Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Fractal Trader
Dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor between 11,000 and 34,000 years ago but modern canines are more closely related to each other than to wolves, according to new research

This sentence has two problems.

1) The term "canine" can refer to members of the family Canidae (domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, and other dog-like mammals); or, more narrowly, to members of the sub-family Caninae; or, more narrowly, to members of the genus Canis (which includes dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals); or only to domestic dogs. So, what are the "modern canines" referred to here? I suspect they mean "domestic dogs."

2) Why "but?" Doesn't it follow that domestic dogs would be more-closely related to each other than to wolves, since (as this article posits) domestic dogs and wolves are two branches which split off from a common ancestor some time in the past?

Regards,

4 posted on 01/16/2014 9:16:00 PM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: alexander_busek

It is not written all that well.

It’s states:

“Researchers from the University of Chicago said that dogs are more closely related to each other than to wolves, regardless of geographic origin as they do not descend from a single line of wolves.”

The key being the comparison with regard to geographic area.

You asked, “Doesn’t it follow that domestic dogs would be more-closely related to each other than to wolves, since (as this article posits) domestic dogs and wolves are two branches which split off from a common ancestor some time in the past?”

Yes, you are right. But what the geographic analysis does is confirm that the dogs did not come from wolves directly because if so, they would have come from a certain line of wolves in a certain geographic region.

So, dogs would be closer to dogs than to wolves, but there would be more similarity to certain wolves of certain geographic areas than to wolves in other areas if dogs had come from wolves.

But these geographic based differences aren’t seen.


19 posted on 01/16/2014 9:28:52 PM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: alexander_busek

Words have meanings and grammar enables words to convey the author’s intended meaning. This seems lost on our thumb typing text-o-matic generation. Thank you for the discussion.


43 posted on 01/17/2014 4:49:43 AM PST by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: alexander_busek
"1) The term "canine" can refer to members of the family Canidae (domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, and other dog-like mammals); or, more narrowly, to members of the sub-family Caninae; or, more narrowly, to members of the genus Canis (which includes dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals); or only to domestic dogs. So, what are the "modern canines" referred to here? I suspect they mean "domestic dogs.""

The Canary Islands are named for Canines, not canaries.

51 posted on 01/17/2014 6:48:36 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: alexander_busek

Yes. There arguments appears to be nonsensical.

It appears dogs derived from a wolf population 39,000 years ago and they then evolved along an isolated line with periodic outbreedings with wolf populations.

Ergo, they ARE domesticated wolves. To my knowledge, the only other wolf species in that time frame was the Dire Wolf, and clearly dogs are not related to them, but rather to the grey wolf.


73 posted on 01/21/2014 2:24:06 AM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson