131–140 of 264 posts
One thing I've wondered (and I hope this isn't an inflammatory question) is if a breed in dogs is analogous to race in humans? If that's wrong, does the idea of breed have any human equivalent? Does race have any equivalent in dogs?
(It's the most inflammatory of questions!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really a case-by-case basis thing. I grew up with a mutt that I loved dearly. My parents got her because my Dad had read something or other in (I think) Popular Science about how the "dog of the future" would be a mutt, and the mutting of genes would suppress bad recessive traits. Then she got sick as a puppy, had an allergic reaction to her medication, and suffered permanent brain damage. That having been said,…
A mutt could still be the offspring of two pure bred dogs and have inherited genetic problems from both.
Genetics are a lottery, starting with unhealthy parents the odds are against the offspring. It'll take generations for the population as a whole to move towards being healthier on average.
One thing I've wondered (and I hope this isn't an inflammatory question) is if a breed in dogs is analogous to race in humans? If that's wrong, does the idea of breed have any human equivalent? Does race have any equivalent in dogs?
To start categorizing humans in such a manner invites similar detachment, with the hazard of conclusions potentially being applied to people.
There was a great video I saw about how "purebred" dogs are essentially a cesspool of genetic disorders, and how we need to start taking active steps to bring back genetic diversity in our dogs. It was eye opening to see that the pedigrees we put on a pedestal are actually putting our dogs through a host of abnormalities and health complications. https://youtu.be/aCv10_WvGxo
I don't think you can make a blanket statement about whether you can manage to retain breed traits without damning the dogs. If I had to slap down a guess on what is going on. The #1 issue is targeting cosmetic traits that are anatomically not functional. The #2 issue is breeders not prioritizing health over conforming to the breed standard. Pet grade purebreds may not look quite perfect to a discerning eye, but they…
One thing I've wondered (and I hope this isn't an inflammatory question) is if a breed in dogs is analogous to race in humans? If that's wrong, does the idea of breed have any human equivalent? Does race have any equivalent in dogs?
What makes dogs breeds so different is that the dog genome is extremely plastic: it has a lot of room for variation as evidenced by how far pugs have come from wolves, even though theoretically they can still mate and produce fertile offspring.
One thing I've wondered (and I hope this isn't an inflammatory question) is if a breed in dogs is analogous to race in humans? If that's wrong, does the idea of breed have any human equivalent? Does race have any equivalent in dogs?
Seems like a fair question. Dogs seem very versatile. Dogs are apparently like neonatal wolves, can we breed neonatal humans?
There was a great video I saw about how "purebred" dogs are essentially a cesspool of genetic disorders, and how we need to start taking active steps to bring back genetic diversity in our dogs. It was eye opening to see that the pedigrees we put on a pedestal are actually putting our dogs through a host of abnormalities and health complications. https://youtu.be/aCv10_WvGxo
I don't think you can make a blanket statement about whether you can manage to retain breed traits without damning the dogs. If I had to slap down a guess on what is going on. The #1 issue is targeting cosmetic traits that are anatomically not functional. The #2 issue is breeders not prioritizing health over conforming to the breed standard. Pet grade purebreds may not look quite perfect to a discerning eye, but they…
> If you control for #1 and #2 is there still a higher incidence of issues? Probably. Why would reducing diversity be a free lunch?
You just answered your own question. Is it theoretically possible for any species (including humans) to be purebred/inbred while still avoiding the whole host of genetic disorders and health complications? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? Of course not. The video does a pretty good job of showing how so many purebred dogs have worse health compared to their mutt counterparts.
You bring up a good point about eating meat. Most of us are willing to trade off animal welfare/suffering for human pleasure and aesthetics, so why not apply the same principle to dogs. One argument is that most people who adopt dogs do so with the genuine intention to love them and care for their welfare/health. In fact, people get so attached to their dogs that they spend a great deal of money to promote their health, and deeply mourn their suffering/death. Given this, it only makes sense for dog owners to adopt mutts.
One thing I've wondered (and I hope this isn't an inflammatory question) is if a breed in dogs is analogous to race in humans? If that's wrong, does the idea of breed have any human equivalent? Does race have any equivalent in dogs?
Whereas certain breeds of dog are prone to developing certain medical conditions, like hip dysplasia or heart failure, certain ethnicities of human are more likely to develop certain medical conditions, like Tay-Sachs or Sickle Cell Anemia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We aren't apes or monkeys. http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans...
That is a very long-winded and opinionated article just to make the point that "ape" is not a taxonomic term, and it's not used completely consistently. In any case, please don't promote anti-science articles (this one begins by complaining about "those who accept and promote evolution").