Posted on 07/18/2021 3:52:05 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Dogs really are “man’s best friend” and “get” humans in a way other animals simply can’t relate to. Sorry “Game of Thrones” fans, a new study finds even the dog’s closest relatives — wolf pups — don’t gel with people the same way.
Researchers from Duke University say 14,000 years of domestication plays a big part in this. In fact, man’s best friend has actually evolved to understand human gestures and look to humans for help in a way that no other animals do.
Study authors, who compared wolf pups raised by humans to dogs who had barely any contact with people, discovered that dogs still outperform their wolf counterparts in tests of their understanding and co-operation with humans. The team behind the research adds their results show dogs instinctively understand people.
“This study really solidifies the evidence that the social genius of dogs is a product of domestication,” says Dr. Brian Hare, a professor of evolutionary anthropology, in a university release.
It’s this ability, Hare says, which makes dogs such great service animals.
🔊4 “It is something they are really born prepared to do,” the researcher adds.
Much like human infants, the team finds puppies intuitively understand what a human is doing when they point at something. Wolf puppies, on the other hand, did not pick up on this.
“We think it indicates a really important element of social cognition, which is that others are trying to help you,” Hare explains.
“Dogs are born with this innate ability to understand that we’re communicating with them and we’re trying to cooperate with them,” doctoral student Hannah Salomons adds.
Dogs know people can help them, no matter what In one test, researchers hid a treat in one of two bowls, then gave each dog or wolf puppy a clue to help them find the food. In some trials, the researchers pointed and gazed in the direction of the hidden food. For the others, they placed a small wooden block beside the right spot — a gesture the puppies had never seen before — to show them where they hid the treat.
The results reveal that, even with no specific training, dog puppies as young as eight weeks-old still understand where to go. Researchers add dogs were also twice as likely to get it right in comparison to wolf puppies around the same age who spent more time with people.
More than half (17 out of 31) dog puppies consistently went to the right bowl while none out of the 26 human-reared wolf pups did better than a random guess. Control trials showed the puppies weren’t simply sniffing out the food. Even more impressively, many of the dog puppies got it right on their first try. Absolutely no training necessary, the dogs just got what humans were doing. Despite the results, Salomons says this isn’t about which species is “smarter.”
It’s not about intelligence, it’s about evolution Dog puppies and wolf puppies proved equally adept in tests of other cognitive abilities, such as memory and motor impulse control, which involved making a detour around transparent obstacles to get food. It was only when it came to the puppies’ people-reading skills that the differences became clear. “There’s lots of different ways to be smart,” Salomons explains. “Animals evolve cognition in a way that will help them succeed in whatever environment they’re living in.”
Other tests show that dog puppies are also 30 times more likely than wolf pups to approach a stranger.
“With the dog puppies we worked with, if you walk into their enclosure they gather around and want to climb on you and lick your face, whereas most of the wolf puppies run to the corner and hide,” the student researcher continues.
When presented with food inside a sealed container, the wolf pups generally tried to solve the problem on their own. Conversely, the dog puppies spent more time turning to people for help, looking them in the eye as if to say “I’m stuck, can you fix this?”
Proving that the history between humans and dogs goes way back in time Dr. Hare believes the research offers some of the strongest evidence yet of what’s known as the “domestication hypothesis.” Somewhere between 12,000 and 40,000 years ago, long before dogs learned to fetch, they shared an ancestor with modern wolves. How these feared predators transformed into man’s best friend is still a bit of a mystery.
One theory is that, when humans and wolves first met, only the friendliest wolves would have been tolerated and gotten close enough to scavenge on early human leftovers instead of running away. Whereas the shyer, meaner wolves might go hungry, the friendlier ones would survive and pass on the genes that made them less fearful or aggressive toward humans.
The theory is that this continued generation after generation, until the wolf’s descendants became masters at gauging the intentions of people they interact with by deciphering their gestures and social cues.
The findings appear in the journal Current Biology.
Our dogs always started to bark excitedly before my dad's car even pulled into the driveway. They just sensed his arrival.
Dogs seem to get excited whenever I walk past them. I don't know what they pick up. (Hopefully not any B.O.!) I like dogs, but don't keep any as pets.
The alleged distinction between evolution and "adaptation" is a concoction of anti-scientists who can't deny what they see but wish desperately to deny parts of science they can't see.
Hence: "adaptation" = the part we can see.
"Evolution" = the theory they don't want to see.
Not quite.
Enlightenment scientists like for example, Isaac Newton, believed they were studying the Mind of God in nature.
Since they believed God is rational, so they believed must be His natural creations.
Therefore, they weren't trying to "prove" God, only to discover Him.
Even today many scientists still believe nature is God's creation, though sadly the numbers are said to be shrinking.
But natural-science itself makes no demands either way -- science's naturalistic assumption is only methodological, not philosophical or theological
For those atheist scientists who make it philosophical/theological that is their, in effect, religious choice, not a requirement of science itself.
Olog-hai: "The ones who came after were consumed by a lust to try to prove the opposite and draw a false picture of a steady-state universe consisting only of matter."
No, nearly all scientists today accept the "Big Bang" theory as the best explanation for the Universe's beginning in time & space.
Some scientists, desperately seeking to avoid the question of First Cause, have concocted a fantasy called "multi-verse" from which our Universe is imagined to have descended.
But "multi-verse" is not a scientific theory, or even a falsifiable hypothesis, it's just a fantasy hoping to dazzle us away from the question of First Cause.
we don’t live in close quarters with them (or with dolphins)
Oh yes we do...ever go on a month long trail ride or a surfing caravan in the tropics.
Empathetic parrots?
You can see it here with Pebbles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM8aBESf8EI
Oh, you again. As far as the “Big Bang” goes, pseudoscientists were forced to accept the clear evidence that started to pour in when Hubble first discovered red shift. Also, my point stands since your interjection here is anachronistic.
Your premise with respect to Newton is reversed, since he was a firm believer in God. Newton’s words with respect to God were “masterful creator” and “universal ruler”. He had a strong interest in end-time prophecy also.
?
Olog-hai: "As far as the “Big Bang” goes, pseudoscientists were forced to accept the clear evidence that started to pour in when Hubble first discovered red shift."
"pseudoscientists"? What kind of talk is that?
Scientists, the real thing, accepted the Big Bang idea when and only when it was confirmed by strong lines of evidence -- just as they accept every other confirmed scientific theory.
That's how science works, that's what scientists do.
So what is this "pseudoscientist" rubbish?
I remember the debates with Fred Hoyle (who coined the term "Big Bang") & others in the 1960s.
Steady-staters lost then and their ideas have not been seriously defended since.
Even Hoyle's 1993 updated "Quasi-steady State Model" found very little support.
Olog-hai: "Also, my point stands since your interjection here is anachronistic."
What point?
What anachronism?
Olog-hai: "Your premise with respect to Newton is reversed..."
Now I "get" it -- you have zero reading comprehension, that part of your brain has atrophied and so you just substitute whatever idea pops into your head for what I actually posted.
My suggestion to you is a healthier diet, exercise and maybe even supplements to help you with cognition.
Then try to understand what was posted before you embarrass yourself again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.