The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Grey wolf - the true domestic dog?  (Read 4347 times)

Offline nicephotog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • H h H h H h H h H h
    • View Profile
    • Freeware Downloads
Grey wolf - the true domestic dog?
« on: 09/04/2013 06:06:38 »
(A note about this post and my accuracy about ...
first hominids are effectively 2.5 million years previous for first of the species ,
and extreme similar stretch to 7 million years previous
article with timeline - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/sep/21/internationalnews
"paragraph" Worlds earliest tools? - http://factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1486&catid=56 )

Forward summation: From a person whom has handled dogs and wolves(i have kept wolves but i am a computer programmer), being a pure scientist(whom studies wolves with a BSc) by isolated intricate abstract observational perspective of training subject only does not help when the information may be relying on an inter operative working cognition of a set of compulsory mechanisms , "Flight theory" ( see abc.net.au video article "Dog Brain" about impossible to solve test ) about dogs and wolves relating their separation to domestic dogs is actually quite bunkum and arbitrary finally when considering any carnivorous predator. Predators have as endemic, a drive in them to experiment and approach danger with caution and inclusive if required to attack for survival with much disregard to their personal safety a bit similar to value of a coin flip or 50/50 bet.
Whichever way you wish to see it at the camp site position 300,000 years previous has little relevance to the great benefit of common foodstuff and hunting and continual proximity because of that main piece of survival. Many creatures have some aggression as herbivores but can be startled easily though many times human or canine size. Truthfully , canine size is probably optimum for foodstuff ration size as a share , other creatures such as large cats or smaller predators would be outside logistical range at being useful.

Many collected points by science appear to collaborate two totally mechanically different creatures using the same foodstuff.


There are 24 hours in a day, Why would a wild animal stay around hominids,what benefit apart the (grammatical pun removed) obvious hunting?

It appears very likely in my mind that any relationship between wolves and humans as an inexorable binding for survival was not propagated and not occurred after brain development evolution had occurred to near present capacity in humans , but more likely to have occurred toward the very beginning of Hominids e.g. Australopithecus (3 million years previous).

The old saying is, "no brain no pain" when referring to thugs , people often accused of having an undeveloped brain and underdeveloped perception harnessing, this being much more an effective reason for it being possible to view meet and co-observe at close range another species, and by benefit of each other wolves and humans but in this case a wolf that is not quite significant as a wolf but "perhaps a pack animal in terms of evolved instinct" at the stage of first hominids.

Food and carcass size being a logical meeting place and the bounty it provides. This action of hunting "particular creatures" being played out time and time again over eons the same as a cracked record till boredom overtook us and we began to speak is the thought from the hunting perspective of provocation of brain evolution in embedding better logistical thinking and signal queueing cooperativeness needed before complex speech ever developed.
A propagator would be leaved over food from large carcasses. Wolves have a problem at any point in history of their evolution to present day when attempting to kill large prey. They can obtain and bring down large prey but have no veterinary or medical skills at dispatch and often is leaved to stress upon their prey to kill it. Hominids such as Australopithecus, well at least the next Hominids evolved, used stones to strike the forehead of large animals to immobilise them as a method of hunting, where hominid speed failed,was assisted quickly by hominid killing ability, the point where wolves can fail as much as losing an animal that has been brought down.

Again , Loyalty is an interesting trait to develop of i believe has much more relation to nurture and more relevent to females(mothers) than males and in terms of meeting between the species, of females, place being water supply for lactation and smell protection, and if observed cooperation or cooperation became successful, then nurture could as much be a shared(between bothspecies) activity, as much the guarding instincts develop from protection of young.

Comparitively to hunting, the nurture thought, keeping wolves as early hominids by females may be as true.
If that was what occurred (Q: How do you separate the women from the puppies in the world??? A: with a crow-bar) , it would vastly outweigh not bothering with them(makes them useful by proximity causing the benefit and propagating the cooperation) at any moment(making the 1 million year version "Grey Wolf" a living metaphorical human made stone tool apart domestic dogs(i dub old favorites) ).

However , a precursor cracked record system for eons could be a hypothetical situation of a group of wolves and hominids moving through the terrain "as a group" at the very moment they are about to start to chase some large prey, at a distance other hominids come into view and start to signal/gesture "something". Gesturing to these new distant group of hominids about the activity indicates the large difficult prey. So rather than gesture a hominid from the distant group runs forward and gestures at the wolf and clonks it head in killing it. Then a hominid from the group of both wolves and hominids clinks in the head of the hominid whom killed the wolf.
And so it goes on like a cracked record for Aeons.
It is difficult to speculate the value of "flight instinct protectiveness" in either species at the early beginning of hominids stage, logically though, wolves probably had more flight but "nothing much" because they were a predator and were probably a pack animal by that stage of evolution but there brain remained somewhat much less developed at that stage (3 million years previous).

Does any of this seem familiar somewhere, hmmm, mistaken identity value?, mistaken personal property?

Science as it reverse engineers nature appears to be uncovering a trail of possibilities of human development not being purely alone in its propagation through the past generations of hominids.
Canis Familiaris is said to have come to existence around 300,000 years previous, around the same the period of Homo Sapien.
Grey Wolves appear to be the oldest unchanged species of canine at having their last appreciable change of species 1 million years previous and in the same timeline is Homo Sapien coming to being 500,000-300,000 years previous.

In questioning the rise to being of domestic dogs, it is probably no underestimation to think their construction is composed of more selective local breeding from a tight family genetic group of the animal and it were humans regulating that retention and use of only a small isolated set.
The main point here is humans may be unwittingly being modified by coexistence with another species, humans (Important Note: unwittingly both are having a profound effect on either - and this is only "the tip of the iceberg" so to speak).

While it is appropriate to understand any canine as a carnivore and a hunter and that such an action was probably played out anywhere in the world in any environment with the two species side by side deliberately cooperating, after the meal, what then and is there any evidence to suggest other draws to coexistance and survival.

To start for this last point, a draw to coexistence cooperation and survival as a species pair not two species proximate solving territorial coexistence, warmth of their fur may not be a particularly good point because of the indication stone tools yielded as being for skinningneither their teeth as those are dangerous and considered by many pre H.Sapien to be useful as a tool e.g. leather needling pin or notch groove scratcher perhaps in some instances a skin knife.

So now we have an animal with flesh on it and carries its own knife and fork suitable for human use to eat it.

Yet somehow, the indication is humans and wolves could easily have evolved side by side "starting" somewhere inside Australopithicus era near 3 million years previous to present.
Again, Wolves of any actual modern form start at 4 million years previous to present and are considered as undeveloped in brain structure for thinking and cooperation as Australopithicus of whom is the first Hominid to construct tools by modifications made by designing using forethought.

The main indication this could occur is the encephalization quotiant(brain size related to body mass ration) relating the timeline measurement of the development of both the human brain and wolves brains match with quite similar harmony over the 3 million years to present and show a small number of species changes (Edwardii) each yielding a higher developed brain.

As before, that is effectively a strong primary drive to hunt and good enticement to cooperation interspecies inclusive the meal table on the floor and its left overs and scraps, but for an animal to develop communal rank systems and cooperative mechanisms remains a little suspicious that a bit of food for a few hours a day propagated and evolved anything more than a dependant of which domestic dogs fit much better. However, dependants are much more parasitic and can be likened to communal but eventually cost too much to keep, thus scavenging for scraps may be welcome but not an actual producer.

A theory comes to being, guarding, where territoriality can be developed into the brain in more complex terms with inter species loyalty in terms of possessional and belonging but until it serves both species purpose the animal itself is as good as the next meal.
Guarding is a type of inverted version of the set of principles of hunting. Rather than rove to find a target you trap the target.

Sooo, an interesting fact, Dingo mums and many other mammals during lactation require water and can be found near water.
http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/ ...."During the Pliocene Epoch (between 5 and 2 MaBP), this area was dominated by lakes (Zihlman 2000) and woodlands. It is along the edge of these now-dried lakes among the former woodlands that fossils can be located (Shreeve 1996)."....
So too may have been the breeding raising and nurture activity of females of both species because of where lucy was found. It's not as though it isn't sensible to suply water for lactation and growth of offspring.
In later times, sea shoreline appears to be another favourite of the human but for most, food, as much washing for females, whom again often do there advertising using the medium more than internet at any time in evolution.

One of the serious uses for canines in modern life is feeled to be using it as an instructional learning tool for children to learn empathy for the care and coexistence with another living being, e.g. feeding, washing, grooming.

Not only are there problems with compatible use and diet, there is also a final herdle, the context of cooperation and learning through inter species activities.

Dogs appear to look for help from their human associate, Wolves are a stubborn independant minded creature whom require a different approach to learning more similar to a soldier in control, but it is ordered and structured and communalised.
"Dog Brain" http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3154393.htm
The interesting feature of wolves is cooperation queues, not direct subordinative learning as a domestic dog.

One effect upon wolves by hominids could be the "Alpharism and rank system" of their pack operation, for two distinct reasons, 1. the sexual dimorphism of the early hominid species of the female being much smaller than the male makes equality and the kitchen knife defence theory an extremely unuseful psychological reaction for survival of the human species, of alpharism and rank symbolism etiquette are a much more safe solution when indicating relation group safety in place of voting and vocalisation (Of which we can all forget Kim Jong Un and i'll build a temple to me to test this theory) 2. Alpharism (in group psychology) itself appears to be endemic to human communalisation.
The human is the more likely to cause the effect or enhance the propagation of alpharism in the wolves because their section of the cooperation is generally their variable ability to handle environment conditions by modification with forethought and high levels of intricate dexterity, in short the idea here is hominids including Australopithecus survive naturally by making modifications with their manual/personal ripping, breaking, and handling dexterity as a completely natural inbuilt designed action(akin to modern present day real estate developers).
-
What some of this is, the copy cat structure of communalisation in wolves and the pack rank sexism that maybe started to develop 2 million years previous watching and participating with hominids, of it, mirrors humans situation of having rank and reverence in H. Heidelbergensis developed into the brain shown by archeological evidence and encephalisation quotiant in which the sexual dimorphism of the species was one in which the female is not likely to win any points at that stage of commanding rank because of the simplicities involved in bickering rank as wolves often do of wolves do resemble metaphorically a line-up in order of whos who during eating the kill. These Alpharised line-ups have an interesting "equivalent" behavior in Malamutes Huskies(Canadian Familiaris) and Dholes(South east Asian wild dog). Dholes tend to help each other communaly , Huskies insist everything to the last piece of food and pats are the same quantity among all of them(Husky trade union rules).

A final piece of the possible evolutionary evidence, i believe is seriously overlooked.
It's called "Vocalisation" something only thought to be possible in species before our present species and possibly starting to develop in wolves.
Most animals do have strange noises and various , but those are always specific and do not attempt to be refined by the animal to communicate and much less with humans. It often occurs that some pet owners will tell you there dog has a sound it makes apart the normal varied range a dog makes e.g. barking, whimpering, yipping e.t.c.
One internet dog made international obscurities news with actually how to imitate its owners words(cannot find it for now), none of this is a surprise as the following video links will show. Many people including myself have memories and kept dogs that attempt to imitate human speech if not also attempt to learn communication.

The following says if any truth from the study of hominids and truth from the genetic tracking of the branch of Canis Familiaris at 300,000 years previous , then, wolves have been side by side to humans in cooperation for probably 1.5million to 2million years at least.

The next two video links(for SOUND) are my pup Brunhilda whom was stolen(Nov 1 2012) and later i found she was put up for adoption by private dog pound, she was 3/4 cattle dog(contains 10% Dingo) and 1/4 sheep dog(points her paw inward when eyeing so is probably a Border Collie). She had serious levels of speech copying imitational noises and the normal dingo throat that emulates not barks(although she does bark properly(note) as her most common noise, but it's called "emulation").

The next are for parity support collected from the internet


Conclusion, what is recognised with canines as "domestic" is a misnomer relating the context of "compatible useful species with inexorable binding of human development and lifestyle".

It is only the past 6000 years canines have had any real reason to be excluded from the evolution of humans by their effect, and is only caused by geographically physically stablised human communities and "their operational laws e.g. tax, property rights, allowances of owning e.t.c.".
Canis Familiaris not a true substitute to automatic learning and cooperation for survival, it is a left over deterioration of old favourites?
Canis lupus would be the correct set of emotional baggage and social learning queues triggers for human development and growth by inter species cooperation by lifestyle with wolves or at worst with wolves kept in the social interspecies group(group: vague or non descript - leaved to whatever situation of lifestyle that is e.g. pack of farm work dogs)?
« Last Edit: 21/04/2013 11:19:05 by nicephotog »


 

Offline Peter the painter

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Grey wolf - the true domestic dog?
« Reply #1 on: 14/05/2013 14:35:25 »
I'm sorry but I couldn't follow your argument, which seemed to meander and was so long that I just ran out of steam and couldn't plough through.

But to answer what I gather is the point of the question - Grey wolf - the true domestic dog? I would offer the following:

Early hunter gatherers hunted all specis including wolves; plenty of fossil evidence of wolf kills at butchering sites and rock shelter [the neolithic].

They must at some point have started to observes the wolves and how they hunted, and then copied it since hominids were not 'natural' hunters at the top of the food chain like wolves but beginners. There is much mythic and folkloric evidence that wolf pups were taken from the den, either while the pack were there or off hunting [wolves are not ravening beasts but quite shy and friendly as has been shown many times]. Native Americans tell of this often.

Proximity and wasting food probably brought wolves into close contact with early hominids, and there was probably a good deal of interaction before they came together, so to speak, to hunt. They would have been invaluable to men; faster and able to catch deer and antelope, they also instinctively knew planning and positioning to cut off weak members of a herd. Wolves also have the advantage of having crows helping, acting as aerial observers to direct a herd out of direct sight on the ground. Crows are allowed a special relationship in a wolf pack, allowed to eat with them without fear. The crows even play with the pups, pecking their tails and inviting a chase [there are videos of this behaviour]. Adult wolves tolerate them totally. Two species co-operating to get food and then sharing it. Hominids may have learned quite a few things from this.

That native Americans hold the wolf in such reverence suggest a long history of respecting each other before the psycho white men appeared and started their slaughter of both.

Clearly dogs were selectively bred from wolves over many centuries leading to the miniaturised and giantised monstrosities there are today, along with their health defects bred in with fashion. The DNA says it all, they are the same animal, and many wolf hybrids exist. Given the exit of hominids from the planet [most likely within the next 50-100 years] any surviving dogs will breed back to wolves, probably with wolves as well, and again take their place as the true apex predator; free from the species which first hunted then for food, then learned from them and enlisted their help for a range of tasks, then turned to killing them again but for sport this time. I hear Alaskans like to shoot them from planes and helicopters.

 

Offline nicephotog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • H h H h H h H h H h
    • View Profile
    • Freeware Downloads
Re: Grey wolf - the true domestic dog?
« Reply #2 on: 14/05/2013 21:37:03 »
Quote
...what I gather is the point of the question - Grey wolf - the true domestic dog?...

...and then copied it since hominids were not 'natural' hunters at the top of the food chain like wolves but beginners...

...Proximity and wasting food probably brought wolves into close contact with early hominids,...

...The crows even play with the pups, pecking their tails and inviting a chase [there are videos of this behaviour]. Adult wolves tolerate them totally. Two species co-operating to get food and then sharing it...

In a nutshell, 2 main points
1. "The proposal is" that wolves were in some form of pseudo domesticated association to and by Extremely early hominids at least 3-5 million years before(and no present or near evolved version has the tiniest significance) the latest evolved species of both wolf and Hominid and at the beginning of the previous forerunner version e.g. Edwardii because their brains were not particularly evolved in modern parameters(mainly some physical control features such as speech) and the encephalization(brain volume to body mass ratio) quotient evolution timeline matches side by side wolves with humans after a point.
2. Simple "domestication" during H.Sapien would be unlikely to have the slightest tiniest meaning and not have significance in terms of the first experience of inter-species cooperation at a continual level(en-action of domestication) for survival benefit because first "stone(AKA) tools" were noted 3 million-5million years and the foodstuffs at the same period and shows enough retarded[sic] intelligence IQ for the two to embrace each other or as much eat each other as the directly decided benefit.
Summarized: "Domestication" has effectively occurred by the point of Grey wolf species 1 million years previous, it's simply not "civilised H.Sapiens"(late era modern humans in the past 6000[thousands only] years) type of dog(not the type of dog for a fat purulent yank with an electronically automated house for the winter), and the 300,000 year old Canis Familiaris is much more alike a Silver Fox for its DNA , simply immense narrow selection and the final "is what it is" because of that 300,000 years as an old favorite .

The second line of quote , i actually tend to agree that being quite sensible and possible a theory to learning to be carnivore at that period, but as much grasshoppers as food is considered carnivore it appears in classifications.(Apart all the Ibises stomping around Sydney picking at Kentucky fried on the pavement).

The third line of quote, well no-one would deny, to understand it in the context of "how the two may be inexorable in actually affecting eithers' evolution by being bound together in cooperation to the level the wolf can actually be considered domesticated not wild although we have not reached reading and writing as hominids by such a point and perhaps vocalisation is at its earliest too" is requiring more sophisticated logistical systematics at deciding the possibilities that may have been occurring without aid of ancient folklore or myth.
(note: So if you want to say domestication was 300,000 years previous, then you never wish to ad domestication in a context of anything as late as settlements in context of towns and cities and no reading or writing applies, only whether their existence "as what they are" is affected entirely by another cooperative species).

Fourth line of quote, that is evidence how suspicious the Grey wolf is not alone in its final evolution in terms of direct effect upon its mind and body by other creatures.
« Last Edit: 14/05/2013 22:08:06 by nicephotog »
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Grey wolf - the true domestic dog?
« Reply #3 on: 15/05/2013 05:12:12 »
Have you read this TNS article about Dogs, Wolves, and Starches?

Dogs apparently habituated to eating human scraps, either from the dinner table, or human waste disposal sites including starch based foods.  The wolves, on the other hand, are almost purely carnivorous (both hunters and scavengers).
 

Offline nicephotog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • H h H h H h H h H h
    • View Profile
    • Freeware Downloads
Re: Grey wolf - the true domestic dog?
« Reply #4 on: 15/05/2013 07:05:28 »
Note: In recent articles i have found the scientists reports refer to Canis lepophagus as the true ancestral wolf to Grey wolves not Edwardii.
Well really against the TNS article!, "Yes they would serve meat to dogs and as much so with wolves in much more nomadic early hominid systems"(RE: PREMIUM COMMODITY) , i think that is a very unfounded inference by the scientist of the information as any primitive ancient beekeeper would attest , and this is because many semi-wild creatures used to harness a benefit from cannot be properly domesticated as in the case of bees and apiary management, the only way of collecting any excess honey and not being attacked by the bees or have them fly away because they get "robbed"(beekeeping jargon) is to allow them their needs first and above all else to keep the relationship valuable to the creatures perspective.
Bees have an interesting aspect in relation to "domestication"(in my definition, an evolved requirement for human assistance although they have the ability to survive without them), bees sometimes swarm upon their keeper for no other apparent reason except some type of greeting.
As for dogs(AKA) themselves , while times could be tough that is only quite an issue of any form until it is an actual fixed / permanent geographical community and lifestyle , such creatures could not be bothered with until their "price" is established in terms of the cooperation and permanency being a benefit.

In terms of starches , the original quotation of "domestication DNA break from wolves" i heard/read was 300,000 years not the mere 10,000 but may have been a sudden selective breeding survival point(10k years) brought to by agriculturalist societies that "recently lost their ways as hunters" and had this pool of left over hunt dogs/wolves that may have known little else except care and raising by humans (e.g. Harrapan note no founding, just a suppose to visualise with).
added: An interesting point about dogs themselves before wolves is one species family type called "Borophaginae" , these were a 3m tall wolf-like canid. The main point about it is it is not known what its diet was but it has been considered it was primarily a herbivore that ate "fruit" as a canid, if such was its diet , when did these creatures become carnivores much the same way humans became carnivores.
Perhaps there is some amylase processing DNA left over from Borophaginae. It would e interesting to track such DNA for meat processing and starch processing in early hominids if it were possible.

Really this is the context of the evolution of the domestic "dog in terms of its diet" not its behavioral difference(or more in terms of where its encephalization quotiant was gained in the laws of requirement by evolution prompting change to survive) of may seriously had the behavior knocked out of it by the new diet with accord to what is said of brain related genes in the article.

It lends support understanding there was severe change in Hominid lifestyle(at 10k years prev.) and diet and wolves somehow followed in with the same problems and indicates that dogs at any level of civilised ancient society were well understood and always existant in history and prehistory of almost all people geographically anywhere eons before that change.

Which bring us back 3-5million years and the article simply subtly supports the idea that by the end of the period of H. Ergaster and H. Erectus and others e.t.c. grey wolves coming to being at that point from their previous more primitive species were a domestic creature quite possibly and not a wild alone evolution.
« Last Edit: 15/05/2013 08:17:26 by nicephotog »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Grey wolf - the true domestic dog?
« Reply #4 on: 15/05/2013 07:05:28 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length