Science
Related: About this forumWe Didn’t Domesticate Dogs. They Domesticated Us.
Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods
for National Geographic News
Published March 3, 2013
In the story of how the dog came in from the cold and onto our sofas, we tend to give ourselves a little too much credit. The most common assumption is that some hunter-gatherer with a soft spot for cuteness found some wolf puppies and adopted them. Over time, these tamed wolves would have shown their prowess at hunting, so humans kept them around the campfire until they evolved into dogs.
But when we look back at our relationship with wolves throughout history, this doesn't really make sense. For one thing, the wolf was domesticated at a time when modern humans were not very tolerant of carnivorous competitors. In fact, after modern humans arrived in Europe around 43,000 years ago, they pretty much wiped out every large carnivore that existed, including saber-toothed cats and giant hyenas. The fossil record doesn't reveal whether these large carnivores starved to death because modern humans took most of the meat or whether humans picked them off on purpose. Either way, most of the Ice Age bestiary went extinct.
The hunting hypothesis, that humans used wolves to hunt, doesn't hold up either. Humans were already successful hunters without wolves, more successful than every other large carnivore. Wolves eat a lot of meat, as much as one deer per ten wolves every day-a lot for humans to feed or compete against. And anyone who has seen wolves in a feeding frenzy knows that wolves don't like to share.
Humans have a long history of eradicating wolves, rather than trying to adopt them. Over the last few centuries, almost every culture has hunted wolves to extinction. The first written record of the wolf's persecution was in the sixth century B.C. when Solon of Athens offered a bounty for every wolf killed. The last wolf was killed in England in the 16th century under the order of Henry VII. In Scotland, the forested landscape made wolves more difficult to kill. In response, the Scots burned the forests. North American wolves were not much better off. By 1930, there was not a wolf left in the 48 contiguous states of America.
more
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130302-dog-domestic-evolution-science-wolf-wolves-human/
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)At least the part where dogs helped humans become "civilized". It also explains why humans "chose" wolves over foxes. Foxes are much more human shy and are less aggressive. The eat less so they would be more economical to domesticate. The less aggressive fox would seem to me to make a better companion and a more economical choice. They also undergo similar phases as they become more domesticated, their tails become curlier, ears more floppy, and their coats change color. Also foxes are not pack animals so they if they became feral again after being tamed wouldn't become as much a nuisance to people, feral dogs can be a huge nuisance and sometimes dangerous.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Dogs have developed the ability to communicate well with humans. Things like 'let's go to the dog park!' and 'I sure would enjoy some of your snack!' come to mind as among the most obvious. In addition to sleeping inside with humans, they've also communicated their desire for play.
1monster
(11,012 posts)also domesticate into dogs. I think foxes also domesticated into dogs and then interbred... Check out this Soviet Union experiment that started over fifty years ago and is still on going...
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)That study combined with this one seems to paint a bigger picture of why. Personally I think foxes would have been a better target for domestication. But, foxes avoid people, wolves don't so now it makes sense.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I'm fascinated by differences between animals. Early philosophers were as well. When I was in college & read some of them, it always struck me how often they would go on (and on) about various animals, comparing & contrasting them them to humans, too. I suppose it's one of those things that we as humans ponder, to try and also understand ourselves and our relationships in the world. Dogs are such interesting creatures. I love them. And now that I'm working with horses, I often find myself noticing how different horses are from dogs, cats, goats, humans and other animals.
eppur_se_muova
(36,260 posts)Bad dog! Bad!
hlthe2b
(102,231 posts)and truly wonderful beings. No two dogs that I have owned were anything but individuals, in terms of their personalities, yet all had the similar ability to read me and my body language, to adapt to my lifestyle, to manipulate (!!!!) as well as any child, to show endless compassion, empathy and unconditional love, and finally to endlessly fascinate me.
Dogs are truly a marvel in our lives. I so feel sorry for those who do not allow them to share their lives, for whatever reason.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:46 PM - Edit history (2)
Creation SCIENCE tells us the answer. Approximately 5000 years ago, during the great flood, Noah discovered that wolves were actually pretty useful keeping the other animals in line. Once the waters of the global flood receeded, the animals left the ark, but the wolves stayed behind.
That's SCIENCE people!
I know the national geographic so-called mainstream "science" has some other THEORIES or GUESSES but those involve a whole lot of impossible stuff like people mutating from Apes (sorry to tell you, but the X MEN isn't real!).
Hope this helps. If you have any more science questions I will be happy to answer them for you.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,999 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)
It wasn't always blue. 6000 years ago the sky was pure white because it was filled with the Creator's loving glowiness. But after the flood (about 5000 years ago) all that water had to go somewhere, so it went up in the sky. That's also why people associate the color blue with peace -- because our immortal souls remember the flood. So-called mainstream "scientists" try to surpress facts like these. I don't blame these ignorant scientists (though god wil probably condemn them). It's just that they have been decieved. And who is the great deciever?
Satan!
This proves creation SCIENCE is superior.
Hopefully this answer helps, and if you are a teacher, particularly a science teacher, don't be afraid to share this with your class.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,999 posts)Warpy
(111,249 posts)and that is that juvenile proto-dogs and house cats gravitated to humans because humans are generally messy eaters and would drop the sort of food that would attract rodents, prey for both critters. In that scenario, we likely domesticated ourselves along with each other.
Juveniles are more trusting and poorer hunters and this would have given them a survival advantage.
My theory is borne out by the piles of debris at ancient human dwelling sites, usually small animal bones, nut husks, and other inedible (by humans) material.
I don't know why paleontologists are so stuck on that "man-as-intrepid-hunter-using-wolves" idiocy. It just doesn't make sense, especially since we know know that >90% of the calories in a hunter-gatherer diet came from plants. Hunting for anything bigger than rabbits was a high risk occupation and undoubtedly reserved for when small prey was scarce or when manhood had to be proven.
Pluvious
(4,310 posts)Adam and Dog
-Pluvious