Interesting Genetic Research Published on Dog Evolution

by cantleave 227 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Deputy Dog

  I think wolfman had it right. It's hard to believe "Nature" would stupe this low. I'm more inclined to agree with Robert Wayne Phd who was also quoted in the article.

  From his website: http://www2.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm

  DNA: Wolves & Dogs

  Mitochondrial DNA analysis, rather than nDNA analysis, is widely used to study populations of many animal species (including canids) because of its advantage over nDNA in that it does not recombine with other DNA as nuclear DNA does. The only way to conclusively determine (thru mtDNA) if a canid contains wolf content would be the presence of mtDNA restriction fragments specific to wolves. This is the root of the whole problem scientists are encountering when trying to differentiate between wolves and dogs. They are just too closely related, which is what led to the Society of Mammalogists and the Smithsonian Institution's taxonomical reclassification of dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris) as a subspecies of wolf (Canis lupus) in 1993 .

  Many people erroneously believe that wolves and dogs are distinctly separate, one being 'black' and the other being 'white'. Throw in the wolfdog, and these same individuals see a completely different color: blue, green, purple, etc. However, Monty Sloan of Wolf Park put it simply: "there is no black and white in this issue, only shades of agouti gray."
• 

  nancy drew

  I believe there are many unsolved mysteries on this planet. We often read books and the authors just say primitive humans decided one day to grab a handful of grass and agriculture was born and wolves showed up eating leftovers and turned onto dogs. It's not that simple the real question is where do the grains come from? I can't imagine a primitive human imagining that grasses could turn into wheat or corn if they started planting the tastier pieces. I'm leaning towards the anunnaki theory. All the indigenous people in the americas said the gods gave them corn. So who are the gods? I'm thinking this planet has had some genetic manipulation an it's not from jehovah, jesus or angels .
• 

  cofty

  We often read books and the authors just say primitive humans decided one day to grab a handful of grass and agriculture was born and wolves showed up eating leftovers and turned onto dogs. - nancy drew

  You need to read better books Nancy.

  I have read the thread again and I honestly don't have a clue what point Wolfman is trying to make or why Deputy Dog thinks he said anything at all worth agreeing with.

  Wolfman misunderstood the OP. Its an excellent piece of research but sadly a few people here didn't take the time to grasp why.

  Their loss I suppose.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Indeed, cofty. There is ample evidence of speciation and evolution if people would take the time and effort to learn.

  "Kind" is a meaningless word in terms of science and taxonomy. It's little more than a catch-all mumbo-jumbo word to try to somehow agree with evolution but try to claim it stops where it runs into the bible.

  Quick question, are domestic rabbits, wild cottontails and hares the same "kind"?
• 

  cantleave

  I really wish people didn't put as much emphasis on taxonomy as they do. It is simply a form of labelling. As our undertsanding of genetics increases we find that some these are labels are somewhat inappropriately placed. The important thing here is what the gene sequences are telling us........
• 

  jgnat

  Don't forget conies, EP. Conies are in the bible.
• 

  cantleave

  Don't forget conies, EP. Conies are in the bible...

  So are Unicorns, Behemoths and Lethiathans
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Conies? I am not even sure what that means, jgnat....coneheads, like from SNL?
• 

  cantleave

  Its another word for rabbit, or a rabbit skin EP
• 

  tornapart

  EP.. the word 'kind' is not meaningless. In scientific terms it would be the 'genus'. Anything within a genus can produce offspring, either fertile or infertile and in some cases even within a subfamily as in the case of true dogs (canini).

  In the case of rabbits/cottontails/hares, although the same family they are different genera and so wouldn't produce offspring.

  To me whatever can produce offspring is a 'kind' whether it belongs to species, genus or subfamily.