Sponsored Links:
REUTERS
Dogs have been a loyal companion to mankind for more than 30,000 years, findings reveal.
London - Dogs have been a loyal companion to mankind for more than 30,000 years, findings reveal.
Scientists believe that two 33,000-year-old skulls unearthed in separate digs in Siberia and Belgium show dogs were domesticated long before any other animal, such as sheep, cows or goats.
Researchers from the University of Arizona said the skulls had shorter snouts and wider jaws than undomesticated animals such as wolves, which use their longer snouts and narrower jaws to help them hunt.
That suggested the dogs had been kept for protection and companionship by our ancient ancestors – just as they are today.
The researchers think dogs could have been the first species of animals to be domesticated by humans, before farm animals were bred for their meat and skins. This offers a possible explanation for why breeds such as pugs and huskies look so different, despite being the same species.
The scientists used carbon dating to determine the age of the two skulls, then looked at the bone structures and concluded that claims the dogs had been domesticated were “pretty solid.”
Study author Dr Greg Hodgins, whose findings were published in the journal PLoS ONE, said: “Both the Belgian find and the Siberian find are domesticated species based on morphological [structural] characteristics.
“Essentially, wolves have long thin snouts and their teeth are not crowded, and domestication results in this shortening of the snout and widening of the jaws and crowding of the teeth.
“The interesting thing is that typically we think of domestication as being cows, sheep and goats, things that produce food through meat or secondary agricultural products such as milk, cheese and wool and things like that.
“Those are different relationships than humans may have with dogs. The dogs are not necessarily providing products or meat. They are probably providing protection, companionship and perhaps helping on the hunt.
“And it’s really interesting that this appears to have happened first out of all human relationships with animals.” - Daily Mail
Hungry for more scitech news? Sign up for our daily newsletter
|
|
shane, wrote
Meme-Man, wrote
Shane - IOL's comments section is archaic and reveals the worst of South Africa's trailing 10 years behind their 1st world media peers. I have previously submitted invitations to my facebook link, but unsurprisingly that has not been published. I wish I could find a news site where I can enjoy free dialogue without the grinding frustration. My pen name might lead you to me if I find one.
Shane, wrote
hey Meme-Man. Let's see if this post makes it....I wrote a lengthy reply to your post below on Friday, but it was never posted. I really detest that, what is all the effort for? Nevertheless, my "interbreeding" comment related to dometicated dogs and wolves, not the ad nauseum list that you have published. My comment stands and is vindicated by published articles on the 'net. Is there another place that we can debate? Make your suggestion. I would like to answer your other points, but it seems pointless if IOL won't even publish it. I have answers for ALL of the points in your 2:23 post. Cheers.
Meme-Man, wrote
Hi Shane - 1) your 10.29 is, I'm afraid, wrong: Members of the dog genus Canis: wolves, dogs (both common dogs and dingoes), coyotes, and golden jackals cannot interbreed with members of the wider dog family: the Canidae, such as South American canids, foxes, African wild dogs, bat-eared foxes or raccoon dog; or, if they could, their offspring would be infertile; so my point stands. 2) I believe that your simplistic categorization of human races was cutting edge during the Eugenics movement of the 1920's, but it is well debunked now; harking back to fantasies of noah, etc. is scraping the proverbial pot and deserves no place in a discussion on science and origins; for obvious reasons I won't wast more time on that. I will note that it is revealing how you refer to Neanderthals, an Ice Age, and then skirt the very edge of describing natural selection when talking about "sub speciating" - when none of these things have the vaguest mention in the bible, and which have been suppressed with the most vicious consequences by the church. The entire "flood" story is only worth a fleeting response; primarily to point out the obvious - a) where did the water come from and go to? b) was it fresh or salt water - either way it would have killed the unfortunate 'other' species. c) Where did noah get food and water? d) the ark was too small... etc. etc. etc.
Shane, wrote
Regarding the dung-beetles: To clarify the point, I meant to say that the different sub-species of dung beetle are no longer able to interbreed due to incompatible reproductive organs despite a common parent. Still the same KIND though.
Shane, wrote
Meme-Man, my answer continued. The unpopular Bible account of how the various population groups came about is a far more plausible explanation than the "out of Africa" hypothesis. As theses populations continued to move apart, certain genetic traits would have become fixed, with the negroids for instance, no longer having the capacity to produce light skinned children. Recent times have seen a mid-brown skinned couple produce a set of twin girls, one dark skinned and the other blue eyed and light skinned. The parents of these children are both of mixed-marriage descent. Clearly the variety of the genetic pool was revitalized, but no addition in complexity was made to the genotype. Speak some more later, I have to work. I wish there was a better place to bat around our ideas.
Shane, wrote
Morning Meme-Man. I disagree with the comment about drifting "out of Kind". If this was the case then wolves and dogsmuttsmongrels would not be able to interbreed. It is the case that they can. @JupiterDrops, no, I am not confusing the pheno- and genotypes. Natural selection can only select for an already-born creatures at the phenotype level. The genetic trait is not expressed at genotype level, therefore it cannot be selected for. To come back to skin colours, I do believe that a kind of natural selecting has taken place here, but different to your worldview: In our world we find 3 basic physical traits amongst humans regarding their features, being mongoloid, negroid and caucasian. These can obviously be mixed up in one person presenting traits from all three groups simultaneously. Now, as a consistent creationist, I am led to believe that all people originally had a similar set of traits, mid-brown skin etc. At the time of Babel the worlds population was split according to the grandsons of Noah and these tribes would have possessed the genetic traits of their fathers being Shem. Ham and Japheth. Dispersing throughout the world would have caused certain genetic traits to become isolated due to them now no longer mingling as before. Outsiders with traits different to the "accepted" norm would likely have been selected against. In Creationist circles, we posit that there was an ice age after the global flood (we have a good mechanism to bring on an ice age, please ask if you are keen to know) , dark skinned people would not have survived well in Europe and north due to too little sunlight to produce Vit-E. (Interesting that Neandertals were dark skinned and had bone deformities consistent with what I have just mentioned.) We need to keep in mind that a completely new species is not a completely new KIND of animal. There are plenty of dung beetles that have sub-speciated in living memory to such an extent that through loss of genetic information, their reproductive organs no longer fit properly across the range and they are no longer able to reproduce. All from the same original species though.
Meme-Man, wrote
Shane - my answer continued: In the wolf, humans saw useful traits; they intervened and bred 'for' those traits, discriminating for individuals that did carry the desired traits, and against individuals who didn't carry the trait; those traits were then, by artificially selected to exaggerate (the speed of a greyhound, ferocity of rotweiler, 'cuteness' of a toy pomeranian) - all of that diversification of 'breed' in less than 200 years (a few dozen generations) from the pye dog (brak) to today's distinct breeds. Given time - not 30,000 but 10, 100, or 1,000 times as much time; a few million years and a few hundred thousand generations of isolation between breeding populations; what will the dog become; with or without human-artificial intervention? It will become completely new species. So too the genetic drift of species; naturally selected by environment (or sexually selected by preference). By this same process; The human genome in the past <100,000 years (a few thousand years) has gone from a single 'standard' African appearance to the various skin colours and attributes of all the world's populations. Dark skinned individuals (without modern nutritional supplements) suffer severe effects of vitamin E deficiency; light skinned individuals in sunny climates suffer their lack of melanin in the form of sun exposure. It's a very simple but highly elegant process.
Meme-Man, wrote
Hello Shane; I've been missing you - as creationists go you're a breath of fresh air next to the generally low ebb of intellect. Although you make good points, you miss my and the point: The artificial selection process by which in an *extremely rapid* time period (of a few tens of thousands of years), the wolf was domesticated and then specified (it moved out of 'KIND') into it's own species, with much variation serving as a great analogy for natural selection
JupiterDrops, wrote
Shane, wrote
Hello Meme-Man. It's about time that you really learned what a fact is. Anyhow, one general animal KIND sub-speciating into many different species is NOT evolution. It's still a dog-kind of animal Meme-Man. However, your definition of Evolution demands that Genetic information increase through Natural-Selection. Since natural selection only works on the phenotype, no extra information is added (extremely rarely will a mutation ADD (useful) information) only existing genetic information is sorted or even discarded. I suppose you would have to call that DE-Volution.
Meme-Man, wrote
I'm waiting for my creationist (Anonymous) friends to show up here - at which point the fact of evolution can be discussed in terms of natural-selection using the artificial-selection example of dogs. Any takers?
Showing items 1 - 12 of 12
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Buying a car has never been easy. Motoring.co.za contains a large database of car listings with a user friendly search.
Start searching today »
We like to make your life easier
Mobile
Browse IOL on your phone at m.iol.co.za.
Newsletters
Subscribe to our newsletters. News delivered to your inbox!
Comment Guidelines