The Origin Of Dogs – Biogenetic engineering

Scientists have uncovered a 33,000-year-old dog skull that illustrates some of the earliest evidence of domestication of the animal.

www.sott.net...

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Onboard2

Originally posted by Ariess
Humans and wolves occupied the same environments since their beginnings. Naturally they interacted frequently. Both being social meat eaters, the humans realized that wolves were useful creatures, and the wolves began to know humans as sources of food rather then prey. Humans then found that there were wolves that were naturally more comfortable around humans and less aggressive. These semi-tame wolves were welcomed by humans. The more aggressive, nervous, and nasty wolves were most likely killed or run off. Over time through countless generations domesticated dogs arouse. Tameness is not only taught by nurturing animals from birth. It is actually naturally engrained in the animals' genetics.

The whole process has actually been proven. In Siberia foxes were bred according to their natural tameness, whereas only the most tame individuals were allowed to reproduce. This experiment/program was started in 1959 and is still on going. Now they are fully domesticated. They are not only comfortable around humans and tolerate being handled, but they actually desire human attention and affection and give it back. They are known to wag their tails, and great people with excitement. Interestingly through the selection of foxes solely on their tame characteristics, certain physical traits have evolved. Their fur has changed colors, their ears have become more floppy, their limbs have become shorter, and their tails have become curlier. This, I think, can explain why dogs have become so different from wolves.
www.sibfox.com...

I understant your theory and it does seem possible, but I know it's NOT possible to domesticate a wolf, not even one that's half wolf, because I've tried. I came to realize that a wolf can never be fully domesticated and I know dogs! My wolf would have protected me with his life and that was the problem. Even after getting him neutered he got away from me and ran with a pack of dogs twice. He was the leader! Even though the bond between wolf and human can be very strong, they are a one owner dog that you can never turn your back on or trust to be around any other stranger. I could take a T-bone steak out of his mouth, but noone else could be around him. I trusted him with my life, but he was a liability, because I couldn't have anyone near him and I raised him from a pup. If I couldn't completely tame him, I'm sure noone else could either.

That wild instinct and fear within the wolf makes it impossible to completely domesticate. So, I have wondered about the same thing. How could every kind of breed come from the wolf?

You've confused domestication with tame. A wolf pup brought up in a house of people will be/ might be tame but not domesticated. Domestication is not just an animal that is friendly to people. There's actually biological changes that take place and it doesn't happen within just one or two generations. Lions and tigers can be tamed but not domesticated, A bear can be tamed but not domesticated. Not all animals can be domesticated and the breeds that can be are truly a very small % of the animal kingdom

Wolves can be domesticated because they have and they evolved into the dog as a result but it didn't happen over night. When the Russians did it with the grey fox it took about 20 generations I think.


circuswatchwa.org...

edit on 22-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

Yes, I understand there is a big difference between tame and 'domesticated' and wolves can NOT be domesticated even now. When a wolf is coming around his two year mark there are biological changes within his hormonal chemisty. Evolution of the canine species from wolf is the only option we have at this time, so we'll have to go with it. But was another animal introduced? Man did not domesticate the wolf. Coppinger, biologist, has worked with and studied wolves for a long time! There's an interesting link to PBS I provided in my previous post that explains his hypothesis. The link to WIKI is ridiculous(says humbly), because there is a claim that wolves have been socialized among humans. Does that mean domesticated?

Coppinger believes that a behavioral characteristic called “flight distance” was crucial to the transformation from wild wolf to the ancestors of the modern dog. It represents how close an animal will allow humans (or anything else it perceives as dangerous) to get before it runs away. Animals with shorter flight distances will linger, and feed, when humans are close by; this behavioral trait would have been passed on to successive generations, and amplified, creating animals that are increasingly more comfortable around humans. “My argument is that what domesticated — or tame — means is to be able to eat in the presence of human beings. That is the thing that wild wolves can’t do.”

reply to post by LiveForever8


You do realize that if they wanted to prove the "dog's came from wolves" hypothesis, they would have to use selective breeding to prove it. They would have to take a wolf pack or two and use basic eugenics to weed out the overly dominant or overly aggressive members of the pack until only the least aggressive and least dominant remained. After several generations this could(in theory) produce the desired result. Like in the case of the Domesticated silver fox.

en.wikipedia.org...

You wouldn't need anything really advanced or sci-fi. If the wolf specimen acts too aggressive or violent towards humans=lights out. A process that naturally causes the weeding out of dangerous wolves.

Granted it probably was more likely a case of wolves following humans for left overs. And with the more aggressive ones being wiped out for trying to steal human food and not waiting for the left-overs to become left overs. Somewhere along the way the ones that learned to beg, act "cute" would be allowed greater proximity to humans and by proxy the desired left overs. Sooner or later the wolves become dogs and trick humans into taking them in. Fast forward a few thousand/hundred thousand years later and dog's in the west have it better than humans do in some parts of the world.

Originally posted by LiveForever8

Let us start with a simple question that appears to have an obvious answer: what is a dog? It turns out geneticists in the past decade have shown the answer is not so obvious. In fact, generations of anthropologists, archaeologists and wildlife biologists turned out to be dead wrong when it came to the origins of “man’s best friend”.

Prior to DNA studies conducted in the 1990s, the generally accepted theory posited that dogs branched off from a variety of wild canids, i.e., coyotes, hyenas, jackals, wolves and so on, about 15,000 years ago. The results of the first comprehensive DNA study shocked the scholarly community. The study found that all dog breeds can be traced back to wolves and not other canids. The second part of the finding was even more unexpected – the branching off occurred from 40-150,000 years ago.

Why do these findings pose a problem? We have to answer that question with another question: how were dogs bred from wolves? This is not just difficult to explain, it is impossible.

The article appeared in a 2005 issue and so it's a little dated. Is this subject still a contentious issue or has it been resolved? A quick search around the net didn't bring me many answers.

Throw me a bone here people.

Look to foxes. There was a Russian study where they tried to selectively breed foxes, breeding them by picking the absolute most tame qualities in each generation. And the end result was that the final group of foxes bred for their tameness began barking like dogs. That's right! Foxes barking like dogs. In addition, there were other tame-bred qualities that occurred such as floppy ears. Dogs domesticated and bred to be tame (to not kill the animals they hunt and to live with humans) usually have floppy ears after thousands of years. It's caused by breeding out a gene from the wild. Wild animals have alert and erect ears standing up on their heads (thus why some dog breed such as German shepards have ears standing up--they are not bred for their tameness, but bred differently to stay alert). Breeds such as Cocker Spaniels, Water Spaniels, Poodles do have floppy ears- when in the past the breeds they came from may have had ears standing straight up (like Gizmo the Gremlin).

The cause which is noted by breeding foxes for their tameness is that by selecting the most tame qualities for breeding they breed out an entire chemical composition which causes ears to be erect-standing up in the wild. Thus in the Russian study of breeding the most tame qualities, the ears of the foxes began to flop over like Spaniels and Poodles.

So look to foxes when trying to figure out dogs. After all, you can breed a fox to bark like a dog and give them floppy ears.

Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment by Russians

Originally posted by Onboard2

Originally posted by Ariess
Humans and wolves occupied the same environments since their beginnings. Naturally they interacted frequently. Both being social meat eaters, the humans realized that wolves were useful creatures, and the wolves began to know humans as sources of food rather then prey. Humans then found that there were wolves that were naturally more comfortable around humans and less aggressive. These semi-tame wolves were welcomed by humans. The more aggressive, nervous, and nasty wolves were most likely killed or run off. Over time through countless generations domesticated dogs arouse. Tameness is not only taught by nurturing animals from birth. It is actually naturally engrained in the animals' genetics.

The whole process has actually been proven. In Siberia foxes were bred according to their natural tameness, whereas only the most tame individuals were allowed to reproduce. This experiment/program was started in 1959 and is still on going. Now they are fully domesticated. They are not only comfortable around humans and tolerate being handled, but they actually desire human attention and affection and give it back. They are known to wag their tails, and great people with excitement. Interestingly through the selection of foxes solely on their tame characteristics, certain physical traits have evolved. Their fur has changed colors, their ears have become more floppy, their limbs have become shorter, and their tails have become curlier. This, I think, can explain why dogs have become so different from wolves.
www.sibfox.com...

I understant your theory and it does seem possible, but I know it's NOT possible to domesticate a wolf, not even one that's half wolf, because I've tried. I came to realize that a wolf can never be fully domesticated and I know dogs! My wolf would have protected me with his life and that was the problem. Even after getting him neutered he got away from me and ran with a pack of dogs twice. He was the leader! Even though the bond between wolf and human can be very strong, they are a one owner dog that you can never turn your back on or trust to be around any other stranger. I could take a T-bone steak out of his mouth, but noone else could be around him. I trusted him with my life, but he was a liability, because I couldn't have anyone near him and I raised him from a pup. If I couldn't completely tame him, I'm sure noone else could either.

That wild instinct and fear within the wolf makes it impossible to completely domesticate. So, I have wondered about the same thing. How could every kind of breed come from the wolf?

So you are claiming to be the be-all end-all of wolf and dog trainers? If you can't do it no one can? That is pretty presumptuous don't you think? The other 6 billion people in the world couldn't possibly do something better then you?

LOL, I knew that was coming! After I read what I posted, I did realize how presumptuous I sounded, but I certainly don't mean to. If your theory and others are correct , wouldn't wolves become a little more docile through a breeding program over generations? There are some that find it hard to believe such as Coppinger, but who am I to say it isn't possible?

www.pbs.org...

Biologist Raymond Coppinger, who has spent over 45 years working with and studying dogs, says that this story is nothing more than a romantic fairy tale. “I call it a ‘just so’ story. Nobody who has ever trained a wolf had any success if they started after 19 days,” says Coppinger, a professor of biology and animal behavior at Hampshire College in Massachusetts.

“We’ve got a graduate student doing it now. You take them out of the den when they are 13 days old and their eyes aren’t open, and you spend 24 hours a day with them, socializing them with people, bottle feeding them. You have to have a time surplus society like mine, where you have graduate students with nothing else to do. Mesolithic people would have been struggling for life. They wouldn’t have had time.” In addition, Coppinger says, even tamed wolves aren’t likely to be docile when it comes to food-or breeding. “I work with tamed wolves all the time. I don’t care how tame they are, try to take their bone away. It’s even worse when it comes to breeding. You start to fool around with wolves when they’re in a courtship performance, you could die right there on the spot.”

(He did state that wild wolves can't eat around people.)

reply to post by LiveForever8

Think about those statements for a moment. If you are thinking that dogs evolved naturally from wolves, that is not an option.

Umm... What? How is natural evolution not an option? And how exactly is the idea that our ancestors domesticated wolves not a good possibility? It's certainly better than some bizarre pseudoscience about ancient genetic manipulation by some unseen unknown completely made up source. For the record all evolution is natural, even if it is driven by external forces (such as domestication) it would still be natural. Is there a mystery here that needs to be solved? Sure, it'd be nice to have a clearer picture of how and when wolves began to be domesticated. Does it require an absurd explanation that would essentially rewrite all of human history? NOPE.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
So you are claiming to be the be-all end-all of wolf and dog trainers? If you can't do it no one can? That is pretty presumptuous don't you think? The other 6 billion people in the world couldn't possibly do something better then you?

That is correct. I was referring to the domestication of the wolf. It hasn't been done by any trainer or person that works with wolves or even wolf-hybrids.

But...it has been done with foxes.

I suspect that this is one of those things were domestication and dogs both evolve gradually. You can get a somewhat tame (but not domestic) animal if you take it early and train it. One other creature that can be somewhat tamed but not domesticated (and tends to be dangerous) is the zebra.

It's seldom possible to break pure zebras to riding, though you can break some of the hybrids for riding.

There are other animals that we tame from the wild (dolphins, elephants among them) -- interesting to speculate on why those are tameable but the wolves and a lot of other animals aren't.

The wolf was not domesticated by man, in the begining, it was a choice made by an individual animal. Likely a single animal made the initial contact. A pack was likely shadowing a group of humans as they hunted, taking advantage of the left overs from the hunt. Over the course of years or even human generations, the two groups grew used to each others presence. At some point the humans realized that this pack was no threat and that they also kept away the more agressive packs and let them hang around.
At this point the wolves would have been perpetually on the periphery of the humans camps. In a time of deprivation, a unusually harsh winter or such, a bold animal ventured very close to the human camp and a human took pity on the obviously hungry animal and tossed of some scraps.
This scenes was repeated many times over the winter as that animal and that human formed a relationship. Eventually the wolf grew to trust this band of humans and brought other members of the pack close to the camp and they too grew to trust the humans. At some point a female with a litter of pups came to the camp for food , and those pups grew to trust the humans even more.
They would follow the humans on the hunt, and then eventually they would lead the humans to the game, with thier superior sense of smell, and the humans learned to follow this pack. This went on for many seasons. Then again in a harsh winter an individual animal came into camp and ventured very close looking for food and warmth. And again the humans responded favorably, letting this animal stay near the fire and gave it some scraps. This scene was repeated many times during this winter, and eventually there was human wolf contact and autual sense of well being was nurtured. This animal was likely a female and when she had her next litter she brought them to camp and the first dogs were born.
This scene took generations to play out, cannot be duplicated in one or two generations of "domesticated" wolves. And our associations with the wolf go very far back. Even far enough back to predate modern humans, I remember reading about wolf and human remains being found in a cave in Spain and they dated to something like 200k years ago.
I have a personal insight into this situation, as my dog Nikki, was a wild dog when I got her. It took several weeks of bringing her food during a very wet and cold winter to get her to trust me enough to make physical contact. She has been a faithful companion ever since.

the Cheetah is a mix of cat and dog; the ancients were into genetic engineering.

Originally posted by lostinau
the Cheetah is a mix of cat and dog; the ancients were into genetic engineering.

You have to be kidding,
If not that is one of the most rediculous things I've ever heard.

Wow very interesting. It does raise a lot more questions then answers.

I understand that you could probably domesticate a wolf by breeding the less aggressive wolves together or the runts of the litter. But even if you domesticate a wolf, it is still a wolf.

You breed a wolf with a wolf you get a wolf.

I understand where those who were posting about the foxes were going with their posts, that wild animals can be domesticated. But the problem with the fox breeding idea isn't that the animal can be domesticated but that the variations of species would be limited to just that species. The genetic changes that can be done through generation breeding is still limited to color and size of the animal, those you can change, but the breed you cannot change unless you introduce an outside breed to cross-breed with, which is how you produce different breeds of the same species.

But as the article said, the genetic coding showed that the only wolves are genetically related to dogs, and as stated earlier if you breed a wolf with a wolf you get a wolf not a dog. You would have to introduce a dog into the mix to get a dog, or you can let evolution do it but that would take millions of years and as the article stated the branch off from wolf to dog was between 40-150,000 years ago, that is not enough time for a species to change as dogs have. It is impossible, and even if you interbreed different wolf species you still get a wolf, and seeing how wolves cover a large land area (same breed), you would have to travel vast distances to find a different wolf species from the one in your area. Seems pretty far-fetched to think that earlier humans would have traveled vast distances to find different wolf species, that is to say, that they someone knew such things existed and where to look for it.

So again, wolf + wolf = wolf, not wolf + wolf = terrier, not wolf + wolf = great dane, not wolf + wolf = chihuahua.

Unless they were somehow able to alter the wolves genes into forcing it to produce a different variable or species, but well that would mean they would have had to have extensive knowledge of gene coding and DNA way back then. Not quite something you'd expect stone age peoples to have knowledge of.

In case people still think its possible to make a dog from two wolves, think about humans. Human + human = human, other then size and color you still get a human, unless anyone knows of any stories in which two humans breed with each other and made a completely different species. And if you do please post a link or key words so I can look it up myself.

Very good topic, so many more questions then answers.

some of the dogs belonging to the baboons had collars on???


if pigs are left to go feral they return to looking like wild boar within a few generations
if cattle are left to go wild they end up looking something like a Texas longhorn,both species are fierce!

left to go feral dogs do not return to their original wolf like appearance.also there are many species of wild canids that are not wolves or foxes or coyotes but are in fact dogs
like South American Bush Dog and African Wild Dog

there are things called pariah dogs in all countries and they look the same in everywhere they are found about 30 or 40 pounds medium haired medium build a somewhat curly tail almost any color some erect ears some turned own ears but no floppy hound ears etc. they live near human habitations and scavenge grabage and eat pets but they don't take over the wild ,curious.

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
Wow very interesting. It does raise a lot more questions then answers.

I understand that you could probably domesticate a wolf by breeding the less aggressive wolves together or the runts of the litter. But even if you domesticate a wolf, it is still a wolf.

You breed a wolf with a wolf you get a wolf.

I understand where those who were posting about the foxes were going with their posts, that wild animals can be domesticated. But the problem with the fox breeding idea isn't that the animal can be domesticated but that the variations of species would be limited to just that species. The genetic changes that can be done through generation breeding is still limited to color and size of the animal, those you can change, but the breed you cannot change unless you introduce an outside breed to cross-breed with, which is how you produce different breeds of the same species.

But as the article said, the genetic coding showed that the only wolves are genetically related to dogs, and as stated earlier if you breed a wolf with a wolf you get a wolf not a dog. You would have to introduce a dog into the mix to get a dog, or you can let evolution do it but that would take millions of years and as the article stated the branch off from wolf to dog was between 40-150,000 years ago, that is not enough time for a species to change as dogs have. It is impossible, and even if you interbreed different wolf species you still get a wolf, and seeing how wolves cover a large land area (same breed), you would have to travel vast distances to find a different wolf species from the one in your area. Seems pretty far-fetched to think that earlier humans would have traveled vast distances to find different wolf species, that is to say, that they someone knew such things existed and where to look for it.

So again, wolf + wolf = wolf, not wolf + wolf = terrier, not wolf + wolf = great dane, not wolf + wolf = chihuahua.

Unless they were somehow able to alter the wolves genes into forcing it to produce a different variable or species, but well that would mean they would have had to have extensive knowledge of gene coding and DNA way back then. Not quite something you'd expect stone age peoples to have knowledge of.

In case people still think its possible to make a dog from two wolves, think about humans. Human + human = human, other then size and color you still get a human, unless anyone knows of any stories in which two humans breed with each other and made a completely different species. And if you do please post a link or key words so I can look it up myself.

Very good topic, so many more questions then answers.

Sorry but your logic is flawed.

See with domestication comes changes. Not just in colour and coat but also in shape and size. See, along with other things, the caudal vertebrae in the tail changes. So say the average wolf has 23, after the natural process of domestication the dogs might have only 15.

A further note is that a wolf and a dog are of the same species.

What defines a species?= The ability to produces viable offspring.

What is viable offspring?= The offspring can then reproduce.

A male donkey and a female horse can breed and produce an offspring however the offspring, a mule, is born sterile so it can't reproduce so it's not viable therefore a donkey and a horse are NOT of the same species

A wolf and a dog can breed and produce a litter of pups. That does not make them of the same species. However because those pups born of a wolf and a dog can then breed and produce more pups, that makes a wolf and dog of the same species. Or more to the point a dog is a domesticated wolf. ( there is a difference between domesticated and tamed)

In fact. You could get a whole lot of different dogs and look for wolf charactoristics. Breed the ones with the most wolf charactoristics and continue to do so down the line and eventually you'd be left with a litter of wolves.

This has been done with domesticated horses and cows and now you can go to Berlin zoo and see in real life the ancester of both.

Why haven't hey done it with wolves? Simply because with the ancester of the pre domesticated horse and cows were extinct and they could get funding to try to bring them back which they did. The wolf isn't extinct and science already knows what the outcome would be.

The dog comes from the wolf. This is fact and the science is there for you to study if you so choose to.

reply to post by LiveForever8

I don't have any problem with the idea that dogs were a product of genetic engineering.

All my data points to the theory that the genetic engineers were ET and that some of their descendants still exist today.

They didn't just design dogs to be "Man's best friend." Many of the plants and animals found here are as much a product of engineering as they are of evolution. Some of that "engineering" could even be described as art.

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
Wow very interesting. It does raise a lot more questions then answers.

I understand that you could probably domesticate a wolf by breeding the less aggressive wolves together or the runts of the litter. But even if you domesticate a wolf, it is still a wolf.

You breed a wolf with a wolf you get a wolf.

I understand where those who were posting about the foxes were going with their posts, that wild animals can be domesticated. But the problem with the fox breeding idea isn't that the animal can be domesticated but that the variations of species would be limited to just that species. The genetic changes that can be done through generation breeding is still limited to color and size of the animal, those you can change, but the breed you cannot change unless you introduce an outside breed to cross-breed with, which is how you produce different breeds of the same species.

But as the article said, the genetic coding showed that the only wolves are genetically related to dogs, and as stated earlier if you breed a wolf with a wolf you get a wolf not a dog. You would have to introduce a dog into the mix to get a dog, or you can let evolution do it but that would take millions of years and as the article stated the branch off from wolf to dog was between 40-150,000 years ago, that is not enough time for a species to change as dogs have. It is impossible, and even if you interbreed different wolf species you still get a wolf, and seeing how wolves cover a large land area (same breed), you would have to travel vast distances to find a different wolf species from the one in your area. Seems pretty far-fetched to think that earlier humans would have traveled vast distances to find different wolf species, that is to say, that they someone knew such things existed and where to look for it.

So again, wolf + wolf = wolf, not wolf + wolf = terrier, not wolf + wolf = great dane, not wolf + wolf = chihuahua.

Unless they were somehow able to alter the wolves genes into forcing it to produce a different variable or species, but well that would mean they would have had to have extensive knowledge of gene coding and DNA way back then. Not quite something you'd expect stone age peoples to have knowledge of.

In case people still think its possible to make a dog from two wolves, think about humans. Human + human = human, other then size and color you still get a human, unless anyone knows of any stories in which two humans breed with each other and made a completely different species. And if you do please post a link or key words so I can look it up myself.

Very good topic, so many more questions then answers.

You're a hunter gatherer and a wolf is a good early warning device plus it cleans up your scraps so you tolerate it being around living on the edge of your tribe. Some wolves are down right hostile and you chase them away but some are a bit more friendly and inquisitive so they learn to relax around you and you them. Human nature says that the ones with the cutest eyes or tails or anything that the humans find cute are going to get yummies and generally treated better.

So these wolves that are aloud to stay then start to breed and the traits that the humans love start to become more dominant (domestication) and eventually you're left with dogs who have become mans best friend. (domesticated wolf)

seems like the pro wolf element is trying to fit their theory into the box

if you're a hunter gatherer it makes sense to have wolves around? No,wolves are socially organized top predators,with their own social customs and culture. They super smart too,no way a primitive society is going to tolerate a competing tribe horning in on their territory

find a National Geographic special about a pair of wolves in India that went on a killing rampage that resulted in the deaths of over two hundred children . This incident caused an uprising becuase authorities were unable for years to find the creatures that were entering homes and snatching babies out of their mothers arms in the night,the children would be found half eaten and displayed nearby the village. Trackers and police were called in to no avail and and at one point there was a riot ,and villagers killed a policeman for not being able to catch the predator.

It turned out to be wolves ,some villagers had found and killed their cubs taken them back to their village and displayed them ,and the wolves went on a beserk revenge campaign.Can't blame them really.

anyway that is a true story I think it happened in the 80s ,there is a documentary about it but I can't remember what it's called

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
seems like the pro wolf element is trying to fit their theory into the box

if you're a hunter gatherer it makes sense to have wolves around? No,wolves are socially organized top predators,with their own social customs and culture. They super smart too,no way a primitive society is going to tolerate a competing tribe horning in on their territory

find a National Geographic special about a pair of wolves in India that went on a killing rampage that resulted in the deaths of over two hundred children . This incident caused an uprising becuase authorities were unable for years to find the creatures that were entering homes and snatching babies out of their mothers arms in the night,the children would be found half eaten and displayed nearby the village. Trackers and police were called in to no avail and and at one point there was a riot ,and villagers killed a policeman for not being able to catch the predator.





anyway that is a true story I think it happened in the 80s ,there is a documentary about it but I can't remember what it's called

NO. I said that they'd be a good early warning device and if you weren't just dismissing it in your head before reading it because you don't agree with it you would have seen that it's about association. I also pointed out a few posts back that wolf and dog are of the same species and explained how this is shown. But I guess if you want to ignore the truth well that's what you're going to do.


The thing is science has shown that this has happened. many different schools of science has shown that this has happened. You not being able to grasp it or your best form of oppositon to it being " I don't believe it" or you trying to change the meaning of what has been said doesn't make it not true.

Also what it appears you've said is that because two wolves go on a rampage they must all be drones of each other. Every animal is an individual with individual traits ( seems you ignored the part about some having traits that we'd tolerate).


And I can ask you to look up a documentary on a lion raised by two Australian blokes in London and released onto a reserve in Africa and ended up with it's own pride. It remembers them years later and the lionessess don't attack them because the lion accepts them yet they have all the terratorial traits a wolf does. This is a true story.


I don't understand how you can say "No way" and not have any scientific evidence that what you say is correct. As for dogs coming from wolves and the process by which it happened that I've said is accepted by science and the evidence is easily found on the internet.

It's in thousands of books well. Have you actually researched it? I have a feeling going on what I've read of your post that you haven't

People seem to say "no I dont agree" and then give no real evidence to debate the accepted theory. Not that it's theory as dogs have wolf DNA so it's actually physical evidence.