MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Crying Wolf (Life Sciences)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 49, 50, 51  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I read recently, in another thread, that the date for the domestication of the horse had (because of new evidence) been put at 30,000 BP.

Since I don't believe man could have managed that feat without the help of the dog, I wondered what the current (orthodox) thinking was as to when the dog was first domesticated. That's when I found this snippet:

The most puzzling fact of the DNA evidence is that the variability in molecular distance between dogs and wolves seems greater than the 10,000–20,000 years assigned to domestication. Yet the process and economics of domestication by humans only emerged later in this period in any case. Based upon the molecular clock studies conducted, it would seem that dogs separated from the wolf lineage approximately 100,000 years ago. Although clear evidence for fossil dogs becomes obscure beyond about 14,000 years ago....

Oh dear...bit of a problem here. From that one single paragraph we have three competing dates: archaeology puts it at 14,000 BP, cultural anthropology put it no earlier than 20,000 BP and mtDNA analysis puts it at 100,000 BP. - - Looks like we're for a fight then...pistols at dawn...and all that.

But no...don't worry...there's a perfectly rational explanation:

'there are fossils of wolf bones in association with early humans from well beyond 100,000 years ago. Tamed wolves might have taken up with hunter-gatherers without changing in ways that the fossil record could clearly capture. These dogs-in-process would possibly have dallied with wolves as packs of humans and canines traveled out of Africa'

Hang on....out of where? I thought dogs were descended exclusively from the grey wolf. In fact they are supposed to be so closely related genetically, that the dog has been re-classified as a sub-species of the grey wolf (Canis lupus familiaris) so what the hell is it doing coming out of Africa? - - The only wolf in Africa is the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis), which, according to taxonomists, doesn't even belong to the same species!

This is becoming very messy.

To make things worse, the genus Canis is supposed to have evolved in North America, but according to mtDNA analysis the oldest extant member of the genus is the Black Backed Jackal (Canis mesomelas), from Africa...and the situation regarding the Grey Wolf itself is no clearer.

Again according to mtDNA analysis, the oldest sub-species of Grey Wolf, is the Tibetan Wolf (Canis lupus chanco) which is said to play no part in the lineage of the domestic dog.

At least I'm not the only one who is confused.

The conundrum here is how could modern wolves have evolved in North America, migrated to Eurasia, returned to North America, and left its oldest uninterrupted lineage stock isolated deep in the Himalayan Mountains.

But again, there's a rational explanation:

The only plausible explanation is; the original transient North American proto-wolves, spread throughout Eurasia, seeking out good hunting areas, and became specialized in certain unique areas. The group that colonized the unique Himalayan area maintained their genetic purity for 800,000 years.

Oh dear...I'm going to need help on this one I'm afraid.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Take a look at these two pictures:





Both are sub-species of the Grey Wolf.
Both are about the same size (similar to a border collie).
Both roam wild in semi-desert scrub environments.

They are in fact so similar, that if they were pedigree dogs, they would both conform to the same breed standard.

Orthodoxy (rightly) regards one as a feral domestic dog...and (wrongly) regards the other as a perfectly natural variant of the Grey Wolf.

(Don't let the colour worry you...Eurasian Grey wolves come in many colours...just like dogs.)
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Going back to the genetics...it appears that the study of the canine genome is now so advanced that it is possible to determine a pedigree dog's particular breed from a DNA sample, with a ninety nine percent accuracy.

The research team drew their genetic samples from 96 different locations on the dog genome. Using variations in the DNA sequences from those locations, they were able to assign all but four of 414 dogs to their proper breed.

So the area of genetic research dealing with the interrelationship of various populations and species looks pretty sound. The problem lies with using the rate of mutation within the mitochondria as a dating method to ascertain when these various populations diverged.

You may have noticed from my first post that a new term seems to have crept in. Instead of referring to 'mtDNA analysis' they now refer to 'molecular clock studies'. This gives it an aura of super precision and because it's allied to genetic fingerprinting, it has to be unquestionably correct. - - Incidentally, the latest 'molecular clock studies' give a date of 135,000 BP for the divergence of Grey wolf and dog lineages.

This now puts orthodoxy in a right old pickle. - - 135,000 years ago Modern Man was supposed to be holed up in Africa...whilst the Grey wolf inhabited the whole of the northern hemisphere...except Africa.

Orthodoxy has a choice to make:

A) Announce that Modern Man couldn't have caused the divergence of dog and wolf (and pass the task onto some hominid or other).
B) Announce that the 'molecular clock' is buggered and beyond economical repair.
C) Carefully ignore the conundrum...and hope nobody notices.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If we now return to the pictures (two posts up)...the first one shows the sub species Canis lupus papilles which inhabits South Asia from Sinai to India. - - Here's another picture to show the colour variation:



The second shows the more familiar dingo (Canis lupus familiaris)...that particular one is from an isolated population which unlike most, has not been overly contaminated with DNA from next door's pooch.

We know the dingo is a feral domesticate because it's a placental mammal on a marsupial continent but the southern desert Grey wolf is to my mind just a slightly earlier version of the dingo...a domestic wolf (which is by definition a dog) gone feral.

Here's another (even smaller) sub-species of Grey wolf Canis lupus arabs



What do you reckon...wild wolf or feral dog?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What blows my mind is that these aren't related at all.



Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A model analysis. Experienced AE hands will note how the various academic subjects weave in their own paradigms but that the true warp running through it is 'careful ignoral' because hardly any of these very, very basic beliefs can be true.

THOBR readers will be familiar with the idea that the best chance of overthrowing the whole heap-o'-shit probably lies with the pedigree dog breeders ie people with no scientific credentials whatsoever but a pressing need of their own to come up with the truth.

PS Ishmael, can you do something about the width and tell Chad what he is doing wrong with his pix.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sorry about the width of the pics...I chose them to fit nicely on my screen (forgetting that some folk are still using steam driven computers).

Thanks for the endorsement, by the way...do I get an 'I'm not asleep - I'm an AEist at work' badge yet?

(More to come later.)
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:

What blows my mind is that these aren't related at all.


If you didn't know better you'd think the latter was selectively bred to retain the juvenile characteristics of the former.

But I'm concentrating more on what orthodoxy 'knows' by its own admission is genetically, without any doubt, one common species...Canis lupus.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad wrote:
If you didn't know better you'd think the latter was selectively bred to retain the juvenile characteristics of the former.


Chad. That was precisely my thought!
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
PS Ishmael, can you do something about the width and tell Chad what he is doing wrong with his pix.


The problem is that width control requires use of special HTML code.

The regular image insertion code for this site looks like this:

Chart:
[img]http://www.url.com/images/myImage.jpg[/img]


The HTML code you need looks like this:

Chart:
<img src="http://www.url.com/images/myImage.jpg" width="400" />


If you need to control the width of the images you insert, you must use the HTML code.
Send private message
Claire



View user's profile
Reply with quote

This now puts orthodoxy in a right old pickle. - - 135,000 years ago Modern Man was supposed to be holed up in Africa...whilst the Grey wolf inhabited the whole of the northern hemisphere...except Africa.

Orthodoxy has a choice to make:

A) Announce that Modern Man couldn't have caused the divergence of dog and wolf (and pass the task onto some hominid or other).
B) Announce that the 'molecular clock' is buggered and beyond economical repair.
C) Carefully ignore the conundrum...and hope nobody notices
.

Or D) Announce that the Out of Africa theory (for Modern Man) is wrong?
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Claire wrote:
Or D) Announce that the Out of Africa theory (for Modern Man) is wrong?

But that would be like the pope announcing his conversion to Satanism!...(or should that be Santa-ism?)
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Out-of-Africa is one of the multi-disciplinary paradigm theories I instance above. It is hugely encouraging how many otherwise unavoidable anomalies disappear with Out-of-Canada.
Send private message
Claire



View user's profile
Reply with quote

But that would be like the pope announcing his conversion to Satanism!...


(With this Pope there might be some willing to take those odds....)

Out of North America through Eurasia into Africa seems a better fit for your model though; or multi-regionalists amongst us might object: Out of Canada (if Mick prefers) for the particular Modern Man able to domesticate wolves (or horses?)
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

multi-regionalists amongst us might object:

Multi-regionalists are the people that really need to be taken out and shot without further discussion. The idea that 'a species' or even a subspecies can arise in several different places is so laughable that only liberals trying to piece together a pre-history that is profoundly a-liberal would ever dream it up.

Though of course if they would like to address Darwinism first and show us how genes might sympathetically change in many different centres at the same time (à la morphic resonance) then they might still be of some use.

Out of Canada (if Mick prefers) for the particular Modern Man able to...

This is the rub. If you accept orthodoxy's view of Modern Man then Out-of-Canada is a non-starter since the dating for Old World Modern Humans goes back to a hundred... two hundred... thousand years (it gallups along nicely as each expedition tries for the world record). It is because of this persistent assumption that I have had to produce the uneasy compromise of using the term Cro-Magnon as a particular 'tribe' (or whatever) of Modern Man.

However, I am reasonably convinced that all 'human' bones older than 40,000 BP are unamenable to carbon-dating and that therefore all Modern Human bones older than a reported 40,000 years are simply palaeo-anthropological travellers' tales. In other words Cro-Magnon is Modern Man and they arrived on the scene (they arrived in the Old World and onto the palaeo-anthropological scene) in c 40,000 BP.

This is why my permanent offer of (it now stands at) nine million pounds for any scientific date of a modern human significantly older than c 40,000 BP is still extant.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 49, 50, 51  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 51

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group