Ali NasserEddine

Dear Charon, your comment is highly appreciated. For someone who is completely out of the domain like me, any information can cause distortion. So, thanks alot. On the other hand, could you please advise on the door of this science for someone new to the field? Do you think that the starting point would be a bachelor in specific biology field? Or is there a shortcut? (for example, particular set of courses). The hope is to contribute to this field, and arrive at a method. From my experience in scientific research (holder of PhD), there would be a huge space for relatively easy improvements in any field.

Thanks a lot Bender. This answers my enquiry.

Hi Moontanman, thanks a lot. All are well noted. This is understood, but what I am exactly after is to know whether there is a methodology that allows us to identify the hierarchical relation between two living objects. I used the example of wolves and dogs because it is common, but it could be anything else, like two types of birds. Actually, the educated guess of @StringJunky is exactly to the point. If his idea is correct, then, my requirement would be satisfied. However, after all the help I got through this forum, and for which I am sincerely grateful, I think that proving such relations is not straight forward. My initial thought was that it can be done through DNA tests, but it seems I was wrong.

Thanks a lot Charon for the clarification; well noted and very much appreciated. Thanks a lot Bender for the link. However, if they could trace a story that dates back to 33,000 years ago, wouldn't it be easily possible to identify the ancestry relation between wolves and dogs that are currently available. I refer to the last post by @CharonY: So, it is uncertain. Please note that Charon was nominated by many here as one of the most familiar with this science field in this forum. I really wish not to lose the point that brought me here. If you could help me understand the following, I would be indeed grateful:

Well noted. Many thanks.

Thanks a lot Charon, well noted. I looked at the link; very illustrative dendrograms. However, I am confused. I understand that dogs and wolves are the same species, but how could we tell that wolves are the ancestors? This concept has been long in existence, even before the advancement in modern science and scientific tools. Have scientists derived this conclusion based on physical similarities? I was hoping that the case that @StringJunky presented is true because this would be a shortcut for what I am looking for. I quote it here: If the concept of subspecies is based on similarities, well, it might be but it also might not be. For example, as per the suggestion of @DrP, I watched this video on the laryngeal nerve. At 0.37, he says: "obviously a ridiculous detour, no engineer would ever make a mistake like that". Here is another viewpoint on the matter "RLN Is Not Evidence of Poor Design". Just so I don't get lost, could you please share your opinion on the question I asked before in response to @StringJunky reply that I quoted above?

Hi Charon, many thanks for this information; well noted. Further to your reply, could you please help me understand some of your statements? Were we able to identify this relation (subspecies) only because they were domesticated? Doesn't this contradict the concept that wolves are the ancestors of dogs? Unless you mean that there was a living object x, which became a wolf at one point, and the wolf became a dog at a later stage. This is very important to my understanding. Was the molecular clock used for identifying the relation between wolves and dogs?

Many thanks Koti. Now, I am able to post again. Well noted regarding the certainty. Thanks a lot; much appreciated. I see the point. This means that if I want to conduct tests to confirm such relations, I need to fully understand all the surrounding concepts. I hoped for a shortcut, i.e. single test (concept) such as DNA that makes the results available. I will invest as much time as needed as soon as possible. Hi SJ, many thanks for your contribution. When I first read this particular reply, I thought I was done. But then, I read @Moontanman comment on this. To understand it correctly, if we consider a sample of 10 wolves and 10 dogs, we would find DNA evidence of wolves in all the 10 dogs, but not vice versa. However, as per @Moontanman comment, it is possible to find evidence of dogs in some wolves (3 out of 10 for example). If my understanding is correct, could you please advise if there is any scientific reference for this? Hi A54, very interesting. Really good on you what you have learnt by yourself in this scientific field. The only problem for me is that for fully understanding these papers, I need to be comfortable with the scientific terms. Unfortunately, in my case, this is only possible if I thoroughly study the basics of this field. On the other hand, could you please advise on the answer I asked SJ for?

Thanks a lot Area54; very helpful. Actually, this is about what I am looking for. However, it doesn't answer my question. For example, in the first link, we can read "therefore, members of a group are assumed to share a common history and are considered to be closely related." What I want to know is not whether science can determine whether two living objects are closely related, but if x, with 100% certainty, is the source of y. Could you please advise if I am getting something wrong? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi @Moontanman For some reason, I can't reply to posts anymore; so, I put my reply here. Thanks a lot for the information. If we consider dogs and wolves, I always hear that the latter is the origin of the former. Do you think science can confirm that dogs were wolves since they both still exist? Please note that I am not asking whether science can show that they are related or very related.

Thanks a lot. I just watched the video (Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe). Stunning. Really stunning, and extremely good to know. Thanks again; much appreciated. No. What I am after is to know whether current scientific tools can, with absolute certainty, tell that x came from y (ex: dogs came from wolves). If yes, I am keen to fully know and learn this technique.

Thanks a lot Koti. I do really appreciate your kind help.

Thanks a lot DrP; much appreciated. I understand that science can relate two mammals, but I need to know if it can allow us to deduce, with great certainty, who originated who. For example, in a DNA paternity testing, "only the characteristics inherited by the child from the father are determined" (source at the end). This makes me feel that if two samples are collected (child & father), unless I know which one belongs to the father, I can't identify it. Thus, the test only determines if there is a relation, but not who originated who. Again, thanks a lot. I appreciate your help, and will be waiting for others' input as per your post. Source: https://www.bj-diagnostik.de/paternity-test/paternity-test-father-child Thanks a lot Koti for your reply. Regarding the link, this is exactly why I am asking here. Unfortunately, I haven't been exposed to biology since at least 18 years ago. I hoped that by posting here, someone would direct me to the exact concept (tool) which can be used for such identification, if any; so I can study it. Kindly note that if this concept doesn't exist, I am considering to enroll for bachelor in biology in the near future. Thanks again.

Dear all, I am a researcher in Finance; pretty far from biology. Could you please help me answer the following question? - Can current science deduce the origin of a mammal? For example, it is well circulated that dogs originate from wolves? Can I, with absolute certainty, prove this with the current available science tools? Thanks a lot. Ali