3 ms·

The article (and others at e.g. the BBC) seem to say dogs "evolved" this capability in "a remarkably short time". Is it not fairer to suggest that this is not

The article (and others at e.g. the BBC) seem to say dogs "evolved" this capability in "a remarkably short time". Is it not fairer to suggest that this is not evolution/natural selection at work here, but rather just selective breeding? I can't think of another species of animal that has been so widely twisted and manipulated in appearance by human's selective breeding than dogs. Seems odd to suggest that this part of a dogs' body was due to evolution, but that rest of the crazy variety in dogs' body is not? A trait like this that humans like seems like is an obvious thing to get selected surely? Or is there some strong evidence to suggest that this was really was nothing to do with selective breeding?

hoseja 7y ago
What else is selective breeding than evolution where fitness is strongly influenced by a hairless ape?
- viscanti 7y ago
  The article mentions that the trait is observable at only 4 weeks old. It might not be crazy to think that Humans are more likely to select the puppies that demonstrate the trait. It might not be "natural" selection, but if Humans are making a substantial amount of the breeding decisions for dogs then it could still be a form of evolution.
  - quietbritishjim 7y ago
    Indeed, selective breeding is sometimes called "artificial selection" as a mirror to the term "natural selection". Both are types of evolution.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
I'm mostly comfortable with thinking it's evolution as crazy variety and selective breeding came very late to the party. Most in the last few hundred years - lots of the breeds we know are from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. I would guess that for most of our co-existence breeding was up to the dog to figure out, which might explain the oldest breeds being of a particular region. Task breeds came very much later. Edit: Also, how do you selectively breed for muscles that didn't previously exist?
- silvestrov 7y ago
  > selective breeding came very late to the party I think that breeding before 17th century was focused on the dogs job such as hunting wolves (Wolfhounds), sheep herding (Border Collies), watch dogs. When you don't breed for apperance and only have a low number of different kinds of jobs for dogs, then you only need very few breeds. The Irish Wolfhounds were out of jobs in 1786 (no more wolves in Ireland) and the breed practically died out.
noiv 7y ago
Well, humans are part of the environment of dogs - selecting or not.
WhompingWindows 7y ago
It comes down to definition of terms, English words to sub-optimally describe a genetic process... How do you define selective breeding - if humans are selecting for short legs and long torso and small and short hair, over time you will get a Daschund-type shape and look. If selective breeding can include discarding/disliking puppies/young dogs without responsive eyes, then most likely humans did selectively breed dogs for desirable "eye contact" traits. It's quite reasonable given we "chose" dogs for many less physically obvious qualities like temperament, utility, and intelligence. In the end, we are using words to describe genetic processes. The genetics of dogs have changed remarkably both over the last 200k years and over the last 500 years. In my view, it's a combination of natural selection, unconscious selection, and conscious selection of breeding individuals.

hoseja 7y ago

What else is selective breeding than evolution where fitness is strongly influenced by a hairless ape?

viscanti 7y ago
The article mentions that the trait is observable at only 4 weeks old. It might not be crazy to think that Humans are more likely to select the puppies that demonstrate the trait. It might not be "natural" selection, but if Humans are making a substantial amount of the breeding decisions for dogs then it could still be a form of evolution.
- quietbritishjim 7y ago
  Indeed, selective breeding is sometimes called "artificial selection" as a mirror to the term "natural selection". Both are types of evolution.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

I'm mostly comfortable with thinking it's evolution as crazy variety and selective breeding came very late to the party. Most in the last few hundred years - lots of the breeds we know are from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. I would guess that for most of our co-existence breeding was up to the dog to figure out, which might explain the oldest breeds being of a particular region. Task breeds came very much later. Edit: Also, how do you selectively breed for muscles that didn't previously exist?

silvestrov 7y ago
> selective breeding came very late to the party I think that breeding before 17th century was focused on the dogs job such as hunting wolves (Wolfhounds), sheep herding (Border Collies), watch dogs. When you don't breed for apperance and only have a low number of different kinds of jobs for dogs, then you only need very few breeds. The Irish Wolfhounds were out of jobs in 1786 (no more wolves in Ireland) and the breed practically died out.

noiv 7y ago

Well, humans are part of the environment of dogs - selecting or not.

WhompingWindows 7y ago

It comes down to definition of terms, English words to sub-optimally describe a genetic process... How do you define selective breeding - if humans are selecting for short legs and long torso and small and short hair, over time you will get a Daschund-type shape and look. If selective breeding can include discarding/disliking puppies/young dogs without responsive eyes, then most likely humans did selectively breed dogs for desirable "eye contact" traits. It's quite reasonable given we "chose" dogs for many less physically obvious qualities like temperament, utility, and intelligence. In the end, we are using words to describe genetic processes. The genetics of dogs have changed remarkably both over the last 200k years and over the last 500 years. In my view, it's a combination of natural selection, unconscious selection, and conscious selection of breeding individuals.