Topic: How long to breed dogs from wolves?

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

The scientists expected a long and tedious experiment with little immediate effects. Much to the their shock, however, noticeable changes in the foxes behavior emerged after just about 10 generations. Not only were the new foxes better behaved, they were also playful, smaller in size, and even had white patches of fur on on large swaths of their bodies. Many wagged their tails like dogs, and some even had blue eyes.

Scientists theorize that the domestication of wolves to dogs probably began the same way. Generally thought to have developed their affectionate temperament over hundreds or thousands of generations, wolves could have become the dogs we know today quicker than anyone could have imagined.

[marstone]

You would figure it would be quicker then hundreds of generations.  Who would want to have an animal as a pet who kept trying to eat you.

[Sirgod]

That is neat Nem. Even my wife got a kick out of this article.

Interesting side note, in my quest to out do Mendal, I have developed whole generations of Tan Boston Terriers, from selective breeding. Took about 8 generations to go from a Brindle, to what we have now. Sadly, And I am not sure if it is the breeding or not, as all boston terriers have this genetic trait, but it seems to have a higher ration, of Seizures in the older tan breeds then the Brindle or black and white.

We also sadly , this last week, lost a 6 week old pup, who was born with out a proper ribcage. In otherwords his rib cage on his left side did not extend all the way around his left side, so you could place your finger on his chest, and directly feel his lungs, heart, etc. I contacted a company up in NY, and got some liguid rubber, which I used to make a sling, and mold, that I had hopped to have been able to enlarge as he grew. I don't believe his Ribcage or lack of it though, was the cause of his death, as we have had cold weather here the last few weeks, and with heat out, except for two small floor heaters...

Stephen

[Nemesis]

You would figure it would be quicker then hundreds of generations.  Who would want to have an animal as a pet who kept trying to eat you.

The thing is they didn't just lose the "Wild predator aggression to humans" they changed a lot of behaviours and even appearance.  It was thought that it would take those generations to go from "Wild Wolf" to "Domestic Dog".  Yet these foxes did it in just 10. 

[marstone]

You would figure it would be quicker then hundreds of generations.  Who would want to have an animal as a pet who kept trying to eat you.

The thing is they didn't just lose the "Wild predator aggression to humans" they changed a lot of behaviours and even appearance.  It was thought that it would take those generations to go from "Wild Wolf" to "Domestic Dog".  Yet these foxes did it in just 10.

Yeah, I know.  Was just throwing out a simple thing.  Body shape, color, instincts, were all altered and I can see some of that taking awhile.  I can see some of the changes taking many many generations as some of the changes were based on mutations that showed up by luck/chance during the selective breading.

[Nemesis]

Here is an article on the evolution of the Saint Bernard.

The team, led by Dr Chris Klingenberg in the Faculty of Life Sciences, examined the skulls of 47 St Bernards spanning 120 years, from modern examples to those of dogs dating back to the time when the breed standard was first defined.

"We discovered that features stipulated in the breed standard of the St Bernard became more exaggerated over time as breeders selected dogs that had the desired physical attributes," said Dr Klingenberg.

The article includes a picture of 2 Saint Bernard skulls and there are several distinct differences in them.

I wonder if they were to do an archaeological dig around the monastery how much more dramatic the evolutionary changes would be.  I think the monastery breeding the dogs started in the 11th century.  A thousand years of the evolution of the St Bernard might be dug up as a perfect example of evolution in action.

[knightstorm]

Here is an article on the evolution of the Saint Bernard.

The team, led by Dr Chris Klingenberg in the Faculty of Life Sciences, examined the skulls of 47 St Bernards spanning 120 years, from modern examples to those of dogs dating back to the time when the breed standard was first defined.

"We discovered that features stipulated in the breed standard of the St Bernard became more exaggerated over time as breeders selected dogs that had the desired physical attributes," said Dr Klingenberg.

The article includes a picture of 2 Saint Bernard skulls and there are several distinct differences in them.

I wonder if they were to do an archaeological dig around the monastery how much more dramatic the evolutionary changes would be.  I think the monastery breeding the dogs started in the 11th century.  A thousand years of the evolution of the St Bernard might be dug up as a perfect example of evolution in action.

I wouldn't call the creation of dog breeds like the St. Bernard evolution as they are the result of conscious human selection rather than natural selection.

[marstone]

I wouldn't call the creation of dog breeds like the St. Bernard evolution as they are the result of conscious human selection rather than natural selection.

yep, crude genetic manipulation by humans.  Nature would never make many of the breeds of animals that man has (or plants for that matter).

[Nemesis]

I wouldn't call the creation of dog breeds like the St. Bernard evolution as they are the result of conscious human selection rather than natural selection.

The mechanism of the selection does not matter the mere fact of the selection is what drives evolution.

Natural selection:  An environmental condition that either blocks some from successfully reproducing or causes others to be more successful.

Human selection:  Either blocks some from successfully reproducing or causes others to be more successful. 

What matters is that those with certain characteristics result in certain individuals being more successful at passing on of their genes and those individuals with other characteristics don't.  The end result is the same - evolution.

Humans are a part of the natural environment like any other predator species.  Unlike most (ants for example are an exception) we cultivate certain animals and plants and drive their selection in a direction more to our liking. 

If you reject the human effect then the evolution of ANY domestic animal would have to be discarded rather than studied - including the evolution from wolf to dog. 

Take the following hypothetical situations.

1/ Humans racing a given animal choosing it for speed.

2/ The same animal is a prey species where the slow don't survive.

Both will result in the same characteristics being selected for and will result in essentially the same end breed.  Why is one evolution and the other not when the results are the same?

[Nemesis]

yep, crude genetic manipulation by humans.  Nature would never make many of the breeds of animals that man has (or plants for that matter).

Wolf hunts and kills the slow/brightly coloured prey.  Prey becomes fast and drab coloured.  Not evolution merely "crude genetic manipulation by wolves"?

[knightstorm]

Its more the ethical implications of calling something like that evolution that bother me.  If you're going to start calling conscious human selection evolution, then you could probably extend the term to something like genocide.

[Nemesis]

Its more the ethical implications of calling something like that evolution that bother me.  If you're going to start calling conscious human selection evolution, then you could probably extend the term to something like genocide.

Evolution is a fact of nature observed over and over it has no more to do with ethics than gravity does.

If eugenics or genocide result in the loss of some genes or the wider spread of others the result is evolution.  The evolution itself is neither ethical or unethical.  The human selection or elimination of some genes may very well be unethical or even evil. 

[marstone]

Its more the ethical implications of calling something like that evolution that bother me.  If you're going to start calling conscious human selection evolution, then you could probably extend the term to something like genocide.

Evolution is a fact of nature observed over and over it has no more to do with ethics than gravity does.

If eugenics or genocide result in the loss of some genes or the wider spread of others the result is evolution.  The evolution itself is neither ethical or unethical.  The human selection or elimination of some genes may very well be unethical or even evil.

actually, evolution is broken into two parts macro and micro.  People have only observed micro evolution.  Basically the change of a beak, height, some body shape.  Macro evolution is the theory, that one orgasm can change into another.  This has never been observed, or proven yet.  No animal has a direct link found from laying eggs to live birth, or major differences that change a whole genetic code.

[Nemesis]

actually, evolution is broken into two parts macro and micro.  People have only observed micro evolution.  Basically the change of a beak, height, some body shape.  Macro evolution is the theory, that one orgasm can change into another.  This has never been observed, or proven yet.  No animal has a direct link found from laying eggs to live birth, or major differences that change a whole genetic code.

Macro and Micro evolution are the same thing.  Enough micro changes become visible at the macro scale.  Think compound interest.

Speciation events have been observed.

What is a major difference in genetic code?  The changes from chimp to man are quite small.  So is the change from wolf to dog.  Many of your genes are shared with single celled organisms. 

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

Now an international group of 16 scientists says Haldane was right. One of the scientists is Dr. Yali Xue from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridgeshire, England. A news release from that organization (August 27, 2009) points out that through the work of Xue and colleagues, “Remarkably, the new research, published today in Current Biology, shows that these early estimates were spot on – in total, we all carry 100 – 200 new mutations in our DNA. This is equivalent to one mutation in each 15 to 30 million nucleotides.”

Translation:  We are ALL mutants. 

[Dash Jones]

That's an interestingt thought if applied to humans.  I wonder if we selected the longest lived humans, if it would be possible to start increasing the lifespan of humans dramatically.

Doing such stuff like that however, is considered illegal in all civilized nations.

[knightstorm]

That's an interestingt thought if applied to humans.  I wonder if we selected the longest lived humans, if it would be possible to start increasing the lifespan of humans dramatically.

Doing such stuff like that however, is considered illegal in all civilized nations.

Hence my complaint about using a term like evolution which has generally positive connotations to describe it.

[Nemesis]

Historically eugenics have been practiced in a way based on racial prejudice not actual genetics. 

The novel Methuselahs Children had humans bred for longevity by economic incentives.

Last year I read about research on small mammals where after 10 generations of delayed reproduction the life span doubled.  Theoretically successfully restricting human reproduction to 35+ for 10 generations would double the human lifespan.  It could also explain the increase in life expectancy in western civilization has increased as child brides have been eliminated and marriages take place later.