Are modern dogs wolves......or the same species

[Olin]

My info says yes, but I am finding different ideas.  My info is that a toy poodle is genetically a wolf, as odd as it may seem.   

[CharonY]

Yes, dogs are considered a sub-species of wolf. I.e. both belong to the species Canis lupus.

[Menan]

55 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Yes, dogs are considered a sub-species of wolf. I.e. both belong to the species Canis lupus.

Dogs and wolves have not been separated for long enough to be subspecies, the lineage seems to be from 8 to 30 thousand years since wolf domestication.  Since dogs and wolves can interbreed perfectly there is no species difference.  There is info to both ends however, and new info from the UK that dogs are not related to wolves at all, which is pretty comical because their DNA is near identical

[CharonY]

24 minutes ago, Menan said:

Dogs and wolves have not been separated for long enough to be subspecies,

Well, the subspecies definition is imprecise at best (to put it very, very mildly) . However, it should be noted that in case of dogs time is not an issue. Dogs are highly inbred and their gene pool was largely isolated from the original pool (i.e. proper wolves) which accelerates divergence. The distinction to a subspecies is therefore used to delimit dogs from wolves for practical reasons.

[Strange]

53 minutes ago, Menan said:

and new info from the UK that dogs are not related to wolves at all, which is pretty comical because their DNA is near identical

Do you have a reference for this?

The nearest I could find is: https://www.livescience.com/50928-wolf-genome-dog-ancient-ancestor.html

Which says that modern wolves and dogs have a common ancestor (which would also be consistent with their DNA being very similar).

And it looks like the history of the dog could be more complex with multiple domestications and cross-breeding: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-wolves-really-became-dogs-180970014/

[CharonY]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Do you have a reference for this?

The nearest I could find is: https://www.livescience.com/50928-wolf-genome-dog-ancient-ancestor.html

Which says that modern wolves and dogs have a common ancestor (which would also be consistent with their DNA being very similar).

And it looks like the history of the dog could be more complex with multiple domestications and cross-breeding: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-wolves-really-became-dogs-180970014/

Hmm I am a bit fuzzy on the subject, but I think you are correct that there has been several points of admixture in their history, so I have to limit my statement about that. As such it is possible that there are distinct dog lineages derived from various points. It should be noted that unless I am mistaken the evidence is also consistent with an ancestry with extinct subpopulation of gray wolves.

[Menan]

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

Well, the subspecies definition is imprecise at best (to put it very, very mildly) . However, it should be noted that in case of dogs time is not an issue. Dogs are highly inbred and their gene pool was largely isolated from the original pool (i.e. proper wolves) which accelerates divergence. The distinction to a subspecies is therefore used to delimit dogs from wolves for practical reasons.

Dogs and wolves mate and reproduce perfectly if the size match is correct.  Dogs came to be when mutants were born and instead of succumbing to nature the human handlers gave them the extra care needed for them to live and breed.  The mutant, was and is still a wolf

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Do you have a reference for this?

The nearest I could find is: https://www.livescience.com/50928-wolf-genome-dog-ancient-ancestor.html

Which says that modern wolves and dogs have a common ancestor (which would also be consistent with their DNA being very similar).

And it looks like the history of the dog could be more complex with multiple domestications and cross-breeding: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-wolves-really-became-dogs-180970014/

The theory is that dogs are descended from another canine now extinct, it's nonsense from toy terrier owners who consider the wolf an ugly brute

[CharonY]

22 minutes ago, Menan said:

Dogs and wolves mate and reproduce perfectly if the size match is correct.  Dogs came to be when mutants were born and instead of succumbing to nature the human handlers gave them the extra care needed for them to live and breed.  The mutant, was and is still a wolf

It was never in question that they belong to the same species.

23 minutes ago, Menan said:

The theory is that dogs are descended from another canine now extinct, it's nonsense from toy terrier owners who consider the wolf an ugly brute

Nope, it is based on genome analyses that fail (for the most part) to indicate that extant dogs are derived from extant grey wolves. I.e. the ancestral lineage seemed to have vanished.

[Menan]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

It was never in question that they belong to the same species.

Nope, it is based on genome analyses that fail (for the most part) to indicate that extant dogs are derived from extant grey wolves. I.e. the ancestral lineage seemed to have vanished.

I agree that dogs are not only derived from grey wolves, but that they are in fact mutated grey wolves.  If you bred humans to be midgets, you could never end up with a subspecies, just short humans.  There is no difference with any other mammal.  Thus a pug is a grey wolf mutation that in the wild would have a zero probability of survival, mutations are still members of the parent species.

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, Menan said:

I agree that dogs are not only derived from grey wolves, but that they are in fact mutated grey wolves.  If you bred humans to be midgets, you could never end up with a subspecies, just short humans.  There is no difference with any other mammal.  Thus a pug is a grey wolf mutation that in the wild would have a zero probability of survival, mutations are still members of the parent species.

I think you may misunderstand how the research is conducted and what the concept of subspecies are. The latter is the formation of somewhat distinct groups, typically caused by geographic isolation that are traceable if you use the correct markers. They are still part of the same species. Calling them mutants is a bit useless, as all members of a species or population are basically mutants (as there is no reference or unmutated populations to compare to). 

Essentially if you build a phylogentic tree based on the genetic information, and dogs are derived from extant grey wolves, you would expect all dogs to branch off with the grey wolves in a single lineage. Based on the report referenced in Strange's link the split between certain dogs and grey wolves may have happened further back in the tree. I.e. the genetic markers they looked at did not support the close relationship with extant grey wolves lineages (i.e.  subspecies). Thus the ancestral group, which would be closest to the split between all extant grey wolves and dogs is likely non-existent anymore. The findings are complicated due to admixture between various dog and wolf admixtures. Note that we are talking about below species level splits, which are difficult to resolve and more sequencing data could illuminate the details more. Bottom line of the report (which you should really read as it does clear up some misconceptions you may have) is that their (Freedman et al.) data suggest that most likely there was an ancestral population of wolves that split with dogs before the rise of the current lineages (or subspecies) of grey wolves (e.g. Croatian wolf, Chinese wolf etc.). Or to put it differently the report strongly suggest that the subspecies comprising all dogs as a monphyletic group predates the formation of the various Canis lupus subspecies (Israeli Wolf. Croation Wolf, Arabian Wolf, etc.). 

[Menan]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think you may misunderstand how the research is conducted and what the concept of subspecies are. The latter is the formation of somewhat distinct groups, typically caused by geographic isolation that are traceable if you use the correct markers. They are still part of the same species. Calling them mutants is a bit useless, as all members of a species or population are basically mutants (as there is no reference or unmutated populations to compare to). 

Essentially if you build a phylogentic tree based on the genetic information, and dogs are derived from extant grey wolves, you would expect all dogs to branch off with the grey wolves in a single lineage. Based on the report referenced in Strange's link the split between certain dogs and grey wolves may have happened further back in the tree. I.e. the genetic markers they looked at did not support the close relationship with extant grey wolves lineages (i.e.  subspecies). Thus the ancestral group, which would be closest to the split between all extant grey wolves and dogs is likely non-existent anymore. The findings are complicated due to admixture between various dog and wolf admixtures. Note that we are talking about below species level splits, which are difficult to resolve and more sequencing data could illuminate the details more. Bottom line of the report (which you should really read as it does clear up some misconceptions you may have) is that their (Freedman et al.) data suggest that most likely there was an ancestral population of wolves that split with dogs before the rise of the current lineages (or subspecies) of grey wolves (e.g. Croatian wolf, Chinese wolf etc.). Or to put it differently the report strongly suggest that the subspecies comprising all dogs as a monphyletic group predates the formation of the various Canis lupus subspecies (Israeli Wolf. Croation Wolf, Arabian Wolf, etc.). 

Dogs can not be compared to other natural subspecies because their existence is 100 percent unnatural.  There is no way to even draw an inference as a bulldog or pug can not even have natural birth as their birth canal is miss formed and they must be artificially inseminated.  The bulldog or pug is a SEVERELY mutated wolf, of exactly the same species that was the ancestor.  So one can not give subspecies status to an animal that actually has no ability to breed

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, Menan said:

Dogs can not be compared to other natural subspecies because their existence is 100 percent unnatural.

DNA is DNA. I can reconstruct phylogeny regardless whether something was bred by humans or not. You are trying to redefine pretty basic biology. I am sorry that you do not like it, but science has a way of not caring about personal opinions.

[Menan]

Just now, CharonY said:

DNA is DNA. I can reconstruct phylogeny regardless whether something was bred by humans or not.

Mutants have DNA.  Again assigning a subspecies label to a dog breed that has no ability to either mate or give birth without human intervention is impossible.  These only meet the definition of horrible mutation in the natural world, and these animals only exist because of inferior humans who will never have a child and want a totally dependent dog to be their world. 

[CharonY]

Can you point me to a population of any organism without mutations? How would such a population look like? Quick tip: it is alright not to understand biological (or other concepts). But trying to make things up to compensate rarely works. 

[Menan]

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Can you point me to a population of any organism without mutations? How would such a population look like? Quick tip: it is alright not to understand biological (or other concepts). But trying to make things up to compensate rarely works. 

Can you point to a population where the mutations have made reproduction impossible? Other than dogs?

Nope

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, Menan said:

Can you point to a population where the mutations have made reproduction impossible?

Many speciation events would fall into this category. (But not all because the definition of species is not as simple as just the ability to reproduce.)

16 hours ago, Menan said:

Dogs and wolves mate and reproduce perfectly if the size match is correct.

If the size match is not correct then ... does this imply we should consider chihuahuas and great danes to be separate species?

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

and great dames to be separate species?

I've always felt that they were. But I wouldn't be without them. 

[Strange]

Just now, mistermack said:

I've always felt that they were. But I wouldn't be without them. 

Thank you.

[Menan]

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

Many speciation events would fall into this category. (But not all because the definition of species is not as simple as just the ability to reproduce.)

If the size match is not correct then ... does this imply we should consider chihuahuas and great danes to be separate species?

Then you can explain to the group how a species or subspecies that can not reproduce, can exist.

Chihuahuas and great Danes are both mutated grey wolves, same species

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Menan

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Menan said:

Then you can explain to the group how a species or subspecies that can not reproduce, can exist.

 

You can find a few examples here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (section 5, but it is worth reading the sections that lead up to that, for context)

[Menan]

12 hours ago, Strange said:

You can find a few examples here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (section 5, but it is worth reading the sections that lead up to that, for context)

There are mammal mutations, that prevent reproduction, that can be reproduced.  The fact is that you have lost your argument about relativity and now just want to be obnoxious.

I have never lost an argument, you won't be changing that. 

Your link does not explain how a subspecies of mammal can be either fully sterile or unable to reproduce as pugs and bulldogs are

[swansont]

On 11/2/2018 at 6:51 AM, Menan said:

 The fact is that you have lost your argument about relativity and now just want to be obnoxious.

!

Moderator Note

Even if true, this is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

On 11/2/2018 at 6:51 AM, Menan said:

I have never lost an argument, you won't be changing that. 

!

Moderator Note

Even if this dubious claim is true, this is also irrelevant to the discussion. These are not "arguments" and the goal here is improved information exchange, so "winning" (or losing) is perhaps not the right way to think about it.

What is true is that the mods are getting impatient with you, hoping that you lose the chip on your shoulder.  

 

 

[Menan]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Even if true, this is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

!

Moderator Note

Even if this dubious claim is true, this is also irrelevant to the discussion. These are not "arguments" and the goal here is improved information exchange, so "winning" (or losing) is perhaps not the right way to think about it.

What is true is that the mods are getting impatient with you, hoping that you lose the chip on your shoulder.  

 

 

It's true, not because I am necessarily more intelligent than the next guy, though I clearly am more intelligent than most, but because I know when to weigh in, and when not.  Bye the way, all of the moderators notes were also irrelevant to the discussion.

See!

[CharonY]

On 11/1/2018 at 4:35 PM, Menan said:

Then you can explain to the group how a species or subspecies that can not reproduce, can exist.

Before we try to explain, a) do you know the distinction between species and subspecies? Further, what is the species concept you think about. How about you clearly define one and discuss whether it is universal or not.

[Menan]

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

Before we try to explain, a) do you know the distinction between species and subspecies? Further, what is the species concept you think about. How about you clearly define one and discuss whether it is universal or not.

Before you try to explain the difference between species and subspecies to me even though I clearly know I need for you to explain how a French Bulldog male which has no ability to mount and mate with a female, can be a subspecies of the grey wolf without the ability to reproduce?  (Hint, it's a severely mutated grey wolf)

Clearly all mammal subspecies would need the ability to both breed and to be able to select a suitable mate of the same subspecies to reproduce with.  The French Bulldog is 100 percent dependent on human intervention to breed, furthermore no species of dog even recognizes that any dog breed exist, they will readily mate with any other dog breed producing mutts because they do not see themselves as a species or subspecies, in fact modern dogs will readily breed with wolves and coyotes as well.  Why, because that is what they are.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Menan