Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The emergence and diversification of dog morphology

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: The emergence and diversification of dog morphology

#31

Post by _yb2s »

hunter-gatherer wrote: post #15
_yb2s wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same applies to dogs really

Indeed. A year ago I purchased a working/field line golden retriever from a reputable breeder (pm me if interested) and embarked on training my first gun dog. We've done a few hunting trips this season and I found myself telling my father the other day something along the lines that I don't really care for the _hunting_ so much as I find something primal and natural about the symbiotic relationship that I've formed w…

Just speculation but I imagine there was already symbiosis between humans and wolves long before people treated dogs as pets, livestock, or property. Semi wild dogs eating our food waste will also keep down rat and other pest populations and bark if potentially dangerous strangers suddenly show up. Win win, so no reason for us to drive them off, or for them to leave. I’ve seen this relationship in modern times in small rural muslim communities where people do not interact with the dogs for religious reasons, but are willing to let them live around their homes.

Re: The emergence and diversification of dog morphology

#32

Post by pb_safety_club »

This is a very interesting study, and the authors clearly did very good work. That said, I don't think the main takeaway is as surprising as some of the coverage makes it sound. It's already very well established, both historically and genetically, that modern breeds were created by Victorian-era breeders using the dogs available in local populations. So the idea that the "raw material" (i.e. genetic variants) of 18th–19th century working dogs shaped modern morphology fits neatly with what we already know. For example (drawing from my area of expertise), the bull-and-terrier types that became modern pit bull–type breeds were created by crossing bull-baiting dogs with terriers, and they still reflect traits from both. The value of the paper, to me, isn't in overturning prior understanding but in providing a much more detailed timeline of how and when this diversification happened. It’s a solid contribution, but just maybe not as paradigm-shifting as recent headlines imply.

Re: The emergence and diversification of dog morphology

#33

Post by hunter-gatherer »

_yb2s wrote: post #31
hunter-gatherer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. A year ago I purchased a working/field line golden retriever from a reputable breeder (pm me if interested) and embarked on training my first gun dog. We've done a few hunting trips this season and I found myself telling my father the other day something along the lines that I don't really care for the _hunting_ so much as I find something primal and natural about the symbiotic relationship that I've formed w…

Just speculation but I imagine there was already symbiosis between humans and wolves long before people treated dogs as pets, livestock, or property. Semi wild dogs eating our food waste will also keep down rat and other pest populations and bark if potentially dangerous strangers suddenly show up. Win win, so no reason for us to drive them off, or for them to leave. I’ve seen this relationship in modern times in sma…

I don't contend with your view at all, and agree completely. I've spent lots of time in the Middle East and know exactly what you're speaking of. I actually happened upon this article the other day, whicj I found interesting regarding early symbiosis[1]. I'm not a biologist, so I can't speak to the subject a whole lot.

1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/raccoons-are-show...

Re: The emergence and diversification of dog morphology

#34

Post by IAmBroom »

hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #13
peacebeard wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The genetics of inbreeding are extremely well-understood. Dog pedigrees are well tracked, and there are tools you can use to assist in preventing inbreeding. Irresponsible breeders give responsible breeders a bad name. Some breeders are even focusing on making breeds healthier as their goal.

How many hundreds of thousands of individual unhealthy dogs must be forced to life a life of suffering to make the “breed healthier as a goal” even if that laughable idea is successful? Why not just not breed unhealthy dogs, adopt the many stray dogs that persist and only once we have empty shelters consider breeding healthy breeds? Dogs are beings, not toys or decorations.

You may be suffering downvotes, but your point is worthy. Real dogs are suffering lifelong breathing difficulties, hip pain, and so on, all because of breeding ideals.

Re: The emergence and diversification of dog morphology

#35

Post by IAmBroom »

peacebeard wrote: post #18
hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many hundreds of thousands of individual unhealthy dogs must be forced to life a life of suffering to make the “breed healthier as a goal” even if that laughable idea is successful? Why not just not breed unhealthy dogs, adopt the many stray dogs that persist and only once we have empty shelters consider breeding healthy breeds? Dogs are beings, not toys or decorations.

To answer your question honestly, the reason is because "healthy" isn't a binary. There certainly are dogs that are so unhealthy they should not be bred. But on the other hand, there is no world in which all dogs are 100% healthy: if your goal is to say animals should not be bred unless they are 100% healthy, they'll go extinct! Making progress reduces suffering. Efforts to breed healthier dogs should not be mutually…

You are positing strawmen. GP did not say healthy was binary, nor that we could achieve 100% health in dogs.

And as for accusing: J'accuse. People who buy puppies that can't breathe properly are insensitive jerks.

Re: The emergence and diversification of dog morphology

#36

Post by IAmBroom »

block_dagger wrote: post #28
phito wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean its natural social life? Dogs are not wolves. Their natural social life is being with humans.

> Their natural social life is being with humans. If this were true (which it is not), it would be because we have made it so through generations of forced eugenics and domination.

1. Evidence that it is not?

2. It would still be a fact, no matter how it came to be.

Post reply on HN