to make that fit and it just....................won't!

We arrived not a moment to early or too late in the grand plan. All that is here was selected to be here to provide for all that became later. It is that simple.

Now, who is behind that selection process? God, that's who. Call that any name you want to, Jimbo, Billy Bob, What's his name?..............what ever, that is what that is. Understanding it? Yes, we can understand that. Those that don't are too damn greedy to give it recognition. Dare I say EGOTISTICAL.

NOW HERE'S WHERE THOSE SCIENTIST'S REALLY SCREWED UP! They created what is known as the "GENE POOL", and in that pool there are these little genes swimming around that should not be there. They are "unfit" for whoever thinks what "fit" is! Now who, pray tell, knows that? They are considered "MUTATIONS". Brilliant, but stupid! What is stupid about it is giving little regard to what is "unknown" and thinking that which is unknown, doesn't exist. There is no such thing as the unknown, it is just that we don't know it......................yet!

Granted, there is much to be said for some science and what it bringing into this reality. My God, I wouldn't be here today if it were not for "that" science. There is serendipity offered here. When we search for all the right reasons will then understand where our reasoning is flawed and in that process we "should" then ELIMINATE THAT REASONING! Nip it in the bud, and pay no more attention to it.

We have learned that by "digging" into the body, we alter it's natural processes. Now we are trying to "close it up" evident in why we now use laparoscopic surgical techniques. Invasion is kept to a minimum in the process of closing that body up.

Now how long will it take for the body to heal itself if we do that? Good question! I have no idea of what serious invasion means in regards to the body. What that does to all the body's processes? I do know this, had I had he deductive reasoning capability then that I do now, that "mutation" my body represented, would have never occurred in the first place.

What is evil are those who have a greed to live.................PERIOD! The animal has no such greed. The human wouldn't either until he was convinced he was missing something! Turn on your television and take a gander! Ha! There is a whole bunch of money that can be made in selling us crap we don't need. Checked your closest's lately. PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE! What a load of crap that is.

We have the ability to create quality but there is no profit in that. If you have quality, the longer it lasts. What kind of profit can be made if we don't continue buying? Prophet/profit, it's all the same. If we think we were designed to end...................we will end. If we think we will continue we will do what is necessary to enhance that continuum. You know, looking forward to tomorrow and what it will bring; rather that the deadhead notion of thinking that we will end. God, what nightmares that causes. Ha! Imagine being marched to your death and all you can say is Moo! Is that an impossibility? Ha! Let's hope that it is. Who know's, the universe has much to offer and we don't have a clue to what all of that is. It is said this God person does work in mysterious ways.

Walt Disney was a true genius if one can understand what motivated him. He utilized anthropomorphic representations because he saw the simplicity of what natural meant and could not see that in humans. Much like what Darwin must have thought but Disney found a reasoning to that Darwin didn't.

I could go on and on and on and on, but as I have said before, my computer doesn't have enough ink in it, ha! Just imagine if all think as this gentleman did in a movie Disney offered just after world war II. It is called Song of the South and gentleman is Uncle Remus. If you pay attention to the dialect, and regard it as propagandist, then you have a problem with your own ethnic purity and that makes you suck. Ethnic purity does suck, it sucks the life out all it encounters. If you and I were like Uncle Remus, God what a world it would be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqvBIR0k1_o


Now you might ask what this has to do with NATURAL SELECTION. It can be concluded that all that represents the different races have something to offer that we all need. Individually, they are lacking something? If any race regards their group superiorly, we have what we have today.......................chaos. As a matter of a fact there are those who are attempting to understand it and have their theories. Hogwash! Chaos will never be understood, only eliminated.

Anyone to think themselves superior, or chosen, create a whole mess of problems for those they think lessor and in the end for them too. We all have reason to be here. Those who will not, buy choice, will, it can be assumed, will not, and it could be thought will just go...................moo!

William
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 02:06 pm
@William,
Could someone explain the purpose of this thread ? cos its beyond my comprehension. Im serious Ive tried and tried.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 02:54 pm
@William,
William wrote:
Those who call themselves evolutionist's are trying to put a puzzle together with so very many pieces...............................missing; so they create there own......................pieces. Ha


And the person that believes in God could not possibly be creating their own pieces?
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 03:01 pm
@xris,
xris;116992 wrote:
Could someone explain the purpose of this thread ?

Some people don't much like the upshots of what they perceive things like the theory of evolution to be - so they make up lots of reasons not to like it. I reckon they think this will help undermine it, though I'd have thought it best myself to find out what 'evolutionists' actually say and criticise that - rather than ascribe things to them that they don't say.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 03:56 pm
@William,
William;116866 wrote:
Can we tamper with that which is natural. Nope If we did, then it wouldn't be natural. It would be interfered with.
Let me get this straight:

If a bird takes some sticks and makes a nest it is natural. If a beaver cuts down a tree and makes a dam it is natural. If a human cuts down a bunch of trees to make a house, it is not natural, it is nature tampered with. We're all vertebrates, we're all making a dwelling out of wood, but for humans it is not natural.

If so, humans are not natural. We are artificial.

William;116866 wrote:
What is natural is.....spot on perfect.
Is a monkey with cancer perfect?

William;116866 wrote:
Entirely to perfect to be considered random.
The only people who regard evolution as random are people who don't understand probability or statistics -- or evolution.

William;116866 wrote:
Those who call themselves evolutionist's
They call themselves biologists. And plurals don't require an apostrophe.

William;116866 wrote:
with little thought given to all the ways man is different to animal
And what about all the ways in which we're the same? All animals -- hell, all eukaryotes -- everything from amoebae to mushrooms to peat moss to humans, utilize ATP as an energy source for chemical reactions. We all reduce O2 to H2O as a terminal electron receptor when generating ATP. We all have ribosomes. We all have phospholipid bilayers... these are the fundamental things that mechanically make us work at all. The differences between us are in a way just cosmetic, because whether you're man or amoeba, it all boils down to almost the same biology at the level of the cell.

William;116866 wrote:
Darwin was just trying to satisfy his intellectual curiosity, nothing more. He wanted an explanation and had no faith to understand any other way.
Spoken like someone who has never read a word of Darwin -- 1) he wanted to explain what he observed, and 2) he believed in God.

William;116866 wrote:
Why, today, if he were still alive, he would deny what he thought then.
Yeah, because he'd be 200 years old, crotchety, incontinent, and demented. Fortunately there are thousands of other academicians in the heights of their careers who are quite comfortable with the 150 years of research that have built upon and corroborated Darwin's story. Even if Darwin told us he made it all up, it wouldn't change the research that everyone else has done.

William;116866 wrote:
Just because one is said to be a scientist, doesn't mean what they are doing is good and true.
Nor does it mean it's not. You need to actually study the research on a case-by-case basis to make that determination.

William;116866 wrote:
Everyone wants to live and it is thought if we could just sever that link, physically, of what we are now to what is the animal, we would be totally...................human!
I once successfully treated a cynomolgus monkey for malaria. If we didn't have a physical link I wouldn't have known what to do.

William;116866 wrote:
WE WERE NOT THEM; one has to have a very sharp knife to make that fit and it just....................won't!
So, have you read about Ardipithecus?

William;116866 wrote:
We arrived not a moment to early or too late in the grand plan.
So did everything else evolve for 3 billion years, but then 6000 years ago God added people to the mix?

William;116866 wrote:
Now, who is behind that selection process? God, that's who.
Yes -- God punishes people who think they're fish and decide to live underwater, and he punishes fish who think they're people and decide to live on land, by killing them off and leaving the ones who aren't convinced that they're fish in a human's body or vice versa.

William;116866 wrote:
They are considered "MUTATIONS".
Uh. That's not what a mutation is. Mutation in genetics and evolution is more or less synonymous with "GENETIC POLYMORPHISM". These are simply sequence variations in genetic material -- mutation connotes the process a bit more than polymorphism, but they're often used interchangeably.

Print these out and read them when you're on the john tonight.

Polymorphism (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William;116866 wrote:
Brilliant, but stupid! What is stupid about it is giving little regard to what is "unknown" and thinking that which is unknown, doesn't exist.
If that were the case, then they wouldn't be doing more and more research every day to uncover the unknown.

In fact the only thing that's stupid would be giving it all up just because your heart doesn't agree with your eyes.

William;116866 wrote:
Chaos will never be understood, only eliminated.
And you're seeking to eliminate chaos not by understanding the world but by closing your eyes to it and oversimplifying.

Guilty as charged, William.
 
William
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 04:06 pm
@William,
Perhaps I did carry it a little to far. What I am saying is natural selection is natural beyond all comprehension and you can't tamper with it and there are those who think they can. One day hopefully you will catch up and come to understand what is natural and what is not.

William
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 05:35 pm
@William,
William;117056 wrote:
Perhaps I did carry it a little to far. What I am saying is natural selection is natural beyond all comprehension and you can't tamper with it and there are those who think they can. One day hopefully you will catch up and come to understand what is natural and what is not.

William

What would be nicer is that one day those with little idea what evolution demonstrates would read a decent book on the subject and learn:

1) That biologists by no means claim to have all the answers.
2) But that there is quite a lot to be comprehended about natural history even if no one knows it all.
3) And it's not that hard to comprehend the basics even if you don't have a scientific education.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 07:09 pm
@William,
William;117056 wrote:
Perhaps I did carry it a little to far.
Me too -- sorry Smile I don't need to change the world just because we disagree.

William;117056 wrote:
What I am saying is natural selection is natural beyond all comprehension and you can't tamper with it and there are those who think they can.
William, what it comes down to in the end is that the natural processes that select are valueless. They don't know natural from unnatural.

Humans are responsible for the extinction of the moa, the passenger pigeon, the dodo, etc. These are examples of terminal selection (my phrase), i.e. artificial or not we DID tamper with the natural way of things and there it was. A plague could have wiped them out too. But it was humans.

Every dog from the chihuahua to the greyhound is a descendant of the gray wolf. Human selection (i.e. breeding) produced this diversification.

And so what if we can go play with genes now -- the only difference in the end is efficiency and precision.
 
memester
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 09:49 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;117107 wrote:
Me too -- sorry Smile I don't need to change the world just because we disagree.

William, what it comes down to in the end is that the natural processes that select are valueless. They don't know natural from unnatural.

Humans are responsible for the extinction of the moa, the passenger pigeon, the dodo, etc. These are examples of terminal selection (my phrase), i.e. artificial or not we DID tamper with the natural way of things and there it was. A plague could have wiped them out too. But it was humans.

Every dog from the chihuahua to the greyhound is a descendant of the gray wolf. Human selection (i.e. breeding) produced this diversification.

And so what if we can go play with genes now -- the only difference in the end is efficiency and precision.
um...the gray wolf thing...maybe not exactly. If there was a split before the modern gray wolf arrived, dogs are not then descended from them, as we are not descended from chimps.
Oddly enough, some modern wolves have dog ancestors - it's thought that black wolves have domesticated dog genes.

coppinger's idea is that the village dog canid developed during the same period as modern gray wolf developed, and village dog became at first, self domesticated - not a process of human domestication of gray wolf. Self domestication is overcoming the "flee" response enough to succeed at the garbage dumps. Then humans might notice an advantage to having the village dogs nearby, and the process became steered more by our selection of desirable survivors, and selection of matings. Presumably at some point, there would be shift from overly bold types to docile types if humans killed any human-targeting village dogs.

since then, of course, we developed collies and bulldogs and so on.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 10:08 pm
@memester,
memester;117134 wrote:
um...the gray wolf thing...maybe not exactly.
Well, it seems to be pretty widely held in science that the gray wolf was the ancestor of all domesticated dogs, and all domestic dogs diversified within the last 10,000 years.

Just found a brand new review of this in PNAS, which is one of the top tier scientific journals, that says this:

[quote]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.[/quote][quote] 2009 Jun 16;106 Suppl 1:9971-8. Epub 2009 Jun 15[/quote]
Quote:
From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication.

Abstract:
Artificial selection is the selection of advantageous natural variation for human ends and is the mechanism by which most domestic species evolved. Most domesticates have their origin in one of a few historic centers of domestication as farm animals. Two notable exceptions are cats and dogs. Wolf domestication was initiated late in the Mesolithic when humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Those wolves less afraid of humans scavenged nomadic hunting camps and over time developed utility, initially as guards warning of approaching animals or other nomadic bands and soon thereafter as hunters, an attribute tuned by artificial selection. The first domestic cats had limited utility and initiated their domestication among the earliest agricultural Neolithic settlements in the Near East. Wildcat domestication occurred through a self-selective process in which behavioral reproductive isolation evolved as a correlated character of assortative mating coupled to habitat choice for urban environments. Eurasian wildcats initiated domestication and their evolution to companion animals was initially a process of natural, rather than artificial, selection over time driven during their sympatry with forbear wildcats


And FWIW, the wiki reference:
Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

memester;117134 wrote:
If there was a split before the modern gray wolf arrived, dogs are not then descended from them
The split was only 10,000 years ago, a blink of an eye in species evolution, probably hundreds of thousands to millions of years after the appearance of wolves. Wild wolf populations went on in the wild doing what they do. Domestic dogs were bred, causing selective sweeps for various traits.

memester;117134 wrote:
Oddly enough, some modern wolves have dog ancestors - it's thought that black wolves have domesticated dog genes.
That I can certainly believe, because the diversification of domestic dogs has been because of selection for various characteristics (body shape, fur characteristics, personality types) that are important for procreation only insofar as it determines mate selection. Most other genetic features would be fairly unchanged after an interval that short.

---------- Post added 01-04-2010 at 11:12 PM ----------

memester;117134 wrote:
coppinger's idea is that the village dog canid developed during the same period as modern gray wolf developed, and village dog became at first, self domesticated - not a process of human domestication of gray wolf.
Yes, I'm sure that's true and I've read that from other sources as well. Be that as it may, the point I made (which you seem to agree with) is that human breeding produced the morphologic diversity of modern domesticated dogs, something the OP would regard as 'artificial' selection. I'll throw in a bone to be clear that nothing is absolute -- but come on we wouldn't have dachsunds and golden retrievers were it not for breeding.
 
memester
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 11:34 pm
@Aedes,
Paul, that article reads like an expanded Reader's Digest circa 1970 - but with spelling mistakes. Ever heard of a "herd of dear" ?

The problem you are experiencing is due to your equivocation: of "wolves" with "gray wolf" i.e. "Gray wolf" is a modern species with an associated scientific name, the latin binomial. And perhaps equivocation of "virtually indistinguishable difference in genetics" with "came from".

We don't say that we are descended from chimpanzees. You know that example, and need to apply the same reasoning here. There are closer genetics here, but the reasoning to be applied is the same.
We do not just assume that existent species came from another arbitrarily selected existent species or kind of animal, with similar or indistinguishable genetics


Not Necessarily on Purpose: Domestication and Speciation in the Canidae Family - Case Teaching Notes - Case Study Collection - National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science
Quote:

Teaching the Case

The case is designed to address concepts of interpreting phylogenies and seeing how natural selection can result in speciation. The speciation event (data suggest that it happened at least four times) involves an ancestral wolf species that gave rise to the modern dog and gray wolf. However, two looming questions may be on students' minds.
therefore,counterintuitive as it may be, it is much more easily seen that [post-edited]some gray wolves have some domesticated dog in their ancestry Smile [/edit] than that dogs are descended from gray wolf !
 
starfighter
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 01:02 am
@William,
William;117056 wrote:
Perhaps I did carry it a little to far. What I am saying is natural selection is natural beyond all comprehension and you can't tamper with it and there are those who think they can. One day hopefully you will catch up and come to understand what is natural and what is not.

William


What is natural I guess can be somewhat up for debate. I understand what you think is natural, but I don't presume to try to define it. The African Reed Frog and Clown fish (several other fish from what I have read also) can change sex and reproduce afterwards. Is this genetic tampering natural because humans have nothing to do with it?

If you believe in evolution and natural selection then isn't it inevitable that a social animal like the human species would eventually exist and evolve to manipulate the world around it. This manipulation has occurred by what you have defined as "natural" in the example of the Reed Frog. Is eradicating Small Pox "unnatural?" Other things have evolved along with us as we have developed our "Guns, Germs and Steel."

What we have done on planet Earth has been done with all the natural resources we have found on this planet with the minds that have evolved here. I ask you, "What is natural?"

To presume that we hold the power to destroy anything more then our own existence, and I am suspicious that we may not have the power to do that, is a little egotistical.

Hypothetically, If another species was to see our planet would they not want to help fix something in our cities like public transportation so that we would be in our "natural" state?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 02:13 pm
@memester,
memester;117165 wrote:
Paul, that article reads like an expanded Reader's Digest circa 1970 - but with spelling mistakes. Ever heard of a "herd of dear" ?
The wikipedia article? Yeah, it's weak. But the PNAS article is very good.

memester;117165 wrote:
The problem you are experiencing is due to your equivocation: of "wolves" with "gray wolf" i.e. "Gray wolf" is a modern species with an associated scientific name, the latin binomial.
The scientific name, Canis lupus, is what today is called the gray wolf, and Canis lupus is genetically ancestral to domesticated dogs.


memester;117165 wrote:
We don't say that we are descended from chimpanzees. You know that example, and need to apply the same reasoning here.
I hear you, but it's not entirely the same reasoning -- humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor more than 5 million years ago. Modern dogs and modern wolves diverged from their common ancestor only around 10,000 years ago (according to everything I've read on the subject, at least). Indigenous Americans diverged from other human populations more than 30,000 years ago, and the same is true for Australian aboriginals. The human diaspora from Africa may have happened as much as 100,000 years ago. But you'd never speak of Quechuans, Inuits, Aboriginals, Celts, and Khoisans as if they're different species. They're all the same species and that's true whether you use the common name or the scientific taxonomic name.

And of course it turns out that human populations have developed considerable morphologic differences in these few 10s of thousands of years. It happened faster in dogs because they were specifically bred for it (and they have a much shorter generation time than humans).

It's fair if you want me to prove the gray wolf thing with references. I'll see what I can do. I don't think we disagree all that much -- the only real question at hand is whether this common ancestor of modern gray wolves should be considered the exact same species, and based on what we call human ancestors from that same time period, the answer would be yes.


Here is an excerpt from the PNAS article. If you PM me your e-mail I'll send you pdf copies of the original, as well as their references 27 and 28 that describe Canis lupus as the ancestor of dogs. (I haven't looked at those two references yet to see if they use the term "gray wolf" versus "wolf", just out of curiosity).

Quote:
The preponderance of molecular evidence points to an origin of dogs from the wolf, Canis lupus (27, 28). The molecular findings are also supported by a large body of archaeological evidence that implicates the Near East as a likely locus of definitive domestication [although dog domestication may have begun in Central Europe as early as the Upper Late Paleolithic (17, 26)]. Wolf domestication is seen as the result of 2 interwoven processes originating >14,000 years ago during our hunter-gatherer nomadic period (29). First, a founder group of less-fearful wolves would have been pulled toward nomadic encampments to scavenge kills or perhaps salvage wounded escapees from the hunt. Thereafter, these wolves may have found utility as barking sentinels, warning of human and animal invaders approaching at night (30). Gradually, natural selection and genetic drift resulting from human activities began to differentiate these wolves from the larger autonomous population. Once people had direct interaction with wolves, a subsequent, "cultural process" would have begun. Suitable "preselected" wolf pups taken as pets would have been socialized to humans and unconsciously and unintentionally selected for decreased flight behavior and increased sociality (26), 2 trademarks of tameness. Eventually, people established control over proto-dog mating. From this point forward the wolf in effect became a dog, under constant observation and subject to strong artificial selection for desired traits. Selection for tameness entails morphological and physiological changes through polygenes governing developmental processes and patterns (26, 31), and these provide grist for the mill of further iterations of selection. For wolf domestication, the phases of natural and artificial selection blend one into the other, eventuating in "man's best friend" with doting and obedient behaviors. Although dogs have been prized as household companions for thousands of years, the wide phenotypic variation of modern dog breeds began more recently (3,000-4,000 B.P.), leading to the ≈400 breeds recognized today by the Dog Breeders Associations (32).



EDIT -- one of the primary references specifically says "Old World gray wolf" as the ancestor of modern dogs. There are New World gray wolves too -- I'm not up for asking the question as to how closely related old and new world gray wolves are, but let's just leave it at "wolves" or "Old World gray wolves" :flowers:

reference #27 wrote:
Analysis of ancient sequences from New World dog remains from localities as distant as Peru and Alaska supports the hypothesis that ancient and modern dogs worldwide share a common origin from Old World gray wolves.
 
memester
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 09:09 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;117379 wrote:
The wikipedia article? Yeah, it's weak. But the PNAS article is very good.

The scientific name, Canis lupus, is what today is called the gray wolf, and Canis lupus is genetically ancestral to domesticated dogs.


I hear you, but it's not entirely the same reasoning -- humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor more than 5 million years ago. Modern dogs and modern wolves diverged from their common ancestor only around 10,000 years ago (according to everything I've read on the subject, at least). Indigenous Americans diverged from other human populations more than 30,000 years ago, and the same is true for Australian aboriginals. The human diaspora from Africa may have happened as much as 100,000 years ago. But you'd never speak of Quechuans, Inuits, Aboriginals, Celts, and Khoisans as if they're different species. They're all the same species and that's true whether you use the common name or the scientific taxonomic name.

And of course it turns out that human populations have developed considerable morphologic differences in these few 10s of thousands of years. It happened faster in dogs because they were specifically bred for it (and they have a much shorter generation time than humans).

It's fair if you want me to prove the gray wolf thing with references. I'll see what I can do. I don't think we disagree all that much -- the only real question at hand is whether this common ancestor of modern gray wolves should be considered the exact same species, and based on what we call human ancestors from that same time period, the answer would be yes.


Here is an excerpt from the PNAS article. If you PM me your e-mail I'll send you pdf copies of the original, as well as their references 27 and 28 that describe Canis lupus as the ancestor of dogs. (I haven't looked at those two references yet to see if they use the term "gray wolf" versus "wolf", just out of curiosity).




EDIT -- one of the primary references specifically says "Old World gray wolf" as the ancestor of modern dogs. There are New World gray wolves too -- I'm not up for asking the question as to how closely related old and new world gray wolves are, but let's just leave it at "wolves" or "Old World gray wolves" :flowers:
Canis lupus as a species, is described to science and type specimens are usually kept for reference.

This would have happened sometime in the past couple of centuries, in most cases.

Other specimens thought to be Canis lupus can be compared to that.

What DNA do we have of the ancestors, that it can be said that modern gray wolf (Canis lupus ), and any wolf-like animals from 140,000 years back are the same species ?

I'll look for other research on the dates. there are others that differ greatly on the time of splitting of lineages.
It's not safe to say that because we have a burial of a dog alongise the human at 14,000 yrs back, that is when dog lineage started.

Isn't there any BETTER reasoning than that, to say it is only a 10,000 year-old split from wolves ?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 10:12 pm
@memester,
memester;117511 wrote:
What DNA do we have of the ancestors, that it can be said that modern gray wolf (Canis lupus ), and any wolf-like animals from 140,000 years back are the same species ?
You know full well that you can estimate the date of genetic divergence without having ancestral specimens, though.

The dating doesn't have to be down to the year, I mean an estimate +/- 5000 years would be incredibly precise. There is no order of magnitude degree of error here.

memester;117511 wrote:
Isn't there any BETTER reasoning than that, to say it is only a 10,000 year-old split from wolves ?
Better reasoning for what?
 
memester
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 10:53 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;117536 wrote:
You know full well that you can estimate the date of genetic divergence without having ancestral specimens, though.

and apparently that may have happened way further back than was thought by some.
One aspect is a bit more subtle; we do not say pigs are domesticated fish. We go to nearest ancestor. And that seems to be "village dog", not gray wolf.

Quote:

The dating doesn't have to be down to the year, I mean an estimate +/- 5000 years would be incredibly precise. There is no order of magnitude degree of error here.

Better reasoning for what?
that wolf/village dog/domesticated dog splits relates to the last 14,000 years, tops.
there is an assumption that man took new wolf cubs from dens, rather than that wolves split into village dogs long ago, and then became domesticated dogs, with some becoming feral from there, some later mating back with gray wolves, and so on.
it's a bit much to think that man was selecting for mates for wolves, even the more docile specimens.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 10:58 pm
@memester,
memester;117562 wrote:
and apparently that may have happened way further back than was thought by some
That is different than what I've read about it -- do you have references that we could look at?

memester;117562 wrote:
there is an assumption that man took new wolf cubs from dens, rather than that wolves split into village dogs long ago, and then became domesticated dogs, with some becoming feral from there, some later mating back with gray wolves, and so on.
That's completely different than what I've read about it -- I've already provided a bunch of citations that assume in their very text that peridomestic wolves had been hanging around for a long time.

The 10-14,000 year span has to do with the diversification of these animals -- not with how long they happened to hang around settlements.

There are a lot of squirrels and crows that hang around my house -- but I'm not breeding them for curly tails or for smiley beaks. Wolves may have hung around with people for eons, but the massive diversification only happened when people began to breed them -- and that's all that's really traceable with genetic tools.
 
memester
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 11:04 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;117563 wrote:
That is different than what I've read about it -- do you have references that we could look at?

That's completely different than what I've read about it -- I've already provided a bunch of citations that assume in their very text that peridomestic wolves had been hanging around for a long time.

The 10-14,000 year span has to do with the diversification of these animals -- not with how long they happened to hang around settlements.

There are a lot of squirrels and crows that hang around my house -- but I'm not breeding them for curly tails or for smiley beaks. Wolves may have hung around with people for eons, but the massive diversification only happened when people began to breed them -- and that's all that's really traceable with genetic tools.
but if some crows are less prone to fright reactions to people, they may become a population separated from the others.
One thing wrong with your analogy is that neither crow nor squirrel provide such obvious advantage to human.



what do you mean by diversification ? creation of recognizable breeds ?

I'll try to find other literature I've read before, on the divergence from wolves.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 11:20 pm
@memester,
memester;117565 wrote:
but if some crows are less prone to fright reactions to people, they may become a population separated from the others.
Right, they might be. There is a limitation to the resolution of these techniques -- nothing wrong with that.

memester;117565 wrote:
One thing wrong with your analogy is that neither crow nor squirrel provide such obvious advantage to human.
You understand my analogy, though. It doesn't matter -- you're sort of dispersing a rather simple point I'm making. My point was solely that at some point the ancestor to modern dogs greatly diversified thanks to selective breeding. That's it!!!

That was the whole point I was making from the beginning, in response to an admonition about artificial selection by the original poster -- and we're now suddenly off on this tangent of canine minutiae. Yes, I acknowledge all the error in doing genetic dating. Yes, I acknowledge that taxonomic and common names are incapable of accounting for genetic diversity between subpopulations. Yes, I acknowledge that I take the 10-14,000 year time span for granted just because I've read a few papers that provide that estimate. But I didn't introduce the topic to debate you about what the ancestor of dogs should be called, or about any of this other stuff.

memester;117565 wrote:
what do you mean by diversification ? creation of recognizable breeds ?
YES, because that is what the studies have looked at specifically!!! They look at morphologically distinct breeds and account for the genetic differences between them. This allows them to understand what sort of genetic variability accounts for the vast morphologic differences, and also allows them to estimate when they genetically diverged.
 
memester
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 11:32 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;117572 wrote:
Right, they might be. There is a limitation to the resolution of these techniques -- nothing wrong with that.

You understand my analogy, though. It doesn't matter -- you're sort of dispersing a rather simple point I'm making. My point was solely that at some point the ancestor to modern dogs greatly diversified thanks to selective breeding. That's it!!!

That was the whole point I was making from the beginning, in response to an admonition about artificial selection by the original poster -- and we're now suddenly off on this tangent of canine minutiae. Yes, I acknowledge all the error in doing genetic dating. Yes, I acknowledge that taxonomic and common names are incapable of accounting for genetic diversity between subpopulations. Yes, I acknowledge that I take the 10-14,000 year time span for granted just because I've read a few papers that provide that estimate. But I didn't introduce the topic to debate you about what the ancestor of dogs should be called, or about any of this other stuff.

YES, because that is what the studies have looked at specifically!!! They look at morphologically distinct breeds and account for the genetic differences between them. This allows them to understand what sort of genetic variability accounts for the vast morphologic differences, and also allows them to estimate when they genetically diverged.
there are all kinds of probelms with that, but even by that method of figuring, it's not a max, it's a minimum time frame necessary,that is revealed about distinct breeds appearing.
Over all, I'm pointing out that when arguing these matters, we're really not all that sure that what we learned in school is true.
Not even that Mutation and then Natural Selection is Evolution. It's not that simple.

to bring it back onto opening post thought, we are still being influenced by our dogs, evolution-wise.
farming would be a very different story without dogs, and they are used in security work.
we can get parasites from dogs.
We delevop new strategies to deal with parasites, because we have dogs.
we might use cancer sniffing dogs to alter another disease path.
blind people can be more competitive because of dogs
Evolution is not stopped in any way of looking at it.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Age of Enlightenment
  3. » Natural Selection?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/23/2019 at 05:38:42