Dog and human coevolutionary symbiosis

[anotherfilthyape]

After reading the wikipedia article on dogs I realized that they are way more valuable I had ever thought (I'm more a cat person, but nowadays, I am a cat and dog person), it so seems that human and dog evolution (dogs are technically still wolves and wolves evolved independently from humans, but they are also a subespecies and all their differences from wolves are evolved from their interaction with humanity) somehow influenced each other... Culturally and phenotypically both the domesticated wolf and the human developed the most succesful symbiosis of all... Human has domesticated other animals but none to the success and variety than dogs... Anyone knows profesional books on the subject? (From an evolutionary or anthropological/cultural perspective) I can check those in the wikipedia article but I want further reading too... And I prefer the less obscure books so I can find them more easily... Suggestions?

[the asinine cretin]

I have some titles on my wish list about this! I love dogs.

 

 

D. F. Morey, Dogs: Domestication and the Development of a Social Bond

 

J. Serpell, The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People

 

X. Wang, Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History

Edited April 9, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[anotherfilthyape]

I have some titles on my wish list about this! I love dogs.

 

 

D. F. Morey, Dogs: Domestication and the Development of a Social Bond

 

J. Serpell, The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People

 

X. Wang, Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History

 

 

great list

[Anders Hoveland]

It is not just humans. Some baboons kidnap feral dogs and raise them as family pets to ward off other feral dogs and keep watch.

 

[Orundellico]

human and dog evolution....

It's not evolution but breeding

[insane_alien]

It's not evolution but breeding

 

it IS evolution.

 

The only bit that makes it stand out is that the selection pressures do not come from the environment but from humans.

[the asinine cretin]

What my imaginary creationist friend is saying:

 

No, breeding is just microevolution. Nobody denies that. But you'll never see a dog turn into a non-dog. Darwinism claims that man came from a microbe. That's a faith-based position as we've never observed kinds becoming different kinds. What else ya got?

 

it IS evolution.

 

The only bit that makes it stand out is that the selection pressures do not come from the environment but from humans.

Humans are an intelligent designer. Therefore, as far as we know evolution can't happen without an intervening intelligence. I don't share your "faith" in random chance. Zing!

 

P.S. Giving me the -1 isn't going to justify your RELIGION! Admit that you believe in Darwinism because you happened to be born in a country that indoctrinates its youth in this RELIGION! There are other interpretations. The fossils say NOOOO!!

[insane_alien]

let me know when you want to stop trolling.

[Orundellico]

I see the difference between evolution and breeding in the "authority" that takes the decision, which individuals / which genetic mutations will survive and procreate.

In the case of evolution, it's the natural environment (food, climate, predators,...), in the case of breeding, there is a will of an inelligent being and a target of how the animal should look like.

 

However, a very important factor of evoluion is sexual selection : The female selects a male that looks "good", according to her own taste. This can lead to some strange characteristics, such as monstrous feathers, horns or teeth (or even Lambeosaurines that had a trumpet integrated in their sculls) that are useless or even obstructive for surviving. As there is a will and a target, I am asking myself (and you) if sexual selection should be classified as breeding rather than as evolution.

[the asinine cretin]

let me know when you want to stop trolling.

 

Trolling? How dare you mock the craft. I am an artist, sir.

[Ringer]

I see the difference between evolution and breeding in the "authority" that takes the decision, which individuals / which genetic mutations will survive and procreate.

In the case of evolution, it's the natural environment (food, climate, predators,...), in the case of breeding, there is a will of an inelligent being and a target of how the animal should look like.

 

However, a very important factor of evoluion is sexual selection : The female selects a male that looks "good", according to her own taste. This can lead to some strange characteristics, such as monstrous feathers, horns or teeth (or even Lambeosaurines that had a trumpet integrated in their sculls) that are useless or even obstructive for surviving. As there is a will and a target, I am asking myself (and you) if sexual selection should be classified as breeding rather than as evolution.

 

There is a difference between natural and artificial selection, but it is still a type of evolutionary force. As an example look at plants that we have been breeding for use in gardens. Some of these live in the wild very well, but we put a different sort of selective pressure on many to fit our view of what a garden should look like.

 

Sexual selection is only one of many different forces that affect the evolution of animals. Organisms that by definition are not affected by sexual selection, asexual organisms, still evolve without that factor. Some animals that rely more on rape than the female choosing a mate also don't undergo the type of sexual selection you describe, although that is a different form of sexual selection. Breeding is just a subset of evolution with artificial selection instead of natural selection.

[Ophiolite]

Am I mistaken? As far as I can see the assinine cretin has very effectively mocked the position of creationists in post #7. He has issued a warning that he is going to do so - right at the start of his post - when he refers to "my imaginary creationist friend".

 

And for this lighthearted debunking of the creationist position he receives two negative votes!

 

I've counteracted one of them and 'punished' insane alien for apparently delivering one of the negatives.

[the asinine cretin]

Am I mistaken? As far as I can see the assinine cretin has very effectively mocked the position of creationists in post #7. He has issued a warning that he is going to do so - right at the start of his post - when he refers to "my imaginary creationist friend".

 

And for this lighthearted debunking of the creationist position he receives two negative votes!

 

I've counteracted one of them and 'punished' insane alien for apparently delivering one of the negatives.

 

Thanks, mate. I have to admit I wasn't expecting to be taken seriously at all.

[Moontanman]

I think it could be said that humans and dogs have evolved together. I have always loved dogs, the ability to bond with them is higher in some humans that others but over the course of my life dogs have saved me from at least bodily harm at least 4 times and protected my children several times as well. For the last 35 years they've all been basset hounds. Dogs are really great companions, protectors, and family members. I am certain that the relationship has molded dogs to understand us quite possibly even think as we do, they certainly know how to read us.