creationism

[slotdrag]

Ok i dont under stand. This is a astronmy site i beleive in the big bang. Ok i know im hanging myself for a trashing here. But i beleive in god and if he said let tere be light there could have been the big bang and there was light. Id rather think along these lines than to think im an ape. Please be king to me im not trying to stsrt a fight here. but i figured you people into astronmy would lean more my way. i guess im wrong then in thinking of how the heavens and eart became life as we know it. Well all for now.

[Kristophe]

Well, this is a site dedicated to science, focused mostly on the sciences of astronomy, astrophysics, astrometrics, astrogeology, astrobiology, etc etc. As such, there's a rather high concentration of people who utilize or practice the scientific method. A good number don't differentiate between subjects when it comes to applying the scientific method. Biology is every bit as much a science as astronomy is, and vice versa. Spiritual views don't come into play in such discussions. On top of that, we rather strictly held to the rules encouraging us to not discuss such subjective and (deeply) personal topics, since they often lead to unpleasentness.

[George]

As Kristophe states, there are rules restricting religious discussions. However, if they relate to astronomy, they are acceptable, if courtesy is used.

Religon rule...
12 B) Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.

...But i beleive in god and if he said let tere be light there could have been the big bang and there was light.
It is very unlikely the Big Bang event would be visible. One reason is the plasma state of matter does not allow photons (light) to travel outward. About 380,000 years after the "bang", electrons found their homes around the nucleous of atoms during a quick period called recombination; light was turned loose and we now see this same flash from over 13 billion years ago in the reduced energy level of microwaves: the CMB.

An alternative idea would be light from the Sun itself, maybe, or some spiritual alternative which is not astronomy.

[slotdrag]

Ok if a mod. finds this to break the rules im sorry you can delete the tread. I like the answers ive gotten so far. thanks im just trying to put things so i can understand. because i dont beleive i evolved from an ape.

[Halcyon Dayz]

i dont beleive i evolved from an ape.
That's the point, it's a believe. ;)

[paulie jay]

slotdrag, what has the big bang got to do with evolution?

There are many people who accept the processes of evolution who have no problem reconciling it with their belief in a god. There are also people who accept the big bang who can reconcile that acceptance with belief in a god.


You don't HAVE to believe that you were decended from an ape. Evolution doesn't say this. Evolution indicates that apes and humans decended from a common ancestor that was neither ape OR human.

[Wolverine]

because i dont beleive i evolved from an ape.

You don't have to, as evolution is not a belief system. Common ancestry (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html), as noted above by paulie jay. I'd recommend spending some time reading through the TalkOrigins resources (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html) to further your understanding of the subject matter.

To reiterate, evolution is a biological model; the Big Bang is a cosmological model. They each deal with separate areas and should not be meshed together.

[gwiz]

And to separate things more, evolution is about the diversity of life, not it's origin. Apart from a few experiments that showed that some of the chemicals important to life could have been easily produced by natural processes, the origin of life is still one of the big gaps in scientific knowledge. Evolution, on the other hand, is about as well established as a scientific theory can be. Creationists have been trying to disprove it for 150 years, and it's still the basis for biology.

[George]

There are also some who find evolution is helpful to Genesis. For instance, who did Cain marry if not another homo sapien, who may have evolved over billions of years in accordance with a creator's engineered plan?

Most creationists are not against evolution and are not stuck on a 6,000 yr. universe. However, since there is a great push by those who are adamant against these views, often creationism becomes the pejorative term (at least until a better label comes along). Essentially, Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and Intellegent Design (ID) represent the bulk of the objections to mainstream science. [It would be nice if a snappy term would surface to qualify those being criticized.]

IMO, science represents a unique class of truth searching. It has matured to the point ideas must meet the requirements established in the scientific method. Here, validity is determined by measurability only; the greater the number of measurable predicitions and the greater the measurments, the greater it contributes to our understanding of the truth about the physical universe. This allows us to have a firm foundation from which to build. However, it is not a substitute for faith and issues, such as love and morals, which are difficult to measure.

[JohnW]

Id rather think along these lines than to think im an ape.
Science doesn't care how comfortable anyone is about its findings. There are a lot of things I don't like: for example, I wish we could travel faster than light. Regardless of how you and I may feel about it, all the evidence we have indicates that we can't go faster than light. And that we are apes.

[George]

... And that we are apes.
We aren't apes, which seems to be a key concern in the o.p. As Paulie Jay pointed out, we, apparently, share a common ancestor. [I suspect you were simply affirming evolution which is validated by science but I did not want this point confused.]

[Gillianren]

According to my physical anthropology prof in college, we are, in fact, apes. We are not monkeys--no tails!--but we are, in fact, still considered apes.

[AGN Fuel]

Interesting recent article (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23343135.htm)

From the article,

"Intriguingly, both humans and chimpanzees appear to have evolved slower than gorillas and orangutans," they wrote in their report.

If you met some of the humans I have to deal with, this would be quite apparent.....

[Fr. Wayne]

As founder of the new Anthropod/Bigfoot Ant-Defamation League, I find the following:
According to my physical anthropology prof in college, we are, in fact, apes.

a terrible misjustice to my clients. In a statement released today: We apes want nothing to do with this scourge of human infestation of our precious woodlands and request immediate correction from the University."

[George]

According to my physical anthropology prof in college, we are, in fact, apes. We are not monkeys--no tails!--but we are, in fact, still considered apes.
I don't get the impression this is the mainstream view, but perhaps I am wrong.

Here (http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm)is an example of what I have seen more often than not.

[paulie jay]

According to my physical anthropology prof in college, we are, in fact, apes. We are not monkeys--no tails!--but we are, in fact, still considered apes.I suppose I'm being pedantic by saying that we may be apes, but we came from something else!

[Van Rijn]

*shrug* The fact is we are very similar to modern apes. I think this is what some people would prefer not to believe. We did not evolve from modern apes, certainly - we all evolved from common ancestors. Whether or not you want to call humans "apes" depends on what definition you want to use for the word.

[gwiz]

We're not just apes, we're Great Apes. Along with our cousins, in order of increasing distance, the chimpanzee, the bonobo, the gorilla and the orang-utan.

[Jens]

According to my physical anthropology prof in college, we are, in fact, apes. We are not monkeys--no tails!--but we are, in fact, still considered apes.

The key here is "considered." In fact, whether we are or are not apes depends entirely on what one means by the word "ape." And whether or not we descend form apes depends purely on whether one defines the common ancestor we have with chimps as an ape or not. What science demonstrates very very clearly is that we are extremely similar to chimps, no matter whether a person feels comfortable with that or not. Personally, when I go to zoos and see them, I find them very "human" and do not mind the association of common ancestry. Actually, I don't really understand why people feel uncomfortable about being related to them.

So anyway, science can demonstrate with absolute certainty that we are very similar to them. And pretty conclusively that we have common ancestry. But whether we choose to call that ancestor an ape, and whether we choose to call ourselves apes, is ultimately a semantic choice. If somebody wants to say, at the moment we separated from our common lineage with chimps, we became a new family or order or whatever, then ultimately I can't argue with the classification scheme.

[The Saint]

You can't find a bigger atheist than Isaac Asimov. Yet even he speaks about evolution with somewhat less certitude:

"We can make inspired guesses, but we don't know for certain what physical and chemical properties of the planets crust, its ocean and its atmosphere made it so conducive to such a sudden appearance of life. We are not certain about the amount and forms of energy that permeated the environment in the planets early days. Thus the problem that scientists face is how to explain the suddenness in which life appeared on this young 4.6 billion year old planet earth".

[Wolverine]

Curious that the only references I can find for that Asimov quote originate from creationist sources, purportedly citing something published by Omni magazine back in 1983. I'd love to see the full article in order to see the subject and view the full context of his comments.

Quote-mining, though, offers no value. Even if Asimov completely loathed or rebuked evolution, it'd be equally irrelevant. Evlolution stands as valid based upon the overwhelming empirical evidence supporting it, not the opinions of individuals, pro or con.

Further, evolution does not presume to explain the origins of life. It, again, is a biological model describing change over time. I seriously doubt, given Asimov's staunch support of evolution, that those words intended to convey what the creationists claim.

[Halcyon Dayz]

I think it means what it says.

Life appeared when the Earth was still very young.
We do not what the Earth was like then.
So we (for now) can only guess at what the mechanism was.

These are all facts.
I very much doubt that Asimov wanted to imply a supernatural origin of life.
After all, that would have been very much out of character.

[Fram]

And even less that he wanted to say that what happened after the origin of life was steered by some Intelligent Design instead of Evolution (the same goes for your authority quote in the other thread: it is about the origin of life, not about evolution, and hence has nothing to do with support for ID).

[gwiz]

Didn't Asimov write a whole book called "The Threat of Creationism"?

[Wolverine]

See here (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html).

[worzel]

In an essay by Richard Dawkins entitled "Gaps of the Mind" he argues that by any sensible definition we are just another variety of chimpanzee. IIRC In it there is a "related-to" tree with distance between species representing relatedness. Using this diagram he shows that removing humans from the defintion of Ape is totally arbitrary and could equally be justified (on relatedness) for either of the other two chimp varieties.

[Fr. Wayne]

You guys (E's, ID's, C's) are walking into the old Pontius Pilate dilemna. Pull back! Don't go there. Don't leave truth without a power greater than ourselves or astrology here we go again. If you don't have the foggiest idea what the heck I'm talking about, then it is my fault for not being able to explain myself well enough. Disregard this poster as a minstrel in the gallery, then nevermind.

[George]

So we are closer to chimps than apes? In Darwin's day, he argued that although we are not apes, we are closer to the apes than the apes are to the chimpanzee.

[Added: Very nice link, Wolverine. I want to read it closer later.]

[Argos]

Well I for one am very pleased being an ape. Apes are cool. :) ;)

[worzel]

So we are closer to chimps than apes? In Darwin's day, he argued that although we are not apes, we are closer to the apes than the apes are to the chimpanzee.
Hey, I just googled "third chimpanzee" or ape and look what I came across:

Closer to man than ape (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1693364,00.html)

Of course, they didn't have genetic testing back in Darwin's day :)

[Argos]

Hey, I just googled "third chimpanzee" or ape and look what I came across:

Closer to man than ape (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1693364,00.html)

Of course, they didn't have genetic testing back in Darwin's day :)

So the new chimp classification would be Homo Troglodytes. Hey, a lot of my friends could be called like that.

[farmerjumperdon]

We're not just apes, we're Great Apes. Along with our cousins, in order of increasing distance, the chimpanzee, the bonobo, the gorilla and the orang-utan.

I thought there were only 4 Great Apes. Is the bonobo a recent addition to the category - like within the last 20 years or so?

[farmerjumperdon]

In the link provided by George,

http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm

there is a statement about criteria for speciation being that a population can no longer breed with the group from which it split. Is this accurate?

Reason I ask is that I am always very suspicious about people's claims that their dog is part wolf. I hear this so often that either there are a lot of dogs and wolves having sex all over the place on a very regular basis, or there are a lot of mutt owners living vicariously thru the image of their dog as part wild beast.

But more to the point, if that statement about speciation is correct, then dogs and wolves can not breed? Which is correct?

[gwiz]

I thought there were only 4 Great Apes. Is the bonobo a recent addition to the category - like within the last 20 years or so?
Also known as the pygmy chimpanzee, split from the chimps after they split from us. I think it was relatively un-studied until fairly recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

[SolusLupus]

There is a statement about criteria for speciation being that a population can no longer breed with the group from which it split. Is this accurate?

Reason I ask is that I am always very suspicious about people's claims that their dog is part wolf. I hear this so often that either there are a lot of dogs and wolves having sex all over the place on a very regular basis, or there are a lot of mutt owners living vicariously thru the image of their dog as part wild beast.

But more to the point, if that statement about speciation is correct, then dogs and wolves can not breed? Which is correct?

From what I've seen, wolf dogs are pretty common place. One big reason is that they are in demand; lots of people do want wolf dogs, so they breed them, or pay to have them bred. Also, a lot of "rich folk" will even buy wolves wholesale, and then usually mistreat the animal.

You have no idea how many times I've read of wolves and wolf dogs being mistreated and abandoned altogether simply because they are not as "tamable" as dogs tend to be. Sure, they can be domesticated, but they are energetic and intelligent; they don't want to sit around in a house all day. Getting bored, they usually tear stuff up.

A lot of people go on about the beauty and grandeur of a wolf dog, without even realizing how hard they are to take care of. They then buy the animal, and then are devastated to realize that their kitchen furniture just got mauled by a bored dog. So they usually go and abandon the animal, or just have it put down.

You do this enough time, and of course you'll see plenty of dogs with a bit of wolf in them. I did once, too; in fact, I thought the dog WAS a wolf, until the owner told me that it was only a small part of the dog (the rest was malamute, I think, and german shephard)

Wolf breeders get paid tons of bucks for this trade.

So what, exactly, is so hard to believe about any of this?

[Halcyon Dayz]

But more to the point, if that statement about speciation is correct, then dogs and wolves can not breed? Which is correct?
Some biologists consider dogs to be a subspecies of the Gray Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf).

[gwiz]

It's difficult trying to draw a hard and fast line through a continuously varying sample. Ring species are the example here, populations spread over a roughly linear geographic region, which bends around so that the ends of the sample overlap. At any point along the ring, an individual can find plenty of neighbours to breed with, but the individuals from one end of the ring can't breed with those from the other. You only need to break the ring in the middle and you'd soon have two separate species.

It's the same if the ring is in time rather than space, everyone is the same species as their parents and children, but go back in time up one family tree and come down a different branch and the two present day end point individuals can be of two different species.

[George]

Hey, I just googled "third chimpanzee" or ape and look what I came across:

Closer to man than ape (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1693364,00.html)


Wow, I scrolled slowly in case the ink was still wet. ;)

I am feeling even more curious, call me curious.....(nevermind) ;). Isn't there a movie coming out soon about him?

Of course, they didn't have genetic testing back in Darwin's day :)
In fairness, I only assumed the distance to chimpanzees in Darwin's time was deemed beyond ape from man. It is possible the distance to chimps were not considered all that far, only a little farther from man but much farther from ape. Not likely, but maybe.

[Lianachan]

Earl: How was your first day of school?
Randy: Great! I really enjoyed science class. Did you know that before we were humans we were monkeys?
Earl: Really? What were we before monkeys?
Randy: I don't know. I can't even remember being a monkey.
Sprang to mind when reading this thread.

[farmerjumperdon]

From what I've seen, wolf dogs are pretty common place. One big reason is that they are in demand; lots of people do want wolf dogs, so they breed them, or pay to have them bred. Also, a lot of "rich folk" will even buy wolves wholesale, and then usually mistreat the animal.

You have no idea how many times I've read of wolves and wolf dogs being mistreated and abandoned altogether simply because they are not as "tamable" as dogs tend to be. Sure, they can be domesticated, but they are energetic and intelligent; they don't want to sit around in a house all day. Getting bored, they usually tear stuff up.

A lot of people go on about the beauty and grandeur of a wolf dog, without even realizing how hard they are to take care of. They then buy the animal, and then are devastated to realize that their kitchen furniture just got mauled by a bored dog. So they usually go and abandon the animal, or just have it put down.

You do this enough time, and of course you'll see plenty of dogs with a bit of wolf in them. I did once, too; in fact, I thought the dog WAS a wolf, until the owner told me that it was only a small part of the dog (the rest was malamute, I think, and german shephard)

Wolf breeders get paid tons of bucks for this trade.

So what, exactly, is so hard to believe about any of this?

I am trying to reconcile the contradiction between the one statement that alludes (but doesn't state flat out) to different species not being able to interbreed, with so many claims of wolf-dogs (and the assumption that they are separate breeds).

Since it seems established that they do interbreed, then either they are the same species, or species can interbreed.

[Huevos Grandes]

Since it seems established that they do interbreed, then either they are the same species, or species can interbreed.
Where do you think "domesticated" dogs originally came from ? Coyotes and foxes too- all the same genetically viable species.

EDIT: color added to quoted post for emphasis.

[farmerjumperdon]

I should have just went here first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid

They are separate species, and can interbreed (which seems to be largely based on chromosone count and uh, . . . size factors).

[Disinfo Agent]

You may enjoy this entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#The_isolation_species_concept_in_more_deta il).

I remember being kind of confused about this, too. You have to keep reminding yourself that, in the end, the boundary between two species can be fuzzy. The basic idea is that they must not be able to breed easily with each other -- but there may be exceptional circumstances (such as captivity, or artificial insemination) where individuals of 'two' species will breed. What eventually makes a population branch off into two separate species is not some well-defined degree of difference, but the loss of the ability to breed regularly.

[George]

I've wondered about this issue. Darwin wrote of this important issue, but I can't recall him ever saying breeding would not be fruitful between two species (he may have, though). He did say what you are saying, that there is no clear demarcation between species.

Is there something specific that distinguishes one species from another when these two species can interbreed?

[Fram]

Isn't this "blurry" line between species also a good argument pro evolution? "They" are always pointing to the missing links in the fossils (even though new links are found every day), but we have some of those links alive and well. It's perfectly logical in evolution that A can breed with B, and B with C, but A not with C, as the evolutionary, genetic distance has become too large. But why would you create it that way? What's intelligent about that?

[Disinfo Agent]

Is there something specific that distinguishes one species from another when these two species can interbreed?When two similar populations are considered different species even though they can, in principle, interbreed, that's usually because:

-their offspring are sterile, or predominantly sterile;

or

-they live in different habitats, and never (or very rarely) get to meet each other in the wild.

If you think about what this means from an evolutionary point of view, it makes sense: even though there may be occasional interbreeding in exceptional circumstances, the rate of interbreeding is very small. The contribution of interbreeding to the gene pool of each of the two populations is therefore negligible.

[George]

Isn't this "blurry" line between species also a good argument pro evolution? "They" are always pointing to the missing links in the fossils (even though new links are found every day), but we have some of those links alive and well. It's perfectly logical in evolution that A can breed with B, and B with C, but A not with C, as the evolutionary, genetic distance has become too large. But why would you create it that way? What's intelligent about that?
Possibly the rate of new species would be unfavorable. Maybe God doesn't want all the varietys of flowers to pop-up too quickly. :) I am not up on evolution by any standard, however.

If you think about what this means from an evolutionary point of view, it makes sense: even though there may be occasional interbreeding in exceptional circumstances, the rate of interbreeding is very small. The contribution of interbreeding to the gene pool of each of the two populations is therefore negligible.
That is certainly logical. It is the slow minute changes in variety which finally establishes a new species. Just where a clear line is drawn is still undefined. Of course, it is not critical that a clear line be drawn at all to establish evolution's validity; some of the best paintings use broad strokes. :)

[worzel]

Dawkins said something about the clear divisions between species (when they exist) only being apparent with hindsight, and only due to all the inbetweens going extinct.

Isn't this "blurry" line between species also a good argument pro evolution? "They" are always pointing to the missing links in the fossils (even though new links are found every day), but we have some of those links alive and well. It's perfectly logical in evolution that A can breed with B, and B with C, but A not with C, as the evolutionary, genetic distance has become too large. But why would you create it that way? What's intelligent about that?
Apparently there is a species of bird (a gull, I think) that inhabits a very long shore line, and along the shore line they can all interbreed with their neighbours, but there is a gradaul change as you move along the shore line such that the birds from one end can't interbreed with the birds from the other. So there is a living example of exactly what you described :)

[Halcyon Dayz]

Apparently there is a species of bird (a gull, I think) that inhabits a very long shore line, and along the shore line they can all interbreed with their neighbours, but there is a gradual change as you move along the shore line such that the birds from one end can't interbreed with the birds from the other. So there is a living example of exactly what you described :)
And here they are: Ring species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species).

[worzel]

And here they are: Ring species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species).Thanks :) My definition of a shore line was rather lose :o

[The Saint]

Before DNA studies in the 90s, it was thought that dogs branched off from a variety of wild canids, i.e., coyotes, hyenas, jackals, wolves etc about 15,000 years ago.

But the DNA shows that dog breeds can be traced back to wolves and not other canids. How were dogs bred from wolves? Our Stone Age ancestors befriending wolves and somehow managed to breed the first mutant wolf, the mother of all dogs?

How do you take a male and female wolf and get them to produce a subspecies, assuming you could tame and interact with them at all?

According to evolution a dog is a mutated wolf that only has those characteristics of the wild parent which humans find companionable and useful.

The stringent wolf pecking order and breeding rituals would never allow a mutant to survive.

Wolf/dog breeders today certainly should have no problem duplicating it. But no breeders have stepped up to the plate claiming they can take two pure wolves and produce a dog without biogenetic engineering techniques.

The alternative of special creation, as Dawkins says, 'we despise and reject'.

[Fram]

Why would you want to recreate a dog? We still have some left.

It would be more interesting to recreate species that have gone extinct, like the aurochs, the mother and father of all cows. Oh wait, we have done that...

Something else: do you believe that all breeds of dogs were created / designed by someone else (non-human), or do you believe that we bred some or all of those? If so, why don't you believe in breeding dogs from wolves?

It is a bit naive to think that you can produce dogs in one lifetime. But wolves can be tamed, and by picking the "tamest", most human-friendly wolves out of those, for generation after generation, you will favour some genetic characteristics, thereby producing animals that are fartther and farther removed from "true" wolves. Still, as it is only 10 or 15 thousand years since we started, they still can interbreed.

Do you believe in genetics at all? Domestication of any animal? Or do you think that all domesticated species have always existed as such?

[SolusLupus]

Before DNA studies in the 90s, it was thought that dogs branched off from a variety of wild canids, i.e., coyotes, hyenas, jackals, wolves etc about 15,000 years ago.

But the DNA shows that dog breeds can be traced back to wolves and not other canids. How were dogs bred from wolves? Our Stone Age ancestors befriending wolves and somehow managed to breed the first mutant wolf, the mother of all dogs?

It's quite possible.

How do you take a male and female wolf and get them to produce a subspecies, assuming you could tame and interact with them at all?

After a long time of breeding, the wolves can easily be turned away from a life of hunting. As such, it's quite easy to assume that they would start to change over time. But even then, there are many "dog" species that are quite similar to the wolf (german shephard, husky, et al).

As for being able to tame and interact with them, that part is pretty easy. Wolves are very social animals, and aren't "mindless killers". When they're full, it's rather easy to approach them. I don't know exactly how or why humans and wolves interacted, and I don't know the details, but I know quite a bit about modern-day wolves.

There are many enthusiasts that deal directly with wolves. Jim and Jamie Dutcher did a documentary on wolves that they had basically raised and bred. There were no problems with this interaction, and some of the wolves trusted Jim and Jamie far more than they trusted anyone else in the wolf pack. That says somethin'.

The stringent wolf pecking order and breeding rituals would never allow a mutant to survive.

Well, first of all, depends on the pack and conditions of the pack (environment is everything; the more food there is for the pack, the more "liberal" they tend to be). But even if this were true, if humans were directly interfering with pack politics, then pack politics would be a bit different, wouldn't it?

Wolf/dog breeders today certainly should have no problem duplicating it. But no breeders have stepped up to the plate claiming they can take two pure wolves and produce a dog without biogenetic engineering techniques.

Not overnight, though. 10,000 years is not overnight, if it wasn't even longer.

[SolusLupus]

Hey, Saint, let me ask you something. If a man with black hair and blue eyes marries a woman with black hair and blue eyes, would the child be more or less likely to have black hair and blue eyes than the child of a couple with brown hair and green eyes?

That's genetics. If you don't believe in genetics, then I don't think there's much hope for debate here.

[The Saint]

From wolf to chihuahua in 15000 years? Well, as Lonewulf says: it's possible!

[Fr. Wayne]

The classification of genus and speciesis a sore source of our difficulty. As no consensus on the definition of the words has yet been reached.

[SolusLupus]

From wolf to chihuahua in 15000 years? Well, as Lonewulf says: it's possible!

Yeah, sure, why not?

Of course, I like the theory the chihuaha is more of descended from rats, but that's just 'cause I don't like chihuahas.

[Disinfo Agent]

The classification of genus and speciesis a sore source of our difficulty.Which difficulty?

[Dr Nigel]

According to my physical anthropology prof in college, we are, in fact, apes. We are not monkeys--no tails!--but we are, in fact, still considered apes.

Gillianren, I'm fully with you on this one. If you look at our morphological taxonomy, we are in phylum chordata (we have backbones, as do all other apes), class mammalia (we are mamals, as are all other apes), order primata (we are primates, as are all other apes), family hominidae (we are humanoid, which is the first feature to distinguish us from apes. But humanoid just means "like humans" so it is a pretty vague and subtle distinction), genus Homo, species sapiens. OK, I've missed out a lot of the modern subdivisions of the taxonomy (I'm not a taxonomist, after all), but let's look at the primates a bit more closely. These are us, the monkeys, other apes and lemurs. What features might we use to distinguish them? Tails are pretty obvious, so let's get rid of anything with an external tail - that's all the monkeys and lemurs gone, leaving us and the other apes.

What morphological features are unique to us that distinguish us from gorillas, chimpanzees, bononos and orang-utans? Well, I can't think of anything obvious, so the distinction would need to be either by looking at relatively subtle features (such as the size ratios of different parts of the skeleton or the fact that we have a subcutaneous fat layer that other apes do not have) or by being vague (we have less hair, our brains are bigger etc.) or by referring to behavioural traits (we walk upright, use tools more often, we change our environment to suit us by building enclosed shelters and so on).

So, morphologically, we are apes. Everything that defines what an ape is (when talking about gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orang-utans) can also be applied to us.

If we look at gene sequences, we also find that we are more closely related to other apes than we are to any other living organism. And the pattern of close to distant relationship matches that we find from morphology.

Evolution predicts that we share a common ancestor with all apes. There is a very high probability that this ancestor was rather ape-like, but we are unlikely ever to know for sure what it looked like.

If we look at the fossil record, we find many extinct species of ape and hominid. A good number of these show some features that are ape-like, and other features that are humanoid. These transitional forms show a clear sequence from more ape-like in older fossils to more humanoid in more recent fossils. (NB, this is oversimplified, and there are two reasons for this. One is to maintain the clarity of the point, and the other is due to my lack of knowledge of the fine detail of hominid fossils).

So, all the evidence I cite above points to two things: (1) we are apes, and (2) we share a common ancestor with the other modern ape species.

Sorry for rambling on so much.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Wolf/dog breeders today certainly should have no problem duplicating it. But no breeders have stepped up to the plate claiming they can take two pure wolves and produce a dog without biogenetic engineering techniques.
Well, look at this (http://reactor-core.org/taming-foxes.html).
Foxes domesticated in 40 years of unnatural selection.
15,000 years is a long time.

[Fram]

From wolf to chihuahua in 15000 years? Well, as Lonewulf says: it's possible!
No, it's extremely probable.

[Fr. Wayne]

Which difficulty?

An agreed upon definition of species.

[Disinfo Agent]

There are several ways to define the concept. See the Wikipedia link I posted in the previous page. And I don't think the "fuzzy" nature of this concept is much of a problem for the theory of evolution, in case that's what you're suggesting.

Forget about species, if you wish. What do you have, in the biological world? Well, you have populations of beings, some more similar to each other than others, some with the ability to interbreed, and others not, some living in groups, and others not. Due to natural selection, a few of those individuals reproduce better than the others, and their offspring inherit some of the genes of those individuals. In this way, they form lineages; sequences of individuals who breed others, who breed others...

Many lineages in turn break up into two or more sublineages. Given enough time, and the right conditions, two 'grand-...-daughter' lineages can become so different from each other that the individuals in them no longer relate to one another (e.g., live together in packs, cooperate, reproduce).

At this point we can call them different species; it's a useful idealisation. But we don't really need it, to describe evolution... right? :)

[Van Rijn]

From wolf to chihuahua in 15000 years? Well, as Lonewulf says: it's possible!

What are you suggesting? It isn't just possible, we have domesticated many animals and plants species. Here are some partial lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_plants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals

In many cases, the domesticated examples appear quite different from the wild originals.

[Fr. Wayne]

To Disinfo :A "define as you go" evolutionary model is a bit fuzzy, but given its successful utility, I can't see arguing over semantics. As long as it flies, more power to it.

[Disinfo Agent]

:lol: It's normal in science for some trickier concepts to be "defined-as-you-go". Take this one (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=37798), for instance.

[Fr. Wayne]

Don't get me started. LOL

[LurchGS]

Anybody who doesn't think we're closely related to monkeys/apes doesn't have children.

[The Saint]

Which species of ape/subhuman is supposed to have evolved the mobile thumb and when?

Humans grasp objects with the 'precision grip' between fingers and thumb.

The other primates can only use the 'power grip', in which something is clasped between clenched fingers alone.

Without tools, there's no humans.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Which species of ape/subhuman is supposed to have evolved the mobile thumb and when?

Humans grasp objects with the 'precision grip' between fingers and thumb.

The other primates can only use the 'power grip', in which something is clasped between clenched fingers alone.

Without tools, there's no humans.
Saint, Exactly What Game, Are you Playing at, anyway ...

For One Thing, Sub-Human, is Such a Pejorative Term, that it Has Lost All Meaning, And for That Reason, Is Seldom Used, anymore ...

Furthermore, I Personally, Have Such Bad Motor Control, That I Can Only Manage, a POWER Grip, 6 Days, Out of Every Week; So, Where Does this Place me, In this Little Hierachy, of yours, Hmmm?

[LurchGS]

Zaphod - but you are not the norm...

And, Saint, I should point out that Chimps, at least, use tools.

[The Saint]

A man fleeing the Bolsheviks via Siberia related:

"I saw a pack of wolves foraging for food. They saw a small carcass at the side of the road and all jumped on it as each tried to get a portion, in the fierce battle to grab some of the coveted food, the wolves began to bite and scratch each other until blood flowed from each and every one of them.

Thus they fought until most of the wolves lay on the snow. injured, bleeding and exhausted. Only the few strongest were left to sink their teeth into the small animal. But they too continued the fight until, finally, the strongest bit all of the others and ran off with the carcass in his mouth. I thought about what I saw as the winner ran off with his prize, leaving behind him a trail of blood from his gushing wounds. I thought, 'It is with his blood that he is abating his hunger'.

Then I turned to those left behind, bruised and bloodied, exhausted from the ordeal and still hungry. What had they gained from the fight? They felt like losers, watching the strongest wolf beat them and then eat while they were still starving!"

The crew of Voshkod 2 were almost eaten alive by wolves, still in their space suits, like "foil-wrapped fresh meat"!

And that's modern wolves. The wolf of 15000 years ago must've been really easy to "interact with/domesticate".

[LurchGS]

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd bet it didn't take too long. In a hunting society, such a move (teaming with humans) would be an excellent survival technique. In pretty short term, you'd have an almost simbiotic relationship.

I'm no expert on wolves, but I doubt the behaviour of the pack has changed much in 15k years, and I'd point out that the pack described was clearly on the verge of starvation. What little I do know indicates that if they are moderately well fed, such fights are unlikely occur. (dominance issues are separate from fights over food)

[Dr Nigel]

Which species of ape/subhuman is supposed to have evolved the mobile thumb and when?

Humans grasp objects with the 'precision grip' between fingers and thumb.

The other primates can only use the 'power grip', in which something is clasped between clenched fingers alone.

Without tools, there's no humans.

Saint, as LurchGS points out, chimps and bonobos do use tools. Furthermore, they make and modify their tools to suit the purpose (i.e. they don't just pick up a bit of twig and hope it will do the job, they carefully select the most appropriate piece and then modify it if it does not do the job).

By "mobile thumb" I will assume you mean "opposable thumb". Mine have been attached to my hands for a long time and show no signs of getting up and leaving me. :)

I think the power grip employs the thumb as a stabiliser, and I think that bonobos can oppose their thumbs. I'll need to look this up to be sure, if I can make the time.

Your point about tool use being uniquely human seems to be a bit presumptious. Many animals use tools (not just other great apes - the Caledonian crow is famous for its use of tools). True, our tool use has extended beyond anything else seen in nature (we now have tools that are so sophisticated, very few of us actually know how they work or how to make them!), but this is an extension of the same principle, not a novel or unique trait. It could be argued that humans are unique because of our sophisticated communication (language) or our manipulation of abstract concepts (maths, awareness of the existence of things we have never seen, the ability to think about our world and ourselves) or our incredibly complex social structures. Without these traits, there are no humans, yet none of them is uniquely human - we just take them further than any other organism.

[The Saint]

The evolution of the opposing thumb is as significant to the history of this planet as the reptilian tmj evolving into the mammalian tmj.

Which pre-human hominid is believed to have first possessed an opposing thumb and when?

[Fr. Wayne]

Homo habilis is the first definite human ancestor, according to the Leakeys approx. 1 million years ago.

[SolusLupus]

A man fleeing the Bolsheviks via Siberia related:

"I saw a pack of wolves foraging for food. They saw a small carcass at the side of the road and all jumped on it as each tried to get a portion, in the fierce battle to grab some of the coveted food, the wolves began to bite and scratch each other until blood flowed from each and every one of them.

Thus they fought until most of the wolves lay on the snow. injured, bleeding and exhausted. Only the few strongest were left to sink their teeth into the small animal. But they too continued the fight until, finally, the strongest bit all of the others and ran off with the carcass in his mouth. I thought about what I saw as the winner ran off with his prize, leaving behind him a trail of blood from his gushing wounds. I thought, 'It is with his blood that he is abating his hunger'.

Then I turned to those left behind, bruised and bloodied, exhausted from the ordeal and still hungry. What had they gained from the fight? They felt like losers, watching the strongest wolf beat them and then eat while they were still starving!"

The crew of Voshkod 2 were almost eaten alive by wolves, still in their space suits, like "foil-wrapped fresh meat"!

And that's modern wolves. The wolf of 15000 years ago must've been really easy to "interact with/domesticate".

????????

Wow, everything I knew about wolves was wrong! All those years of reading books and watching documentaries was wrong!

Or are they?

Try starving for several days, Saint, and try to see how desperate you would be for survival. Also, this was in Siberia -- wolves in winter conditions, with limited forms of food, are much more "savage" than wolves in areas with high amounts of prey. Also, wolf attacks/feeding like you described is very rare. You're pulling up a single example and throwing it over a large species.

[FrostByte]

The thing about "intelligent design" that bothers me is that it's not really about the thought of god creating us. These people somehow have the need to verify their religion, which is totally beside the point. Religion is about faith, the bible is a wonderfull book, that's almost two thousand years old. So ofcourse the bible will have things in it(especially the parts that try to explain the world around us) that seem totally outdated. But the thought behind genesis is: God created us somehow. Wether it be the big bang, in seven days or giant space midgets that baked waffels and somehow created the universe in doing so(hmm, waffels...).

I don't care about the variables, I don't need big bang theory to be disproven to believe in god. Hell, I would even be very glad for the big bang to be a proven fact without a doubt. I just think fussing about over tiny details is relevant to the religion itself.

I don't know what drives these people, it's good for science for it be questioned. But Jesus Christ,how much more evidence do you need to see the truth. If we hadn't spacecraft, these people probably would still go about saying: the sun revolves around the earth, clearly! Says so in the bible and it's what we see!

[The Saint]

And it's not even unscientific!
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems" (Einstein).

If the behaviour of the "tame" zoo wolves in the film "Day After Tomorrow" is anything to go by, I shiver to think how desperate wolves and starving humans "befriended" eachother in the last Ice Age 15000 years ago, just when dogs are said to have branched off.

The breeding of the first mutant wolf, the mother of all dogs, and the crucial stage of taking a male and female wolf and getting them to produce a subspecies (assuming you could tame and interact with them) would be fascinating to have observed.

[SolusLupus]

If the behaviour of the "tame" zoo wolves in the film "Day After Tomorrow" is anything to go by, I shiver to think how desperate wolves and starving humans "befriended" eachother in the last Ice Age 15000 years ago, just when dogs are said to have branched off.

*Groan* Saint, it's obvious you know nothing about wolf behavior. So could you please stop going off on tangents on how wolves behave?

For pete's sake, you're referencing "The Day After Tomorrow" as a source! A hollywood film to make a point?

I know how wolves act. You, apparently, do not. I have done research. You quote a movie. Just stop. Please. It's insulting to those of us that actually have an actual care for wolves and their behavior, and have spent our free time looking into them. I've had a fascination with wolves for a large portion of my life, hence my name. I've read "Wolves at our Door" by Jim and Jamie Dutcher, and watched the documentary. There are a variety of other books, magazine articles, referenced articles, etc., that I've looked into.

Quite frankly, I *know* wolf behavior. You do not.

The breeding of the first mutant wolf, the mother of all dogs, and the crucial stage of taking a male and female wolf and getting them to produce a subspecies (assuming you could tame and interact with them) would be fascinating to have observed.

I suppose so. But it wouldn't have been done in a single lifetime. Evolution is a slow process; even amongst species with short life spans, you'll be lucky to have a huge change in a century. 15000 years, however, are 150 centuries, which takes a little less luck. Especially when you introduce a major factor, like humans breeding animals for domestication.

[harlequin]

Homo habilis is the first definite human ancestor, according to the Leakeys approx. 1 million years ago.

1) Homo habilis (or Australopithecus habilis according to some and not without cause) is more than a million years old. Indeed the far more human-like Homo ergaster is more than a million years old.

2) Homo habilis according to a good deal of relevant scientist this made up of more than one species. At the very least: Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis

3) Leakeys? It been decades since any of them has done much with a Homo habilis. And with decades and multiple members there has been a wide range of opinions even within tha family (as there should be in a rapidly evolving field).

4) Only in the rarest circumstances can you be sure that a fossil species is an ancestor or anything. What we can say is that Homo habilis is closer to the more "modern" members of Homo in a cladogram. It may be an ancestor or it might be a close relative of an ancestor.

[harlequin]

We're not just apes, we're Great Apes. Along with our cousins, in order of increasing distance, the chimpanzee, the bonobo, the gorilla and the orang-utan.

I am surprised no one has call you out on a minor error here.

Bonobos and chimpanzees are equally related to us humans: the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps and the most recent common ancestor humans and bonobos is the same and the chimp/bonobo most recent common ancestor more recently. The grouping is:

((((humans),(chimps,bonobos)),gorillas),oragutans)

[worzel]

I don't know how much merit to give it, but I saw a program once that claimed that wolves unwittingly evolved into dogs for their own reasons and humans weren't deliberately domesticating them at all. Something to do with wolves that remained more cub-like having a suvival edge because they could get closer to our fires and eat our scraps rather than hunting for themselves.

[The Saint]

What is the generally accepted date for the first homo sapiens ie that had an IQ of 100 (average human intelligence)?

Exactly what type of human ancestor was depicted in the film "2001", and when was it meant to be?

[Thomas(believer)]

What is the generally accepted date for the first homo sapiens ie that had a theoretical IQ of 100 (average human intelligence)?
Compared to what? To human beings who live now, hundred years ago, thousand years ago?

[SolusLupus]

I don't know how much merit to give it, but I saw a program once that claimed that wolves unwittingly evolved into dogs for their own reasons and humans weren't deliberately domesticating them at all. Something to do with wolves that remained more cub-like having a suvival edge because they could get closer to our fires and eat our scraps rather than hunting for themselves.

Y'know, that might have something to it. But I would think that the closer the wolves got to the humans and the more they ate the scraps, the more likely the humans might figure they could use the wolves...

But that's just speculation on my part.

[The Saint]

If you took a human baby from 10,000 years ago, he could be given a modern education up to IQ 100.

And a human baby from 100,000 years ago? ie when according to evolution did the first homo sapiens (=thinking man) make his appearance ie a baby that could be educated to IQ 100?

[Thomas(believer)]

I'm not an expert on evolution. I believe there are some people who think evolution is a gradual process, and other people think evolution goes with big steps.
The diversity among people, also in intelligence, is IMO an effect of evolutionary processes.

[Halcyon Dayz]

If you took a human baby from 10,000 years ago, he could be given a modern education up to IQ 100.

And a human baby from 100,000 years ago? ie when according to evolution did the first homo sapiens (=thinking man) make his appearance ie a baby that could be educated to IQ 100?
There is no reason to think that the first Homo Sapiens
were intellectually much different from modern man.
How long H. Sapiens has been around is uncertain.
Numbers from 100,000 years to 200,000 years are being mentioned.

[Halcyon Dayz]

I don't know how much merit to give it, but I saw a program once that claimed that wolves unwittingly evolved into dogs for their own reasons and humans weren't deliberately domesticating them at all. Something to do with wolves that remained more cub-like having a survival edge because they could get closer to our fires and eat our scraps rather than hunting for themselves.
I think a saw the same programme.
I can't find a reference, but that Australian(?) biologist
also supposed an effect in the other direction.
By having animals around with very keen senses,
humans were liberated from the need to have a
strong sense of smell, sharp hearing, and sharp eyes.
This allowed changes in the structure of the skull, and
freed recourses which allowed for the development
of larger brains, speech, and from that, abstract thought.

EDIT: The problem with this theory, IMO is the timeline.
Relatively modern humans have been around a lot longer
than that we can proof they lived together with dogs.

[worzel]

Y'know, that might have something to it. But I would think that the closer the wolves got to the humans and the more they ate the scraps, the more likely the humans might figure they could use the wolves...

But that's just speculation on my part.
I think the benificial part to humans, supposedly, was a noisy lookout, once they'd gotten used to living together.

[worzel]

If you took a human baby from 10,000 years ago, he could be given a modern education up to IQ 100.

And a human baby from 100,000 years ago? ie when according to evolution did the first homo sapiens (=thinking man) make his appearance ie a baby that could be educated to IQ 100?
As has been repeatedly said in this thread, species is an articifical division that is only sharp in hindsight when all the inbetweens have goen extinct. According to evolution if you take any one of us and follow our ancestory back to the origins of life there will be no sudden leaps between one generation and the next (even if puncuated equilibria is true).

If some event occured tomorrow that wiped most of us out and left a pocket where you are and a pocket where I am, and we continued to breed in isolation, the day may come when our ancestors could not interbreed. From their perspective, you and I might be considered separate species, depending on ones definition.

[Fr. Wayne]

If you took a human baby from 10,000 years ago, he could be given a modern education up to IQ 100.

And a human baby from 100,000 years ago? ie when according to evolution did the first homo sapiens (=thinking man) make his appearance ie a baby that could be educated to IQ 100?

When is the earliest fossil of skull of homo sapiens dated? With brain capacity similar to our own? Spend a few minutes at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0612sapiens.asp

it should be a bit more agreeable to your train of thought.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Somewhat off topic.
From Fr. Wayne's link:
'Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse.'
The authority of the bible as what, a biology text?

[Fr. Wayne]

Somewhat off topic.
From Fr. Wayne's link:
'Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the very First Verse.'
The authority of the bible as what, a biology text?

Galileo once said, " the Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." -much in line with St. Augustine. Applicable to biology, the Bible used popular language to accomodate people's ( as opposed to trained scientist- who are also people, by the way,only more conformed to the wisdom of the world) understanding.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Zaphod - but you are not the norm...

And, Saint, I should point out that Chimps, at least, use tools.
I Know Lurch, I Just Dislike The Implication, that Because I am Forced, to Use a Power Grip, MOST of The Time, I am Somehow, Less than Fully Human ...

Also Saint, Hands In Our Relatives, Run The Full Gamut, from The Grasping Paws, of Tree Shrews, Through The Climbing Hands of Prosimians, All the Way to The Gripping Hands and Brachiating Arms, of Monkeys and Apes; Why Is Our TINY Improvement, to Fully Opposing Thumbs, So, Important to you?

Moreover, What Part, of Wolf Pup Seeking Food and Warmth, 'Cause it's Mother Just Died, Finding Nourishment and a Fire, In a Human Camp, Do you Find, So Hard to Understand?

[The Saint]

Because we all love domesticated dogs, but are scared (apart from Lonewulf)of the wild, carnivorous pack wolf!

If it was as easy as is claimed then wolf/dog breeders today certainly should have no problem duplicating it, in taking two pure wolves and producing a dog.

How many of these mutant wolf pups were there and how did so many dog breeds spread all over the world in less than 10,000 years?

There's the well known case of the dog that loyally waited for its master's return each day at the train station. When the master died, it continued to wait daily for it's master's train, until its own death. Where does this sense come from? And why is the dog the only animal that can recognise its master?

[Gillianren]

I'm not scared of wolf packs, either, given the number of documented unprovoked wolf attacks. (Hint: it's a very small number.) In fact, not far from where I sit as I type this, there's an organization called Wolf Haven, where they could tell you all the things you clearly don't know about wolves.

Edited to add--And I don't love domesticated dogs, either. I think humans have, generally, bred the intelligence right out of the things, which makes them desperately annoying to me.

[worzel]

Because we all love domesticated dogs, but are scared (apart from Lonewulf)of the wild, carnivorous pack wolf!Some dogs can be pretty scary too, especially if they have not been raised by humans.

If it was as easy as is claimed then wolf/dog breeders today certainly should have no problem duplicating it, in taking two pure wolves and producing a dog.Should we also be able to take two trilobites and produce a human? Why do you think it must happen in one generation? And why should dog breeders be interested in performing an experiment just to prove you wrong anyway?

How many of these mutant wolf pups were there and how did so many dog breeds spread all over the world in less than 10,000 years?Instead of all these "probing" questions, how about you present us with your theory. As you have such a high standard I'm sure it will stand up to all the probing we can muster.

There's the well known case of the dog that loyally waited for its master's return each day at the train station. When the master died, it continued to wait daily for it's master's train, until its own death. Where does this sense come from? And why is the dog the only animal that can recognise its master?There are many cases of domesticated dogs that have killed children, what's your point?

[The Saint]

It's the speed in the advent of the unique in the animal world canis familiaris mind, with its ability to recognise and wag its tail in sheer joy (love even? some breeds were actually used by ancient kings as sexual "concubines" and sat next to his throne!) for its master, its pining for human company, obedience (look at the intelligence of the Lassie-type sheep dog in obeying from hundreds of yards verbal and whistle commands to control sheep herds), total lifelong loyalty and protection of its master (eg a police dog and its handler), be aware of the subtlest moods of humans, and even to have an elementary sense of right and wrong (have you ever seen the face of a scolded/whipped poodle?), could have been bred/evolved into this new "mutant wolf" offshoot, its recent forebears having none of these traits, in only a few thousand years, makes a special creation more plausible, to some!

"Everything that anyone publishes about the origin of the dog is controversial" (I.L.Brisbin 2002).

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

It's the speed in the advent of the dog's mind, with the ability to recognise and be glad to see its master (love even?), wag its tail in happiness and pine for human company, obey (look at the intelligence of the Lassie-type sheep dog in obeying from hundreds of yards verbal and whistle commands to control sheep herds), total loyalty and protection of its master (eg a police dog and its handler), be aware of the moods of humans, and even to have an elementary sense of right and wrong (have you ever seen the face of a scolded/whipped poodle?), could have been bred/evolved into this new "mutant wolf" offshoot, its forebears having none of these traits, in only a few thousand years makes special creation more plausible, to some!
Um ...

They're Acting, Like PUPPIES ...

Instead of Playing Killjoy, Like you Seem, to Want to, Why Don't you Actually Do, these Experimnts, you Keep Begging us, to Do; In Fact, why Don't you Start, By Observing Just How, Wolf Pups Act, When Disciplined, By The Older Members, of their Pack, it May Prove, Illuminating!

:wall:

[worzel]

Indeed. And while you're at it, Saint, how about giving us your alternative so we can see how well your theory stacks up against evolution.

[SirBlack]

Just what is the big deal with taming and domesticating wolves?

Large carnivorous animals are tamed all the time. Lions, tigers, bears, etc. Consider everything a lion tamer in a circus can do with his animal. He can even put his head in the animals mouth and come away uninjured. And that's just what can be done over the lifetime of a single animal. Now imagine what might be possible if these animals were bred for tamability.

And speaking of breeding for tamability... The Saint, you should do a little research of the taming and domestication of silver foxes in Russia. You want a species that's been taken from the wild and domesticated into a human-friendly form, wagging tails and all? Well this is one that was done on the scale of 40 years. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_foxes)is a wikipedia entry for a start. Follow the first link at the bottom for a more in depth article.

[Van Rijn]

It's the speed in the advent of the unique in the animal world canis familiaris mind, with the ability to recognise, wag its tail in joy and be glad to see its master (love even?), its pining for human company, obey (look at the intelligence of the Lassie-type sheep dog in obeying from hundreds of yards verbal and whistle commands to control sheep herds), total loyalty and protection of its master (eg a police dog and its handler), be aware of the moods of humans, and even to have an elementary sense of right and wrong (have you ever seen the face of a scolded/whipped poodle?), could have been bred/evolved into this new "mutant wolf" offshoot, its recent forebears having none of these traits, in only a few thousand years, makes a special creation more plausible, to some!

"Everything that anyone publishes about the origin of the dog is controversial" (I.L.Brisbin).

You really need to study the subject. Most of that is pack behavior, which will be found in wolves. Part of it is learning - humans have to learn "right and wrong" too.

Here's an article on the issues of owning a socialized wolf:

http://www.wolfpark.org/wolfdogs/wantwolf-jm.html

There are significant problems with having a wolf as a pet, especially in an urban environment, and some wolves will make better pets than others, but it should be obvious that socialized "wild" wolves could have made important contributions even 10,000 years ago.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

You really need to study the subject. Most of that is pack behavior, which will be found in wolves. Part of it is learning - humans have to learn "right and wrong" too.

Here's an article on the issues of owning a socialized wolf:

http://www.wolfpark.org/wolfdogs/wantwolf-jm.html

There are significant problems with having a wolf as a pet, especially in an urban environment, and some wolves will make better pets than others, but it should be obvious that socialized "wild" wolves could have made important contributions even 10,000 years ago.
Yeah ...

Just By Eating Garbage, And, Making a Racket When Scared, Both Things, Modern Dogs WILL Do, Whether you Want them to or Not; they Would Be Extremely Useful, to Ancient Man ...

It was Only Later, that Child Protection and Hunting, Came to Be Useful!

[The Saint]

The evolutionist E.Pennisi in "A Shaggy Dog History" stated that "the date and place of domestication of dogs continues to be a mystery".

Though Peter Savolainen said "we can say now there was probably one geographic origin", and another evolutionist E. H. Colbert suggests this was eastern Turkey — the Mt. Ararat region.

As is their want, creationists would say that dogs were created as dogs and will always be dogs, just as were hyenas, wolves, foxes, and jackals.

Indeed, is the advent of the dog considered a case of genuine evolution/devolution? No new organs have developed, and they are still the same interbreedable species.

[Wolverine]

Still parroting creationist resources (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=198), I see.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

The evolutionist E.Pennisi in "A Shaggy Dog History" stated that "the date and place of domestication of dogs continues to be a mystery".

Though Peter Savolainen said "we can say now there was probably one geographic origin", and another evolutionist E. H. Colbert suggests this was eastern Turkey — the Mt. Ararat region.

As is their want, creationists would say that dogs were created as dogs and will always be dogs, just as were hyenas, wolves, foxes, and jackals.

Indeed, is the advent of the dog considered a case of genuine evolution/devolution? No new organs have developed, and they are still the same interbreedable species.
Yes ...

As Are, ALL The Others ...

And, By The Way, There's No Such Thing, as Devolution; The Term you're Looking for, Is Neoteny (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/neoteny)!

[The Saint]

The thing about dogs are that they're (the only?) mammalian evolution that supposedly happened almost in recordable historical times.

Do depictions of dogs appear in any cave art, and if so, at what date?

[worzel]

Huh? What about new strains of flu?

[Halcyon Dayz]

It's the speed in the advent of the unique in the animal world Canis Familiaris mind, with its ability to recognise and wag its tail in sheer joy (love even? some breeds were actually used by ancient kings as sexual "concubines" and sat next to his throne!) for its master, its pining for human company, obedience (look at the intelligence of the Lassie-type sheep dog in obeying from hundreds of yards verbal and whistle commands to control sheep herds), total lifelong loyalty and protection of its master (eg a police dog and its handler), be aware of the subtlest moods of humans, and even to have an elementary sense of right and wrong (have you ever seen the face of a scolded/whipped poodle?), could have been bred/evolved into this new "mutant wolf" offshoot, its recent forebears having none of these traits, in only a few thousand years, makes a special creation more plausible, to some!
(A one sentence post, ay.)

You keep repeating yourself.
And you don't seem to have checked out my post, #90 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=673315&postcount=60).

The only important difference between dogs and
wolves is, that dogs maintain behavioural childhood
characteristics all through live.
They are super-infantile. (I'm pretty sure I came across
this word in an article, but I can't find a single reference.)
This would have required only a minor biological change,
maybe even only one gene.

[beskeptical]

Huh? What about new strains of flu?
There are all sorts of hybrids in the plant kingdom that have occurred in historical times as well as in the microbial world.

[Wolverine]

The thing about dogs are that they're (the only?) mammalian evolution that supposedly happened almost in recordable historical times.

Do depictions of dogs appear in any cave art, and if so, at what date?

Not so. While domesticated canines and popular breeds of dog hold a relatively recent place in the evolutionary timeline, their ancestors extend back millions of years -- hesperocyonines (40 million years); borophagines (~34 million years). Canines date back some 7 million years.

Cave art is not required to construct an accurate record of canid phylogeny.

I remember Shermer touched on this topic (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0003EFE0-D68A-1212-8F3983414B7F0000) last year.

You should, again, spend your time consulting scientific resources if you wish to learn about these topics, rather than parroting misinformation from creationist sources.

[Van Rijn]

So not only is TS quote mining but is now parroting Creationist websites that quote mine. TS, do you actually have any of your own arguments?

Back in this post:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=673363&postcount=64

I linked to lists of domesticated plants and animals, many of which appear substantially different from their wild cousins. I just went out and picked some seedless oranges off the tree in my yard. There are bananas in my kitchen. I had beef, with (among other things) some corn on the side last night. I had chicken the night before. I can see my pet cat outside the window. Do you see a pattern emerging?

[SolusLupus]

Because we all love domesticated dogs, but are scared (apart from Lonewulf)of the wild, carnivorous pack wolf!

Plenty of people nowadays are not scared of wolves, and also strive hard to defend them from extinction.


If it was as easy as is claimed then wolf/dog breeders today certainly should have no problem duplicating it, in taking two pure wolves and producing a dog.

What, overnight? You still don't seem to get that evolution is a SLOW PROCESS, taking place over a long amount of time. But it's still easy to get a part wolf, part dog mix; they're called wolf dogs. Do some research for once. And yes, I know, you said "two pure wolves". Well, you wouldn't get a result overnight; which still seems to be something that you don't understand.

The Saint, before you can tear apart a theory, you need to understand it first. You make no effort to understand evolution, or the principles of the argument that you're trying to pick apart. In short, what you're doing is doomed to failure, and is a waste of time -- for me, for you, and for the rest of the people on this board.


How many of these mutant wolf pups were there and how did so many dog breeds spread all over the world in less than 10,000 years?

Erm, I might add that you look into how humans so far in "less than 10,000 years". Humans travelled, you'd think they'd bring their domesticated animals with them. Do you know how the red fox and horse came to America? I'll give you a clue: It wasn't God. It was humans travelling. Once more: do some research.


There's the well known case of the dog that loyally waited for its master's return each day at the train station. When the master died, it continued to wait daily for it's master's train, until its own death. Where does this sense come from?

Do you know loyal wolves are to each other? Enough to protect and help each other even when one wolf is so crippled, it isn't able to feed itself. Where does THAT sense come from?

Do some research.

And why is the dog the only animal that can recognise its master?

Uhhmmmmmm.

I'm pretty sure my cats recognize me. When they see me, they think, "Dinner time!"


The reason I'm so touchy on this subject is because it's one of the few that are near and dear to my heart, and one I feel completely confident of my knowledge there-in. And I am also confident in stating, Saint, that you are completely ignorant in this subject. You quote from a film as if it's an authoritive source, for Pete's Sake! And for... it's THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW! A movie that is to climatology as Armageddon is to astronomy!! Furthermore, this movie that focuses on a flood and freezing landscapes happens to feature wolves... so the wolf part wasn't even the major part of the subject matter! After that, it's hard for me to take what you say seriously. In fact, I was wondering if this whole thing is a charade or a joke. Nonetheless, I must take your arguments seriously... but not for much longer. When it starts getting too ridiculous, I'm bailing out.

At least you've stopped the quote mining, but as-is, you have yet to bring forth a reasonable theory. You merely "try" to poke holes in a substantiated theory and, quite frankly, you're doing a tremendously horrible job of it. If you have a much better theory, then please lay it at our feet and let us disseminate and discuss it.

As-is, you're throwing yourself to the wolves. ;)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm a bit late to the party, but...

You can't find a bigger atheist than Isaac Asimov. Yet even he speaks about evolution with somewhat less certitude:

"We can make inspired guesses, but we don't know for certain what physical and chemical properties of the planets crust, its ocean and its atmosphere made it so conducive to such a sudden appearance of life. We are not certain about the amount and forms of energy that permeated the environment in the planets early days. Thus the problem that scientists face is how to explain the suddenness in which life appeared on this young 4.6 billion year old planet earth".
This quote is about the origin of life; it's not about evolution.

Which species of ape/subhuman is supposed to have evolved the mobile thumb and when?

Humans grasp objects with the 'precision grip' between fingers and thumb.

The other primates can only use the 'power grip', in which something is clasped between clenched fingers alone.

Without tools, there's no humans.
As was pointed out thoroughly, a few "ape" species, among others, do indeed use tools. As to the origin of opposable thumbs, Wikipedia has a short bit to say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposable_thumb#Origin_of_the_thumb).

Exactly what type of human ancestor was depicted in the film "2001", and when was it meant to be?
Please, please... stop referencing movies. You have no idea how that sort of thing turns your points into nothing but a joke...

[The Saint]

You mean Arthur C.Clarke's "2001" is a......joke! Sacrilege! Oh I forgot...it's all science fiction!

[Laguna]

And why is the dog the only animal that can recognise its master?
Boy, even by Budgie is able to recognise me.
He starts singing as my wife or I am entering the kitchen and he crawls in the hindermost corner of his cage when my little daughter enters... :D

My cat knows exactly who I am. I am her canopener. My wife is the one to pet her. She knows the difference between us. When she is hungry she is between my legs.

[Fram]

The thing about dogs are that they're (the only?) mammalian evolution that supposedly happened almost in recordable historical times.

Do depictions of dogs appear in any cave art, and if so, at what date?

The first part of this post is so wrong... Every domesticated animal is an evolution that happened in prehistoric times (not "recordable historic times"). But keep in mind that these are "forced" evolutions, not natural ones. The natural selection is replaced by a human selection, thereby speeding the process.

As for depictions of dogs in cave art: yes there are examples, but even more telling are the burials of dogs together with humans, the earliest known one being some 14,000 years ago, in Germany, as told in this recent article (http://archaeology.about.com/b/a/236221.htm) from the Journal of Archaeological Science. More about the article can be read here (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1559675.htm). The article itself is not available for free yet.

About the depiction of dogs: this art website (http://www.all-art.org/history16.html) has the following to say:
In North Africa, the period 12,000-бОООвс also sees the introduction of branches, fruit, and leaves into paintings with people and animals. Drawings changed to reflect the change of environment which caused the spread of the desert and the extinction from these areas of elephants, giraffes, lions, rhinoceroses, and crocodiles. They also show the introduction of domesticated dogs, cattle, sheep, and goats as the hunter-forager economies were replaced.
Here (http://www.dur.ac.uk/prehistoric.art/research/2002_Libya/libya3.html) you can see an image.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

You mean Arthur C.Clarke's "2001" is a......joke! Sacrilege! Oh I forgot...it's all science fiction!
No ...

It's Not a Joke, But, your Posts ARE, And, they're In No Way, Funny ...

So, Now is The Moment of Truth, Either Start Answering, Our Questions, Or we're Going to Start, Reporting you to The Mods!

:think:

[The Saint]

Babbling is defined in the dictionary as: "Gibberish resembling the sounds of a baby, utter in an incoherent way, to talk foolishly, flow in an irregular current with a bubbling noise, divulge confidential information or secrets".

Obviously you think I'm in the right forum?

Since it's so topical, tendentious and wide-reaching a subject, mebbe there should be a separate section called "Evolution vs ID vs Creationism" just for this subject.

Meanwhile, were Kubrick's pre-humans meant to be homo-habilis, or something before him? A few real chimpanzees appeared in the film.

The pre-human throwing his newly discovered bone-weapon into the air and it changing to an orbiting nuclear bomb, was inspired cinema for the 60s. You could almost believe in punctualism!

[beskeptical]

So now the straw man is the forum title, Saint?

[The Saint]

A "straw man" is misrepresenting a case in order to discredit to it. Apart from quoting from some evolutionists (quoting is now frowned upon), have I really done that?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Meanwhile, were Kubrick's pre-humans meant to be homo-habilis, or something before him? A few real chimpanzees appeared in the film.
What is it with you and these movie references? The species in 2001: A Space Odyssey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29) was australopithecus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus).

Are you going somewhere with this, or not?

[Wolverine]

Babbling is defined in the dictionary as: "Gibberish resembling the sounds of a baby, utter in an incoherent way, to talk foolishly, flow in an irregular current with a bubbling noise, divulge confidential information or secrets".

Obviously you think I'm in the right forum?

This section of the forum doesn't conform to that definition. BABBling was selected as the section title prior to the forum merge with Universe Today -- BABB = Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. Since its inception it's served as the place to discuss off-topic materials not related to astronomy/space exploration.

Since it's so topical, tendentious and wide-reaching a subject, mebbe there should be a separate section called "Evolution vs ID vs Creationism" just for this subject.

The General Science section can accomodate such discussions. This hasn't been moved there because, frankly, it's scant on scientific content other than in response to your cherry-picked quotations.

[Wolverine]

A "straw man" is misrepresenting a case in order to discredit to it. Apart from quoting from some evolutionists (quoting is now frowned upon), have I really done that?

Yes. You have attempted to discredit evolution by posting quotes from a number of individuals (origining from creationist materials), without regard for the actual content of their statements or whether said statements convey what the anti-evolution sources would like you to believe.

Quoting in and of itself is not frowned upon -- your behavior on this and similar threads, is. You have served up numerous examples of fallacious logic while simultaneously ignoring the corrections and legitimate reference materials offered by other members of the forum. As I posted here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=673332#post673332), you are strongly encouraged to discuss these topics by submitting posts with substantive content instead of selectively sniping.

This discussion forum's very focus is upon science. We also aim to address and clear up misconceptions, as well as refute incorrect claims as necessary. With that in mind, do you honestly think that a handful of strategically-mined quotations in any way cast aspersion on the cornerstone of modern biology?

[SolusLupus]

A "straw man" is misrepresenting a case in order to discredit to it. Apart from quoting from some evolutionists (quoting is now frowned upon), have I really done that?

First of all: You called evolutionists atheists. A generalization that is not true (there are plenty of religious men and women who believe in God).

Second of all: You make Evolution to be completely about the Origin of Life, and have yet to accept the realization that evolution is about far more (the majority dealing with speciation).

Third of all: You make the claim that "evolution" is over a single birth ("Two pure wolves giving birth to a dog")

And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure you've done far worse than all of this. So yes. You've been misrepresenting evolutionism from the beginning.

Oh, and you've also been misrepresenting Creationists. You claim that they *never* use Ad Homs and *never* act aggressively (or something similar). Guess what? You're wrong. It would take me just a handful of links to show you that you're wrong in that very simple case.

[beskeptical]

A "straw man" is misrepresenting a case in order to discredit to it. Apart from quoting from some evolutionists (quoting is now frowned upon), have I really done that?
Saint, a straw man is ignoring the real discussion and bringing up something else to then argue about.

If you can't defend your position on Creationism, change the subject and defend something else.

[SolusLupus]

I'm a little late in responding to this, but I refuse to let this one go. I'm like a wolf in that fashion. ;)

It's the speed in the advent of the unique in the animal world canis familiaris mind, with its ability to recognise and wag its tail in sheer joy (love even? some breeds were actually used by ancient kings as sexual "concubines" and sat next to his throne!) for its master, its pining for human company, obedience (look at the intelligence of the Lassie-type sheep dog in obeying from hundreds of yards verbal and whistle commands to control sheep herds), total lifelong loyalty and protection of its master (eg a police dog and its handler), be aware of the subtlest moods of humans, and even to have an elementary sense of right and wrong (have you ever seen the face of a scolded/whipped poodle?), could have been bred/evolved into this new "mutant wolf" offshoot, its recent forebears having none of these traits, in only a few thousand years, makes a special creation more plausible, to some!


Errr...

Have you actually observed how wolves act and respond to each other? They're a very social, loving animal. They know when they've been scolded (I.E., the Pack Alpha scolding the various other pack members), and they all have a position to handle. Sheep dogs are doing what wolves do, just without actually *attacking* the herd. The sheep also run for the same reason they run from wolves -- fear.

All of those instincts are still inside the wolf, but they have been subtly changed. Humans are to dogs as the Alpha wolf is to puppies. Wolves also do have "lifelong loyalty" to each other. Jim Dutcher noticed that after one of the wolves (the female Omega, I might add), was killed by a mountain lion, the other wolves were "searching" for her. They would howl and howl and howl, and it sounded like they were either continuing to search for her, or were mourning her death.

This tells me a lot about wolves and their loyalty to one another. They do care for each other, and they do love each other (with exceptions, just like how people in human "packs" don't always get along!) They're a lot more complex, and a lot more social, than you give them credit for. In fact, it seems that you assume that wolves are mindless, viscious killers, and are good for nothing else. You have a lot to learn about wolves.

[Fr. Wayne]

Saint, thanks for your info and interesting questions. Could you please be a bit less antagonistic or a bit less negative? When you combine these qualities as you float about the forum after offering an innocuous question, you must not take glee over all the fuss nice people expend for you. At least say thank you once and a while.

[Disinfo Agent]

Yeah, wolves are actually not the bloodthirsty beasts that popular lore and werewolf stories would have us believe. Or so I'm told.

[Jim]

The pre-human throwing his newly discovered bone-weapon into the air and it changing to an orbiting nuclear bomb, was inspired cinema for the 60s. You could almost believe in punctualism!

It changed into a space ship, not a bomb.

[George]

...Apart from quoting from some evolutionists (quoting is now frowned upon), have I really done that? You do realize others want to be serious about this topic, right? Arguments are welcome if they are supported with good science and presented with respect for others.

What are your thoughts on evolution specifically? Are you arguing canines are all recent? If so, Wolverine has responded with counter evidence.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Why do I get the feeling my posts don't get read. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/konfus/a010.gif

[SolusLupus]

Why do I get the feeling my posts don't get read. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/konfus/a010.gif

I feel the same way, in a way. Others read my posts, sure, but The Saint only seems to read it when I grow a bit more aggressive.

[Fr. Wayne]

:boohoo: Why do I get the feeling my posts don't get read. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/konfus/a010.gif

I read all your posts. And you do have a secretly good avatar.

[hewhocaves]

Errr...

Have you actually observed how wolves act and respond to each other? They're a very social, loving animal. They know when they've been scolded (I.E., the Pack Alpha scolding the various other pack members), and they all have a position to handle. Sheep dogs are doing what wolves do, just without actually *attacking* the herd. The sheep also run for the same reason they run from wolves -- fear.

All of those instincts are still inside the wolf, but they have been subtly changed. Humans are to dogs as the Alpha wolf is to puppies. Wolves also do have "lifelong loyalty" to each other. Jim Dutcher noticed that after one of the wolves (the female Omega, I might add), was killed by a mountain lion, the other wolves were "searching" for her. They would howl and howl and howl, and it sounded like they were either continuing to search for her, or were mourning her death.

This tells me a lot about wolves and their loyalty to one another. They do care for each other, and they do love each other (with exceptions, just like how people in human "packs" don't always get along!) They're a lot more complex, and a lot more social, than you give them credit for. In fact, it seems that you assume that wolves are mindless, viscious killers, and are good for nothing else. You have a lot to learn about wolves.

heh.. you know the old saying that all people are just three meals removed from total savagery.... I suspect the opposite is true about wolves. They're about a case of alpo removed from fetching the slippers and paper and lying on the rug by the fire.

I exaggerate, of course. Don't try it at home.

But there is a reason why dogs were domesticated. Because they're easily domesticable. Zug the caveman didn't go "phttt! Og. Anyone make wolf pet. Me make crocodile pet!"
Or if he did, I'm sure the croc got a nice meal out of the deal. lol

John

[SolusLupus]

heh.. you know the old saying that all people are just three meals removed from total savagery.... I suspect the opposite is true about wolves. They're about a case of alpo removed from fetching the slippers and paper and lying on the rug by the fire.

I exaggerate, of course. Don't try it at home.

John

Yeah, but then, one would have to define "savagery". Is it "savage" to merely hunt for your meal?

Wolves very rarely attack humans. Very rarely. Saying "Wolves are three meals away from eating a human" is actually not necessarily inaccurate; desperate needs call for desperate measures. However, when a race (I.E., the human race) moves to wipe out a large amount of your population (I might add that it was the Catholic church that really worked hard to destroy wolves after they feasted on the corpses after a most "holy" battle in England, where they were starving, the Church worked hard to wipe them out and pretty much succeeded)... well, you tend to develop some phobias.

Either way, I wouldn't really call wolves savage. Neither would I call humans savage. I would call humans rather ignorant, and I especially would rail against the Church of the time. Ah well, though, that's a totally different topic from this conversation.

Wolves can become dogs over 15000 years? Yes. Who's to say that it's entirely impossible?

[N C More]

Wolves can become dogs over 15000 years? Yes. Who's to say that it's entirely impossible?

Actually, it's more than just possible, it's highly probable. Take a look here. (http://www.grapevine.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm)

[quote]
The earliest remains of the domestic dog date from 10 to15 thousand years ago21; the diversity of these remains suggests multiple domestication events at different times and places. Dogs may be derived from several different ancestral gray wolf populations, and many dog breeds and wild wolf populations must be analysed in order to tease apart the genetic sources of the domestic dog gene pool. A limited mtDNA restriction fragment analysis of seven dog breeds and 26 gray wolf populations from different locations around the world has shown that the genotypes of dogs and wolves are either identical or differ by the loss or gain of only one or two restriction sites22. The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence15,22,23. [/url]

Evolution isn't just a wild guess. Evolution is a very strongly supported theory, like it or not.

[The Saint]

If homo sapiens has been around 200,000 years, why would these simultaneous worlwide mass wolf domestications only have occurred recently?

[Bobunf]

And the answers are (maybe)

The development of more or less permanent human settlements.

Changing ecology as the glaciers recede.

Bob

[Fram]

If homo sapiens has been around 200,000 years, why would these simultaneous worlwide mass wolf domestications only have occurred recently?

The Saint, N C More's quote said "at different times", which is not the same as "simultaneous". They have happened over some thousand years, and there may have been earlier experiments that failed. "Multiple" isn't really a synonym of "mass" either...
In that period and after the last Ice Age, there was an explosion of the number of humans as conditions became much better, and they started to have more time and more possibilities. They had already developed art (quite a long time before), and started now on a lot of agricultural activities, of which breeding dogs may have been the first. This is a logical first choice, as dogs can be used as guards and as co-hunters, and are very social (i.e., can be nice company).

[Disinfo Agent]

On the flip side... Dogs: cuddly and harmless? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=37856)

[SolusLupus]

On the flip side... Dogs: cuddly and harmless? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=37856)

Yeap. Instincts are instincts. You push a dog hard enough and it doesn't feel completely loyal to you, and you'll find a surprise hiding in wait. Just look at how many children end up mauled/killed by Pit Bulls. The irony is, the pit bulls usually are mistreated, neglected, and abused. Abuse begets abuse.

Of course, that doesn't rule out the fact that a rottweiller, doberman Pinscher, or other "attack dog" trained as an attack dog will know and even desire to attack. Go fig, y'know?

[farmerjumperdon]

If you took a human baby from 10,000 years ago, he could be given a modern education up to IQ 100.

And a human baby from 100,000 years ago? ie when according to evolution did the first homo sapiens (=thinking man) make his appearance ie a baby that could be educated to IQ 100?

Bear with me, because it's been a while since I actually studied this, but I don't think this much has changed.

Measuring IQ is not an absolute score, but a comparitive thing. (Might not even be using the right term there). A score of 100 indicates average intelligence amongst the population tested. It can not be compared to a population not included in the sample.

A separate and distinct population, such as one removed by vast amounts of time, would also have an average of 100. It's the way the scoring is designed to work. Any given population will have an average IQ of 100.

Another characteristic of this kind of scoring is that there is a maximum possible score, and it is based on the size of the population. I believe the maximum possible score based on the world's population is somewhere around 210. It could be more or less, if the population went up or down significantly, but the average would always be 100.

So no matter how intelligent the world's most intelligent person is, their score is 210. Even if the average level of intelligence of the population as a whole increases, it will still be identified as 100. I don't know about the bottom. I suppose a person with no brain activity would be zero.

[worzel]

Does that mean that a polulation of dogs should have an average IQ of 100 and a top of 210 as well?

[farmerjumperdon]

Does that mean that a polulation of dogs should have an average IQ of 100 and a top of 210 as well?

Very good! I would say that if a population of dogs were tested, and they used a comparative form of distributing results, and did as we do currently and picked 100 (rather arbitrarily) as the establishment of a mark to name the average, then yes, the average would be 100.

The top score would depend on the size of the population and the steepness of the curves in the distribution.

Don't know how you'd score the tests though when the answer sheet looked like this:

1 - Woof
2 - Woof
3 - Woof
4 - Woof
5 - Woof
6 - Woof
7 - Grrrrr
8 - Woof
9 - Woof
10 - Woof

Etc. . .

[ToSeek]

It changed into a space ship, not a bomb.

I heard it claimed that it was an orbiting weapon. I'm not sure you can tell what it is from the movie itself.

[farmerjumperdon]

Lonewolf,

Curious, you seem to know a good amount about wolves, at least seem passionate on the topic. Do you have a wolf or wolf-dog?

Your user name too.

Just a freindly reminder too, I think you meant human species in an earlier post. Maybe I'm overly sensitive about it, but it really jumps out at me when people use race and species interchangably.

[farmerjumperdon]

That's odd. I just noticed I have 2 posts numbered 1,071.

[farmerjumperdon]

Does that mean that a polulation of dogs should have an average IQ of 100 and a top of 210 as well?

I'm getting a visual of poker-playing dogs painted on black velvet. The one wearing glasses (obviously the one with the higher IQ) is the one cheating.

[Disinfo Agent]

Here's an interesting observation, the Flynn Effect:

Continuously Rising Test Scores

Perhaps the most striking of all environmental effects is the steady worldwide rise in intelligence test performance. Although many psychometricians had noted these gains, it was James Mynn (1984, 1987) who first described them systematically. His analysis shows that performance has been going up ever since testing began. The "Flynn Effect" is now very well documented, not only in the United States but in many other technologically advanced countries. The average gain is about three IQ points per decade; more than a full standard deviation since, say, 1940.

source (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html)

[Disinfo Agent]

I heard it claimed that it was an orbiting weapon. I'm not sure you can tell what it is from the movie itself.Wikipedia says it was. It could be information from the film script.

[hewhocaves]

The idea is that once you get anatomically correct homo sapiens (c. 100,000 BP) then yes you can take a newborn and raise it as you would a child from today. there is no difference anatomically.

of course our knowledge is still imperfect. for example, we know that the brain is the correct size and shape to correspond with people today, but we don't know with 100% certainty about its internal workings because we have holes in our understanding about the brain and about the fossil record. regardless, the similarities are such that we should be able to raise it to be able to graduate high shcool and hold a regular job.

re : the wolf-dog debate. yes, im aware that wolves rarely attack people. i was being tongue in cheek with the savagry bit. and now you're making me miss my mom's beagle!!
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/27952329/

and lastly, yes, IQ is a notorusly unreliable way of determining relative intelligence.

[worzel]

That reminds me of my old dog, look at this specimen of unnatural selection:
http://www.vegimike.com/DylanDeer.jpg

[Fr. Wayne]

What a rack! Rrr-ruff Rrr-ruff.

[Jim]

... I don't know about the bottom. I suppose a person with no brain activity would be zero.

A quick examination of Congress would seem to indicate that negative values are possible.
:D

[farmerjumperdon]

Here's an interesting observation, the Flynn Effect:

That's a good way of demonstating what I was trying to say. If the average today is 103, then today's 103 is the same as yesterday's 100 (or whenever it was).

Overall processing power has increased, on average, but the comparitive values remain the same. Your 103 today puts you on the same level within today's population as a peer who scored 100 yesterday is within their population.

[Disinfo Agent]

That's a good way of demonstating what I was trying to say. If the average today is 103, then today's 103 is the same as yesterday's 100 (or whenever it was).It also seems to demonstrate that:

1. There's no reason to expect that prehistorical men would score the same as modern men in the same IQ test;
2. IQ scores are influenced by non-biological factors.

[Fram]

That's odd. I just noticed I have 2 posts numbered 1,071.

The number reflects the total number of posts you have made at the moment you look at it, not at the moment of posting. It would be more fun to have a fixed number, so you can see post 1, post 2, ..., but this is much less strain on the database (one less thing to remember); the same goes for the signature: when you change it, all your old posts are changed accordingly (or more correct: the sig is not stored with the posts, and when you look at an old post, the current sig is shown).

[The Saint]

The closest non-homo sapiens was homo neanderthalis who lived contemporaneously. It is now believed he could speak, made tools and fire, buried his dead with their possessions (indicating a belief in an Afterlife?), was fully bipedal, had a larger brain than moderns, and managed to survive from 250,000 to 30,000 BCE.

Today an IQ of 35-55 is classified as "trainable mentally retarded". Obviously Neanderthal Man was higher than that (assuming that the claim of creationists and some evolutionists that he was a degenerate branch of true homo sapiens is spurned). Could a Neanderthal baby also be educated up to modern standards?

[Halcyon Dayz]

Since we don't have one, we'll probably never know.

There's actually an Asimov story about that.
The Ugly Little Boy (http://www.trussel.com/prehist/ugly.htm).

[John Dlugosz]

Very good! I would say that if a population of dogs were tested, and they used a comparative form of distributing results, and did as we do currently and picked 100 (rather arbitrarily) as the establishment of a mark to name the average, then yes, the average would be 100.

The top score would depend on the size of the population and the steepness of the curves in the distribution.

Don't know how you'd score the tests though when the answer sheet looked like this:

1 - Woof
2 - Woof
3 - Woof
4 - Woof
5 - Woof
6 - Woof
7 - Grrrrr
8 - Woof
9 - Woof
10 - Woof

Etc. . .


The reference I've seen to ranking dog breeds by intelligence used statistics in training: how many repititions does it take to teach a new command, how long is it retained, how far away can you be when giving a command, etc.

As I recall, standard poodles scored very high. Yet it's the aussie that has a reputation of outsmarting its owners. So another section of the test should be focused on practical problem solving and reaction to novel situations.

Another example is a dog that knows to stop looking for fake bird things thrown into the brush, when he fetched all of them: he can "count" up to five.

Another thing to test is language skills: how many grammatical constructs can be understood? Noun only and verb only at the lowest, noun/verb combination in most, imparitives only in very smart dogs. Then again, I think that many dogs have the concept of "if/then" (concequences and choice in behavior) even if they can't handle the grammar.

[LurchGS]

Another thing to test is language skills: how many grammatical constructs can be understood? Noun only and verb only at the lowest, noun/verb combination in most, imparitives only in very smart dogs. Then again, I think that many dogs have the concept of "if/then" (concequences and choice in behavior) even if they can't handle the grammar.

I think all dogs have this - else you couldn't house train them and my life would be REALLY miserable (two 130 pound dogs, one 80 pounder who live in the house with me)

Personally, I'd like to see the dog intelligence testing reworked from 'how fast does he learn' to 'how does he solve problems related to his job?'. Of course, this puts the poodle at a disadvantage, since it doesn't HAVE a job other than putting on airs...

"Your owner is going for a walk in the park, In preparation, she has donned a pair of electric blue walking shoes and a bright yellow raincoat. What should you do?"

a) lick her face and go with her happily
b) lick her face and go hide under the bed
c) stay as far away from her on the leash, pretending 'she's not with me'
d) pray for opposable thumbs so you can shoot the silly git. Failing that, maybe she'll get run over by a bus.

[SolusLupus]

"Your owner is going for a walk in the park, In preparation, she has donned a pair of electric blue walking shoes and a bright yellow raincoat. What should you do?"

a) lick her face and go with her happily
b) lick her face and go hide under the bed
c) stay as far away from her on the leash, pretending 'she's not with me'
d) pray for opposable thumbs so you can shoot the silly git. Failing that, maybe she'll get run over by a bus.

Any poodle that answers "d" should automatically pass the intelligence test, and get a medal.

[Dr Nigel]

Yes. Shame that dogs are colourblind, isn't it?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I think all dogs have this - else you couldn't house train them and my life would be REALLY miserable (two 130 pound dogs, one 80 pounder who live in the house with me)

Personally, I'd like to see the dog intelligence testing reworked from 'how fast does he learn' to 'how does he solve problems related to his job?'. Of course, this puts the poodle at a disadvantage, since it doesn't HAVE a job other than putting on airs...

"Your owner is going for a walk in the park, In preparation, she has donned a pair of electric blue walking shoes and a bright yellow raincoat. What should you do?"

a) lick her face and go with her happily
b) lick her face and go hide under the bed
c) stay as far away from her on the leash, pretending 'she's not with me'
d) pray for opposable thumbs so you can shoot the silly git. Failing that, maybe she'll get run over by a bus.
I'll Take "C" ...

Actually, This Reminds me, of My Parents' Dog, Not Only Does she PULL on The Leesh, But, she Easily Follows Multi-Point Commands ...

Her Personal Best Was, "Go Downstairs, Get The Bottle, And Bring it Back Upstairs, to Daddy," Within 5 Minutes, My Father Was Holding, The Empty Soda Bottle, The Dog Liked to Chew, In his Hand!

[SolusLupus]

Yes. Shame that dogs are colourblind, isn't it?

Actually, dogs aren't really "colorblind". They can see fewer colors than humans, but they're only really "colorblind" when using nightvision (just as we are; go out in darkness and try to pick out colors). They don't really see in "black and white" as most people think.

(Not sure if you really knew that or not, but...)

[HenrikOlsen]

Personally, I'd like to see the dog intelligence testing reworked from 'how fast does he learn' to 'how does he solve problems related to his job?'. Of course, this puts the poodle at a disadvantage, since it doesn't HAVE a job other than putting on airs...
Well, the poodle was originally designed as a bird hunters dog in wetlands which also explains the ridiculous looking poodlecut, it's a matter of removing all unneeded fur to make it dry faster, while keeping fur around the chest and joints where it's needed for warmth.
Since that use is now largely forgotten and they've been bred mainly for stupid looks more than actual working qualities I expect your test for the majority would score very low.

Would you allow for scoring on multiple jobs, so a dog that isn't superior at a specific job, but is very good at several would score high?

[worzel]

An interesting anecdote that I posted in another thread recently - The dog pictured in post #155 was totally untrainable, but he was intelligent enough to run at the door barking to dupe the other dog into doing the same thinking there was someone there only for the supposedly stupid dog to steal the other's place on the sofa.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

An interesting anecdote that I posted in another thread recently - The dog pictured in post #155 was totally untrainable, but he was intelligent enough to run at the door barking to dupe the other dog into doing the same thinking there was someone there only for the supposedly stupid dog to steal the other's place on the sofa.
So, he While he May, Have Been Untrainable ...

The Other Dog, Was Easily Trained ...

By HIM!

:clap:

[Disinfo Agent]

Speaking of speciation (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=673356&highlight=fuzzy#post673356), here's an interesting article. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38554)