New Research Sheds Light On the Evolution of Dogs 374
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The first dogs descended from wolves about 14,000 years ago but according to Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods humans didn't domesticate dogs — dogs sought out humans and domesticated us. Humans have a long history of eradicating wolves, rather than trying to adopt them which raises the question: How was the wolf tolerated by humans long enough to evolve into the domestic dog? 'The short version is that we often think of evolution as being the survival of the fittest, where the strong and the dominant survive and the soft and weak perish. But essentially, far from the survival of the leanest and meanest, the success of dogs comes down to survival of the friendliest.' Most likely, it was wolves that approached us, not the other way around, probably while they were scavenging around garbage dumps on the edge of human settlements. The wolves that were bold but aggressive would have been killed by humans, and so only the ones that were bold and friendly would have been tolerated. In a few generations, these friendly wolves became distinctive from their more aggressive relatives with splotchy coats, floppy ears, wagging tails. But the changes did not just affect their looks but their psychology. Protodogs evolved the ability to read human gestures. 'As dog owners, we take for granted that we can point to a ball or toy and our dog will bound off to get it,' write Hare and Woods. 'But the ability of dogs to read human gestures is remarkable. Even our closest relatives — chimpanzees and bonobos — can't read our gestures as readily as dogs can. 'With this new ability, these protodogs were worth knowing. People who had dogs during a hunt would likely have had an advantage over those who didn't. Finally when times were tough, dogs could have served as an emergency food supply and once humans realized the usefulness of keeping dogs as emergency food, it was not a huge jump to realize plants could be used in a similar way.' This is the secret to the genius of dogs: It's when dogs join forces with us that they become special," conclude Hare and Woods. 'Dogs may even have been the catalyst for our civilization.'"
primate dolts (Score:4, Interesting)
> Even our closest relatives â" chimpanzees and bonobos â" can't
> read our gestures as readily as dogs can.
You can (quite seriously) include many humans in that as well. And on the other side of that coin, it's no surprise that many people relate to dogs a lot better than they do to other people.
Re:Stop anthropomorphizing evolition. It hates tha (Score:0, Interesting)
"we often think of evolution as being the survival of the fittest, where the strong and the dominant survive and the soft and weak perish." ... in human cultures and history, fierce barbarians threatening sophisticated well' established empires are hardened offspring of former losers running for their lives to the hills and inhospitable places. There is always a step back, or down, before a breakthrough or a revolution is about to happen.
Well, the fittest strains have no real need to change, their evolution always comes out with the same result: "keep up the good work and don't ever change". It is soft and weak, underdogs and losers, who undergo at first just a change of behavior to an alternative or niche, avoiding fierce competition with members of the mainstream, then getting worked on by evolution, who shapes them into a more snug fit to their new place. When they are well adapted and many, their paths may or may not cross again. Sometimes another path leads above old path
what about puppies? (Score:5, Interesting)
This theory assumes that at some point, bold friendly dogs walked up to humans in an attempt to be friendly.
What about the packs of wolves that humans slaughtered when hunting for food and found a litter of puppies the now dead dogs were protecting?
I think this scenario would most likely be the first source domesticated animals, over a fully grown wolf who decides to become friendly.
Re:Flawed summary. (Score:5, Interesting)
At one time I had my collie able to find the "red ball" among the blue, red, and yellow ones... Dogs are colorblind, BTW.
No, they are not colorblind. They can see colors, just not as well as we do. Dogs can see two different color 'bands', humans can see three, and certain crustaceans (the mantis shrimp) can see about 11-12 bands. Talk about humans being colorblind. :)
Early color movies only used two color bands, and they look surprisingly good.
Re:Survival of the fittest (Score:5, Interesting)
In the case of the chicken, the answer is unequivocally "Yes". Evolutionary success means survival as a species. At this the chicken has done superlatively well. Evolution doesn't care about freedom. Evolution doesn't care about your aesthetic opinion of the genome. If it survives and reproduces, it is successful.
Re:Credit where it's due (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, some people (my wife for instance) seem to be pathologically unable to live without a cat (or cats) around. I don't hate cats, but if I never saw another one in the rest of my life it wouldn't bother me overly. I just don't get the attraction people seem to feel for cats. They don't do anything, they just turn cat food into cat fur on the furniture :P
When I met my wife, I was 41, never had a cat, and felt much the same as you. Thirteen years, and several cats later, I'll tell you my feelings have changed dramatically toward them. With dogs, you get that unconditional love...you could beat the crap of of one, and it would still great you at the door. With cats (not surprisingly, much like women), you have to work for it. They all have different personalities...we had one very aggressive tabby, and his twin who was the most docile & friendly pet I've ever seen. And last but not least, we used to have the occasional mouse, and a minor cricket problem...no need to call Orkin or Terminex when you've got a cat.
Re:I'd think it takes two (Score:5, Interesting)
i think you meant tree ape; not beach ape. or maybe savannah ape.
Or maybe all of the above. ;-)
It's pretty well understood among the anthropology and archaeology crowd that humans are among the most aquatic primates. Most evidence of our ancestors comes from the remains of our habitations, which occur mostly along ancient shorelines. I've seen the comment that if you draw a border 100 km from all the shores of oceans, major lakes and "navigable" rivers, you get around 5% of the planet's land area, but over 90% of its human population. Humans like living near bodies of water, and we are one of the few primates that regularly swim.
There's nothing especially odd about this, other than the fact that our closest relatives are all tropical forest critters. But we adapted to a radically different lifestyle than theirs, and we did pretty well as a result.
One of the areas where this topic has come up is in the question about how humans crossed from Siberia to North America. The most common textbook explanation is the ice-age "land bridge" caused by the lower sea level. But others have suggested that this isn't needed, since humans were building rafts and small boats long before that, and the short hop across the Bering Strait would have been no barrier at all to humans of 30,000 years ago. They'd have just crossed it in their boats. Then they'd have gone back a few times each year to visit friends and family, while the settlements on the eastern shore grew. So the real question is when humans first reached the eastern shores of Siberia; they'd have been in Alaska only a few years after that, no matter what the sea level was.