Are dogs the biggest WEWUZers in the animal kingdom?

File: 1427423602520.png (8KB, 222x396px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 222x396px

>>2321500
WOLVES

ARE

NOT

THE

ANCESTORS

OF

DOGS

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>2321500
>inb4 dinosaur thread

Dogs are seriously shuckin jivin' supplicating chinese people food. They're still cute and all but god damn what pieces of shit.

Any animal you can convince to die for humans is worthless outside of war. Horses and dogs, fuck em.

File: protector.jpg (331KB, 980x1305px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 980x1305px

idk what the image in the OP is trying to say

>>2321503
Who is it then?

>>2321503
[Citation needed]

>>2321533
>>2321535
And humans evolved from chimpanzees, right? :-)

>>2321538
that's not a fair comparison, as nothing related to our ancestors are extant. the wolves that dogs evolved from may be extinct, but that doesn't mean they weren't wolves at all.

>>2321547
>nothing related to our ancestors are extant
chimpanzees.

don't fall for bugguy's trolling.

>>2321548
Chimpanzees are our cousins not our ancestors

>>2321548
how foolish of me, we all know jesus created dogs out of adams rib

>>2321553
>my sister is my cousin not my mom
our ancestors were chimpanzees.

>>2321530
Looks nothing like a wolve

Humans and chimps have a common ancestor several million years ago.

Dogs evolved FROM wolves several thousand years ago.

Also, dogs and wolves are the same species.

>>2321595
WE WUZ WOLVES AND SHIEET LOOK AT THOSE PUGS UNDERBIDE THEY WOLVISH STAY WOKE MY PUPPA

>>2321530

It's a meme.

The original picture makes from of ignorant African-Americans who falsely believe that Egyptian pharohs are 'muh ancestor :)' showing a side view of their faces to show, very clearly, that the two racial groups are not related. Which is also true. There is also often a connotation of racism in the picture.

OP's version of the picture shows a modern dog breed looking at a wolf with clearly different face and skull structure to say 'my ancestor :)' implying that the dog is not really related to the wolf.

This is, of course, incorrect as dogs are directly descended from wolf-like animals. The modern wild wolf would not be the same as the pre-modern wolf from 10,000 years back when humans began to domesticate dogs, but they closely related subspecies and many can interbreed.

>>2321503
They are extremely closely related, yes.

>>2321547
>>2321548
>>2321553
>>2321557

The modern day species of Chimpanzee is NOT the direct human ancestor. However, the two species of humans and chimpanzees share 98% of genetic code because we both descended from a common ancestor primate thing.

The joke of course is that humans are far more removed from chimpanzees are to dogs, the radical selective breeding of dogs is what causes them to look and act so different from wolves.

This really isn't that hard people.

>>2321640
>This really isn't that hard people.
While I agree on all points, you must be new here.

>>2321640
>many can interbreed.
all subspecies can interbreed. Are you retarded?

>>2321649

I was more referring to the physical aspect of breeding, like a wolf couldn't very well fuck a chihuahua, though they may be close enough genetically to breed. I just said 'many' so nobody would bring up an edge case.

>>2321640
wtf do you expect me to read all that?

>>2321503
how can they not be if dogs are a subspecies of wolf?

If wolves came from dogs then why are there still monkeys?

>>2321500
>cleopatra had cats
>we wuz royal n sheet
-every cat ever

>>2321729
Hmmm

>>2321729
Because once they came the wolves just rolled over for a nap, and the monkeys used that opportunity to scurry off.

>>2321547

>the wolves that dogs evolved from may be extinct, but that doesn't mean they weren't wolves at all.

There's no clear, objective line between "wolf" and "not wolf". Or "monkey" and "not monkey".

>>2321821
>There's no clear, objective line between "wolf" and "not wolf". Or "monkey" and "not monkey".
there is, but that falls under the purview of the specific diagnosis.

The problem isn't that the line is missing, it's that the fossils that crossed it are. So we know where the line is, but have no clue when or where it was crossed.

>>2321821
Cladistics nominally gets rid of the line (diagnosis) by defining clades as "all x more related to y than z," but in practice clades are identified by morphological traits so the lines (diagnoses) still exist.

For example we might define Canis as all canids more closely related to Canis lupus than Vulpes vulpes,
but since the tree will be defined by both synapomorphies (diagnostic to a higher rank) and apomorphies (diagnostic to a lower rank), the diagnoses persist. Now they're just hidden within the trees that produce the clade.

the line is hidden, but it still exists. Every clade bears a hidden morphological and genetic diagnosis.

>>2321538
You are some special kind of moron, are you. First of all, dogs are per classification a breed of wolves. Secondly, they are like 50k years old, not enough for significant evolution to happen. Wolves 50k years ago were wolves, not some precursor species.
Incorrect smartasses always jolt my johnnies the most.

>>2321503
>>2321538

> NOT WOLVES

> provides no alternatives and resorts to shitposting

>>2321878
t. school dropout

>>2321934
First and last post in this thread.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2815%2900432-7
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016#pgen-1004016-g004
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/science/the-big-search-to-find-out-where-dogs-come-from.html

Just to clarify something, the ancestor of modern wolves and dogs were also called wolves but the wolves we have today are not the same as their ancestor, who also share the same Adjective+Wolf pattern.

>>2321943

So fags are just splitting hairs then.

>>2321943
the dogs we have today are subspecies of the wolves we have today though

File: 1468448500743.png (25KB, 284x284px)

25KB, 284x284px

>>2321500
>WEWUZers in the animal kingdom?

Lion beats wolf.

Pack of lions beat pack of wolfs.

They never were.

>>2321503
>frogposter knows literally nothing
Color me shocked.

File: Samoyed.jpg (103KB, 1216x669px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1216x669px

>no wolf or fox ancestry

>>2321517
>>2322119

> toxoposters

>The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris)[2] is a member of genus Canis (canines) that forms part of the wolf-like canids,[3] and is the most widely abundant carnivore.[4][5][6] The dog and the extant gray wolf are sister taxa,[7][8][9] with modern wolves not closely related to the wolves that were first domesticated.

problem solved we can all go home now

>>2322116

He's right in a way.

The way it was told to us is that the grey wolf was the ancestor of the dog.

Now the evidence is that dogs are actually the descendants of a different kind of wolf-like canine.

>>2322150

it was taught to us wrong when we were at school.

We were told that the dog descended directly from the grey wolf, as we know the "grey wolf" today

but it didn't.

>>2322150
>problem solved we can all go home now
nope.

if they're sister taxa they don't have the same generic and specific name.

also
>same species
>not closely related

I'm guessing you just edited the wiki yourself.

>>2322119
australian cattle dog
australian shepherd
appenzeller
entlebucher mountain dog
corgi if you are a lazy retard (albeit the short legs can be inhumane)
i named them for you

http://www.seeker.com/dogs-not-as-close-kin-to-wolves-as-thought-1768231128.html

>A widely held belief is that dogs evolved from gray wolves, but a new study finds that the common ancestor of dogs and wolves went extinct thousands of years ago.

>What's more, the extensive DNA analysis -- published in the latest PLoS Genetics -- found that dogs are more closely related to each other than to wolves, regardless of their geographic origin. The genetic overlap seen today between dogs and wolves is likely then due to interbreeding after dog domestication.

>"The common ancestor of dogs and wolves was a large, wolf-like animal that lived between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago," Robert Wayne, co-senior author of the study, told Discovery News. "Based on DNA evidence, it lived in Europe."

...

>Instead of all three dogs being closely related to one of the wolf lineages, or each dog being related to its closest geographic counterpart, the DNA points to the dogs having descended from an unknown wolf-like ancestor.

>>2322307
>the common ancestor of dogs and wolves went extinct thousands of years ago.
>implying dogs and wolves aren't both members of the ancestor population
>implying replacement model of evolution
It didn't go extinct, it's still around in the form of wolves and dogs.

>>2322308

Animals can diverge so much from their ancestor that they are considered different species than their ancestor.

>>2322302
and to add on to acceptable dogs list
pyrenees
pyrenean shepherd
border terrier
glen of imaal terrier if youre a woman

>>2322313
>Animals can diverge so much from their ancestor that they are considered different species than their ancestor
dogs and wolves are the same species so we know that didn't happen.

>>2322317

>dogs and wolves are the same species so we know that didn't happen.

There is no objective criteria for what makes two animals the same species or different species. It's a matter of reckoning.

>>2322317
>>2322321

Also, "wolves" alone are not considered all one species to begin with. There is Canis lupus (the grey wolf), Canis anthus (African golden wolf), Canis aureus (Golden Jackal), the list goes on.

The ones considered "wolf" do not actually form a genetic clade distinct from the "Non-wolf" Canis members.

>>2322321
>taxonomists disagree with me
>well it's not an objective science anyways

well if we 'reckon' that wolves and dogs are the same species THAT MEANS THEIR MOST RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR MUST BE TOO.

>>2322321
There are objective criteria dude, read a fucking biology book.
A species is a group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. That's it

>>2322325
When I say dogs are the same species as wolves you're free to go look up which species of wolf that is if you like.

>>2322327

>taxonomists disagree with me

Some of them consider the dog to be its own species, Canis familiaris.

>well if we 'reckon' that wolves and dogs are the same species THAT MEANS THEIR MOST RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR MUST BE TOO.

No, it really doesn't.

>>2322335
>No, it really doesn't.
it does.

there is no other possibility. For both of them to be Canis lupus requires their MRCA to be Canis lupus.

there is literally no other situation that would produce that result.

>>2322329

Except that doesn't always work. Some members of a single breeding species can breed with other nearly related species, but more genetically distant members cannot.

Species is just drawing a box in ink around a huge population of similar organisms, but it has no objective hold in nature.

Look up ring species.

>>2322329

>A species is a group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other

Vague and rather subjective.

>And are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. That's it.

You're mistaken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Also by that logic, the coyote and wolf are the same species. They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring (which is how the Tweed wolf came to be). But they aren't normally considered the same species, regardless.

>>2322333

The problem is there is no evidence showing that the grey wolf is closer to the dog than other wolves are to the dog. There is even dispute as to what constitutes a grey wolf. There have been instances wherein a population was considered part of the grey wolf species, only to later be moved to another species when new information came to light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

>>2322342
the breeding test is a requirement, not a limit.

members of a species must be able to breed.
that doesn't mean everything that breeds is a species.

you may not be smart enough for this discussion.

>>2322343
see
>>2322344

you also aren't smart enough to be having this conversation.

>>2322344

So you disagree with >>2322329 ?

>>2322339

Again, "species" is not even an objective thing. There is no hard, universal set of criteria for where one species begins and another ends.

>>2322346
>So you disagree with >>2322329 ?
no, you just can't read.
I tried to explain it to you.
go back and read his comment with what I said in mind.

All X are Y
does not imply that all Y are X

this is above your IQ apparently.

>>2322350
>Again, "species" is not even an objective thing
it does not matter.
for both to be one species their MRCA must also be that species.

there is no example anywhere that violates this law.

>>2322354

>A species is a group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. That's it.

"That's it". i.e., there is nothing more to it. According to him, that is what constitutes a species.

>>2322355

You got a citation on that?

>>2322360
can you point to the part where he says organisms that AREN'T very similar to each other and are capable of interbreeding constitute a species?

no?

I hope you're getting disability payments.

>>2322361
my citation is that you cannot find a single example.

it doesn't exist.

>>2322364

Appeal to ignorance.

>>2322362

"very similar" is not an objective line in the sand.

>>2322365
I know of tens of thousands of clades without one single exception.

you know of 0 clades also without exception.

there are different levels of ignorance. Your ignorance is much larger than mine.

for instance you're still ignorant enough to demand a citation for something that doesn't exist. If you think it exists then go find it.

>>2322366
but it doesn't bother you when people say dogs are "not closely related" to their MRCA with wolves?

I didn't say the anon's description of species is correct. I said you're too stupid to understand what he said. Hopefully you now understand.

>>2322367

You seem to be claiming that it is universally agreed upon by taxonomists that if two organisms are the same species, their MRCA is also of that species (whatever "species" means--because it's an ill-defined term with no consensus among scientists as to its meaning).

It's on you to prove that that is part of the definition of "species" that is accepted by all (or at least most) taxonomists.

>>2322369

>but it doesn't bother you when people say dogs are "not closely related" to their MRCA with wolves?

Even "closely related" is largely a subjective judgment.

>>2322371
>It's on you to prove that that is part of the definition of "species" that is accepted by all (or at least most) taxonomists.
it's not my job to teach you.

even if it were my method would be the same:

can you name a single example of two members of a single species having a MRCA that's a different species?
Why not?

if you understood the terms and had an IQ over 70 the answer would be clear to you.

>>2322372
yes, have a cookie.

>>2322373

>it's not my job to teach you.

If you make claims, the burden of proof is on you.

>can you name a single example of two members of a single species having a MRCA that's a different species?

That's not my burden of proof to bear. If you make a negative claim, the burden of proof is still on you.

What we are discussing is not even an aspect of reality, but a semantic construct; a definition. You're challenging me to find a counterexample in reality to a definition that you have given without proving that the definition you've given is universally or even widely accepted.

>if you understood the terms...

Nobody understands the term "species" because it does not have a decent and consistent definition to begin with.

>>2322382
see, you think you're arguing while I think you're babbling for my amusement.

here's another 6th grade species question for you to fail:

if a population splits into 2 separate species, and those 2 species later blend back into one, were they ever really 2 species?

>>2322387

>if a population splits into 2 separate species, and those 2 species later blend back into one, were they ever really 2 species?

Define "species".

>>2321640
t. Captain Obvious

>>2322388
>Define "species".
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/Biol%203380/3380species.html

>>2321503
Hey, dumb frogposter, that's what OP is asking.

>>2322388
the answer is the same no matter which accepted definition you use.

and once you understand it you may perhaps be able to answer the earlier question.

>>2322391

What you have provided is a list of definitions that contradict each other.

In the question you asked me, which definition(s) do you mean?

>>2322393

>the answer is the same no matter which accepted definition you use.

So you assert without argument or evidence.

>>2322394
>a list of definitions that contradict each other.
name a contradiction or two, I love laughing at the mentally handicapped.

>>2322395
>So you assert without argument or evidence.
the definitions I provided are proof.

>>2322396

>Species are the most extensive units in the natural economy such that reproductive competition occurs among their parts (Ghiselin, 1974).

By that definition the coyote and grey wolf are the same species.

>A species is the smallest diagnosable cluster of individual organisms within which there is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent (Cracraft 1983).

By that definition the coyote and grey wolf are different species.

>A species is the most inclusive group of organisms having the potential for genetic and/or demographic exchangeability. (Templeton, 1989)

By that definition the coyote and grey wolf are the same species.

>A species is a set of organisms that look similar to each other and distinct from other sets (Ridley, 1993).

By that definition the coyote and grey wolf are different species.

>>2322398
thank you, that was at least as funny as I had imagined.

>>2322398
but lets get down to the point.

if the coyote and gray wolf breed to the point where they're one thing, (all look the same, act the same, are the same),
were they ever 2 valid species?

>>2322402

Define "species".

>>2322404
I can't, you don't speak English.
the answer is the same under any definition though.

the answer IS the definition.

>>2322406

>the answer is the same under any definition though.

So you assert. If you're so sure, prove it.

>>2322407
>If you're so sure, prove it.
>force me to understand words I refuse to understand
let me know how that works out for you.

>>2322042
Call me when the current wolves evolve into dogs

>>2322428
>resurrect me in 15,000 years to prove evolution works
sure thing buddy.

File: 1487043746288.jpg (73KB, 789x781px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 789x781px

>>2321500

>>2322680
thats only one type of dog though and lapdogs existed during that time 2

>>2322751
Proof?

>>2322428
Serious question, how feasible is that? If we were to try and domesticate wild gray wolves, selectively breed them and never let them interbreed with current domestic dogs, how long would it take to get a semi-domestic animal? How long would it take to get floppy ears and flat faces into the species?

File: staedel_altemeister_bronzino_agnolo_bildniseinerdamemitschosshuendchen_um1537-40.jpg (182KB, 940x1198px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 940x1198px

>>2323015
Assuming the image on the right is a Spanish conquistador, and therefore early 16th century at the earliest, here's a portrait from the early 16th century.
http://www.staedelmuseum.de/en/collection/portrait-lady-red-francesca-salviati-ca-1533

>>2323018
if the Russian fox experiment is any indication we would achieve it in well under 20 years.

it didn't happen that fast in the past just because nobody was trying to do it.

>>2321500
i kek'd

>>2321729
checkmate atheists

>>2322428
We don't have to do that shit anymore, we already have dogs. Breeding more dogs just for the sake of it is pointless.

>>2323253
There are many "pointless" dog breeds then

File: 1487697951568.jpg (115KB, 399x480px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 399x480px

>>2321500
No, because they do not even understand that at all. They just see wolves as something similar, but not their predecessor.

They just know they are dogs and that wolves are simply weird monster versions of themselves.

>>2323603
Is this even true? Do dogs even recognize themselves if they look in a mirror? If a dog sees another dog of a different breed, will the dog know that he is with another dog?

>>2323614
No they don't. That's why a dog that isn't socialized with different breeds might be aggressive towards certain kinds of dogs (usually flat faced or stumpy tail dogs).
Dogs communicate with body language. If the other animal responds with body language they understand they'll likely get along. Since wolves share most of the same behaviours I don't see why a dog would treat a wolf differently than a wolf-like dog.

File: Caucasian-Ovcharka.jpg (403KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 800x600px

>>2321500
That's implying dogs have enough brains to care about ancestry.

Also, I'm pretty sure an Ovcharka would rekt a grey wolf given the chance.

File: stone-age-tools.jpg (27KB, 300x301px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x301px

>>2323695
>Caucasian Ovcharka

No shit, that's like comparing Dmitry Klokov to your average stone-age human.

>>2323624
Maybe wolfs arent as empathic?

>>2323695
Wolves are stronger than any dog

>>2322251
I didn't edit it, you can look at wikipedia. It is pretty stupid when I think about it though. Aren't crocodillians and birds sister taxons? gray wolves and dogs have to be way closer than that.

File: Irish-Wolfhound-Size.jpg (205KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 600x800px

>>2324614
>strong
>than any dog
>including dogs bred specifically to hunt down wolves and feral dogs
>as well as dogs bred to pin down grizzly bears

Are you a special kind of stupid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4eImh13-ow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eatQSKaUIQQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75ZqsQUZI2U

>>2321500

not as big as blacks

Dogs honeslty confuse me, like if what most people say is true, (dogs came from wolves) it seems like it would take an insanely long time to breed dog into breeds. Like longer than how old most breeds are. For example a Shar pei, like the features you would look for in a dog, would be loose skin, most wolves don't vary THAT much from one another. So one would have to look for wolves with SLIGHTLY looser skin, and then find another with SLIGHTLY loose skin. It seems like it would take forever to breed slightly loose skinned wolves into full blown shar-pei's.

>>2325397
iirc, wolves/dogs have a "slippery genome" so the species experiences genetic mutations much faster than other species. Combined with artificial selection, a completely new breed can be created in a few decades.

>>2325397

No, no, no.

The "dog" evolved from wolves right, but Shar pei's were not bred from wolves. They were made from a dog.

>>2324614

Based on what exactly?

Jesus, huskies/GSD/literally any fighting dog would match a wolf.

File: 61e11c837ca459bc6cee819e83a9fd8c.jpg (17KB, 503x192px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 503x192px

>>2321500
>lions
>ever being anything more than a nuisance

Kek

File: dogs in ww2 vs now.jpg (36KB, 610x476px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 610x476px

>>2322680
Where did it all go wrong?

>>2324614
>>2324648
wolves are to dogs as chimpanzee's are to humans

>>2326558
>Wolves and dogs: same genus, can interbreed
>Chimpanzees and humans: different genus, cannot interbreed

>>2321538
No! Humans evoled from mud duh!

File: ayo.jpg (96KB, 750x808px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 750x808px

>>2321500