Updating our understanding about dogs ...CORRECTLY !!!

[Guest guest]

Belinda writes:

___

Yes, Caron, this is what I was attempting to say. Perhaps I should quote

from someone that is more educated than I. I found this digging through some

of my info. I have lost my links from years ago when I was researching the

differences in dogs and wolves. I too thought they were very different with

different needs. But I was wrong. At that time I searched everything on the

internet that would tell me what El tries to say. I could find nothing that

was credible stating this. Only found this info on websites of people that

thought feeding raw meat and bones to be cruel and dangerous. It gets to be

a very heated discussion on canine food and nutrition boards about feeding a

BARF or similar diet, whether or not dogs are able to eat this way safely.

 

So here it is. A quote from " Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family " by

Robert K. Wayne

 

The Evolution of the Domestic Dog.

 

" A limited mtDNA restriction fragment analysis of seven dog breeds and 26

gray wolf population from different locations around the world has shown the

genotypes of dogs and wolves are either identical or differ by the loss or

gain of only one or two restriction sites, differing at most 0.2% of mtDNA

sequence. Dogs are gray wolves, despite their diversity in size and

proportion, the wide variation in their adult morphology probably results

from simple changes in development. "

 

There are bibliography references in this quote if anyone is interested.

___

 

Well, this explains why this conversation has seemed so " off " to me.

Belinda, you have stated repeatedly there there is NO genetic difference

between wolves and dogs. Now you have provided your source, which states

that there ARE genetic differences affecting about 0.2% of the genetic

sequences.

 

The difference of mtDNA sequences between bonobos and humans is also less

than 1%, yet I have never met anyone who considers humans just another

variant of bonobos!!!

 

The problem here is not in the data, but in the interpretation. Because the

present-day scientific community holds certain beliefs about genetics (and

other matters) to be sacred, the researchers were effectively forced into

this mistaken interpretation of their own data. But you have just clearly

demonstrated two things:

 

1. There ARE verified genetic sequencing differences between wolves and

dogs.

 

2. Even a very tiny distinction in the genetic sequencing is sufficient to

give rise to a new species.

 

QED

 

Elchanan

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Elchanan and all,

 

I wrote to a friend about a couple of the points you brought up about

dogs. I just thought I'd share what she said so there's more food

for thought. Too bad she's not on this list--I'd love to see the two

of you be able to communicate directly. It's gotten too complicated;

I certainly can't debate the specifics of the science. But I do know

my dog likes meat WAY better than vegetables, he used to poop a lot

more (and you could see the undigested carrots) when he ate veggies,

and his chronic yeasty ear problem has resolved since removing

veggies from his diet (even after I'd removed carrots and was feeding

mostly greens).

 

Laurie

 

Here's what Carrie says:

 

I think he is misinformed and gets his info from the same place

veterinarians get it. And let me say that veterinarians are pretty

much the only scientists that think dogs are omnivores. Geneticists,

zoologists, biologists, etc. all recognize the dog as a carnivore.

The reason vets hold to the silly idea that dogs are omnivores is

because there is a multi-billion dollar industry that could not exist

otherwise. That industry does research, supports vet schools, and

conditions vet students to accept the idea that simply doesn't make

sense to anyone that hasn't been brainwashed into it. Has anyone ever

seen a wolf dig up a potato and eat it? No. Do feral dogs eat

whatever they can find including garbage? Yes. So do feral cats.

Nobody argues that cats are omnivores even though they will eat

almost anything rather than starve.

 

With regard to salivary amylase[i, Laurie asked her about amylase,

since I'd heard dogs don't produce it in their saliva], it is true

dogs do not usually produce it, but they are able to at need. Early

researchers (before dogs were fed kibble) found that dogs did not

have amylase in their saliva:

 

THE DIASTATIC ACTIVITY OF RAT SALIVA 1936

BY ESSIE WHITE COHN AND MARGARET HESSLER BROOKES

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/114/1/139.pdf

 

Other researchers found that the type of saliva excreted depended on

whether the dog was fed meat or dry food. Pavlov, for example, fed

different groups of dogs raw meat, milk, or bread. Amylase does not

affect the pH of saliva, though. I would like to see some evidence

that the dog's salivary pH varies more widely than that the of the

human. My understanding is that dog, cat, and human salivary pH

varies throughout the day and depending on when and what is eaten.

Since humans are omnivores and dogs are not, if it is true that dog's

salivary pH varies more widely than humans then this argument does

not support the contention that dogs are omnivores. The fact that

dogs *can* produce salivary amylase but usually does not supports the

fact that they can subsist on non-meat sources at need, i.e. when

prey is not available.

 

Taxonomy: Taxonomists are reclassifying organisms based on new

information all the time. What is old is this person's understanding

of the system. Taxonomists classify species according to structure,

observation of behavior, and, more recently, DNA. While dogs were

first listed as Canis familiaris by Linnaeus in 1758, they were

reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris in 1993 because of the DNA

evidence proving that they are a supspecies of the grey wolf. Since

that time, much more research into canine genetics has been done, and

there is no doubt that dogs ARE wolves. Recent studies show that

there were at least 2 and probably 5 or more separate domestication

events, and that wolves continued to interbreed with dogs

after " domestication " . It is typically human hubris to imagine that

we domesticated the wolf for our own purposes. Based on our present

domination of the planet and most species on it, we imagine that

10,000 years ago our forbears somehow just figured out that it would

be a good idea to have pet wolves. There is no evidence to support

this hypothesis. There is evidence to support the idea that humans

and dogs co-evolved:

 

Morey, Darcy. " The Evolution of the Domestic Dog. " American Scientist

82:336-347. 1994.

 

Taxonomical classification does often leave something to be desired.

Dogs have been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris, but DNA

research shows that different populations of dogs descended from

different populations of wolves is different parts of the world. Some

breeds of dogs are more closely related to some subspecies of wolves

than they are to other breeds of dogs. In short, dogs are wolves as

much as wolves are wolves. They have not had a completely separate

breeding population since " domestication " , and even if they had,

10,000 years is not sufficient time to evolve into omnivores.

Further, it makes no sense to assume that humans, after taking wolves

into their households, would begin feeding them things other than

they had been observed eating in the wild. Indeed, one of the

arguments for coevolution is that humans are the only primate that

hunts cooperatively to bring down big game. Wolves had been doing it

for hundreds of thousands of years. We learned it from them.

 

Burbidge, Maryann Louise. Polyphyletic origins of extinct and extant

domestic dogs. Masters Thesis, University of Victoria, British

Columbia. 1998.

 

Koop, et al. " Ancient DNA Evidence of a Separate Origin for North

American Indigenous Dogs. " Dogs through Time: an archaeological

perspective: proceedings of the 1st ICAZ Sympsium on the History of

the Domestic Dog. (ICAZ98): 271-286. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2000.

 

Now that we have established that dogs are wolves, and not a new

species created by humans, let us examine the feeding behavior and

physiology shared by wild wolves, wild dogs (dingos), and domestic

dogs (since these three groups are all the same species). Carissa, a

zoologist and member of rawfeeding, has already written a well-

supported article on dog anatomy and physiology here:

http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html You might find other helpful

articles written by her on my website, here is the list:

http://rawfed.com/myths/

 

As for feeding behavior, observations of wolves in the wild clearly

demonstrate that when large ungulate prey is available, that is what

wolves eat. When large ungulate prey is not available, smaller prey

is taken, and when prey cannot be found or caught, only then will

wolves resort to eating non-animal foods. As will any creature--

hungry herbivores will eat steak rather than starve--that doesn't

make them omnivores.

 

I can provide supporting evidence for wolf behavior and eating habits

if you like, but those are rather easier to find than the DNA stuff

which is only slowly trickling into the public domain. Few people

read PhD theses that don't have to! I do have a bibliography of wolf

articles if needed.

[Guest guest]

Oh Laurie,

Bless your heart for this info. A HUGE Thank You.

(I will now begin collecting the info on wolves and dogs and keeping

it this time, for reference)

 

Belinda

 

 

 

> Hi Elchanan and all,

>

> I wrote to a friend about a couple of the points you brought up

about

> dogs. I just thought I'd share what she said so there's more food

> for thought. Too bad she's not on this list--I'd love to see the

two

> of you be able to communicate directly. It's gotten too

complicated;

> I certainly can't debate the specifics of the science. But I do

know

> my dog likes meat WAY better than vegetables, he used to poop a lot

> more (and you could see the undigested carrots) when he ate

veggies,

> and his chronic yeasty ear problem has resolved since removing

> veggies from his diet (even after I'd removed carrots and was

feeding

> mostly greens).

>

> Laurie

>

> Here's what Carrie says:

>

> I think he is misinformed and gets his info from the same place

> veterinarians get it. And let me say that veterinarians are pretty

> much the only scientists that think dogs are omnivores.

Geneticists,

> zoologists, biologists, etc. all recognize the dog as a carnivore.

> The reason vets hold to the silly idea that dogs are omnivores is

> because there is a multi-billion dollar industry that could not

exist

> otherwise. That industry does research, supports vet schools, and

> conditions vet students to accept the idea that simply doesn't make

> sense to anyone that hasn't been brainwashed into it. Has anyone

ever

> seen a wolf dig up a potato and eat it? No. Do feral dogs eat

> whatever they can find including garbage? Yes. So do feral cats.

> Nobody argues that cats are omnivores even though they will eat

> almost anything rather than starve.

>

> With regard to salivary amylase[i, Laurie asked her about amylase,

> since I'd heard dogs don't produce it in their saliva], it is true

> dogs do not usually produce it, but they are able to at need. Early

> researchers (before dogs were fed kibble) found that dogs did not

> have amylase in their saliva:

>

> THE DIASTATIC ACTIVITY OF RAT SALIVA 1936

> BY ESSIE WHITE COHN AND MARGARET HESSLER BROOKES

> http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/114/1/139.pdf

>

> Other researchers found that the type of saliva excreted depended

on

> whether the dog was fed meat or dry food. Pavlov, for example, fed

> different groups of dogs raw meat, milk, or bread. Amylase does not

> affect the pH of saliva, though. I would like to see some evidence

> that the dog's salivary pH varies more widely than that the of the

> human. My understanding is that dog, cat, and human salivary pH

> varies throughout the day and depending on when and what is eaten.

> Since humans are omnivores and dogs are not, if it is true that

dog's

> salivary pH varies more widely than humans then this argument does

> not support the contention that dogs are omnivores. The fact that

> dogs *can* produce salivary amylase but usually does not supports

the

> fact that they can subsist on non-meat sources at need, i.e. when

> prey is not available.

>

> Taxonomy: Taxonomists are reclassifying organisms based on new

> information all the time. What is old is this person's

understanding

> of the system. Taxonomists classify species according to structure,

> observation of behavior, and, more recently, DNA. While dogs were

> first listed as Canis familiaris by Linnaeus in 1758, they were

> reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris in 1993 because of the DNA

> evidence proving that they are a supspecies of the grey wolf. Since

> that time, much more research into canine genetics has been done,

and

> there is no doubt that dogs ARE wolves. Recent studies show that

> there were at least 2 and probably 5 or more separate domestication

> events, and that wolves continued to interbreed with dogs

> after " domestication " . It is typically human hubris to imagine that

> we domesticated the wolf for our own purposes. Based on our present

> domination of the planet and most species on it, we imagine that

> 10,000 years ago our forbears somehow just figured out that it

would

> be a good idea to have pet wolves. There is no evidence to support

> this hypothesis. There is evidence to support the idea that humans

> and dogs co-evolved:

>

> Morey, Darcy. " The Evolution of the Domestic Dog. " American

Scientist

> 82:336-347. 1994.

>

> Taxonomical classification does often leave something to be

desired.

> Dogs have been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris, but DNA

> research shows that different populations of dogs descended from

> different populations of wolves is different parts of the world.

Some

> breeds of dogs are more closely related to some subspecies of

wolves

> than they are to other breeds of dogs. In short, dogs are wolves as

> much as wolves are wolves. They have not had a completely separate

> breeding population since " domestication " , and even if they had,

> 10,000 years is not sufficient time to evolve into omnivores.

> Further, it makes no sense to assume that humans, after taking

wolves

> into their households, would begin feeding them things other than

> they had been observed eating in the wild. Indeed, one of the

> arguments for coevolution is that humans are the only primate that

> hunts cooperatively to bring down big game. Wolves had been doing

it

> for hundreds of thousands of years. We learned it from them.

>

> Burbidge, Maryann Louise. Polyphyletic origins of extinct and

extant

> domestic dogs. Masters Thesis, University of Victoria, British

> Columbia. 1998.

>

> Koop, et al. " Ancient DNA Evidence of a Separate Origin for North

> American Indigenous Dogs. " Dogs through Time: an archaeological

> perspective: proceedings of the 1st ICAZ Sympsium on the History of

> the Domestic Dog. (ICAZ98): 271-286. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2000.

>

> Now that we have established that dogs are wolves, and not a new

> species created by humans, let us examine the feeding behavior and

> physiology shared by wild wolves, wild dogs (dingos), and domestic

> dogs (since these three groups are all the same species). Carissa,

a

> zoologist and member of rawfeeding, has already written a well-

> supported article on dog anatomy and physiology here:

> http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html You might find other helpful

> articles written by her on my website, here is the list:

> http://rawfed.com/myths/

>

> As for feeding behavior, observations of wolves in the wild clearly

> demonstrate that when large ungulate prey is available, that is

what

> wolves eat. When large ungulate prey is not available, smaller prey

> is taken, and when prey cannot be found or caught, only then will

> wolves resort to eating non-animal foods. As will any creature--

> hungry herbivores will eat steak rather than starve--that doesn't

> make them omnivores.

>

> I can provide supporting evidence for wolf behavior and eating

habits

> if you like, but those are rather easier to find than the DNA stuff

> which is only slowly trickling into the public domain. Few people

> read PhD theses that don't have to! I do have a bibliography of

wolf

> articles if needed.

>

[Guest guest]

Read my post again, please.

The differences vary. Sometimes more, sometimes less and sometimes

not at all. Sometimes the mtDNA is identical between the wolf and

dog. Even with this evidence of a slight difference at times, it is

still determined by scientist that the gray wolf and the dog are

genetically, the same.

 

The professor that wrote this is a professor in the Dept. of

Organismic Biology, Ecology, and Evolution at the University of

California. He has authored more tha 80 peer-reviewed publications

and has a whole host of other creditentials.

 

He says the dogs and wolves are the same. So who are we to believe

on this topic. Elchanan or the Robert K. Wayne, Phd. and all the

other scientist that state the same. Dogs are gray wolves.

 

Elchanan, this is not like our other debates on this board that is a

matter of what we believe or what we think or feel.

This is scientific evidence. It not a matter of opinion. It is what

it is until science comes up with something prooving different.

 

Belinda

 

 

 

 

> genotypes of dogs and wolves are either identical or differ by the

loss or

> gain of only one or two restriction sites, differing at most 0.2%

of mtDNA

> sequence. Dogs are gray wolves, despite their diversity in size and

> proportion, the wide variation in their adult morphology probably

results

> from simple changes in development. "

 

 

 

> Well, this explains why this conversation has seemed so " off " to me.

> Belinda, you have stated repeatedly there there is NO genetic

difference

> between wolves and dogs. Now you have provided your source, which

states

> that there ARE genetic differences affecting about 0.2% of the

genetic

> sequences.

>

> The difference of mtDNA sequences between bonobos and humans is

also less

> than 1%, yet I have never met anyone who considers humans just

another

> variant of bonobos!!!

 

 

Big deal, bonobos and humans cannot mate and produce offspring.

 

 

 

> The problem here is not in the data, but in the interpretation.

Because the

> present-day scientific community holds certain beliefs about

genetics (and

> other matters) to be sacred, the researchers were effectively

forced into

> this mistaken interpretation of their own data. But you have just

clearly

> demonstrated two things:

>

> 1. There ARE verified genetic sequencing differences between wolves

and

> dogs.

>

> 2. Even a very tiny distinction in the genetic sequencing is

sufficient to

> give rise to a new species.

 

 

>

> Elchanan

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi RFers,

 

The debate about the safety of feeding a dog raw meaty bones is akin

to questioning whether raw vegans get enough protein or vitamins.

These are the least of raw vegan concerns who follow a 80/10/10 diet.

I'd venture to say that 99% of humans are not eating a species

appropriate diet, or rather, food our bodies are designed to digest

and assimilate with the least amount of wear and tear.

 

Belinda wrote: " At that time I searched everything on the internet

that would tell me what El tries to say. I could find nothing that

was credible stating this. "

 

What statement that Elchanan posted are you referring to, Belinda?

Also, my experience has been that " credible " sources of information

are likely the opposite, especially when their bottom line is

concerned. Think of the FDA, for instance. Many, many people consider

that corrupt agency to be " credible " .

 

Janet

 

rawfood , " Belinda " <MistyBlueTN wrote:

 

Yes, Caron, this is what I was attempting to say.

Perhaps I should quote from someone that is more educated than I.

I found this digging through some of my info. I have lost my links

from years ago when I was researching the differences in dogs and

wolves. I too thought they were very different with different needs.

But I was wrong. At that time I searched everything on the internet

that would tell me what El tries to say. I could find nothing that

was credible stating this. Only found this info on websites of people

that thought feeding raw meat and bones to be cruel and dangerous. It

gets to be a very heated discussion on canine food and nutrition

boards about feeding a BARF or similar diet, whether or not dogs are

able to eat this way safely.

 

So here it is. A quote from " Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family "

by Rober K. Wayne The Evolution of the Domestic Dog.

 

" A limited mtDNA restriction fragment analysis of seven dog breeds and

26 gray wolf population from different locations around the world has

shown the genotypes of dogs and wolves are either identical or differ

by the loss or gain of only one or two restriction sites, differing at

most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence. Dogs are gray wolves, despite their

diversity in size and proportion, the wide variation in their adult

morphology probably results from simple changes in developement. "

 

There are bibliography references in this quote if anyone is interested.

 

There are also tons more articles, publications, on the web that say

pretty much the same thing.

Encylopedias also agree with this.

 

Both dog people and wolf, wolf/dog folks would love for their to be a

scientific way to tell the differences in not only wolves and dogs,

but between breeds.

 

And maybe, one day there will be. Science is an ever changing thing.

 

Belinda Belinda wrote:

There is no way(at this time) to genetically tell the difference in a

dog and a wolf OR to tell how much wolf or dog is in a wolf/dog cross.

 

Without the genetic testing they cannot tell.

 

With all due respect, did you not just contradict yourself, Belinda?

I mean to only clarify.

 

Janet, I think Belinda is saying they currently cannot tell the

difference, as there is not genetic test for it (or not a conclusive

one showing differences, at least). There is an implication that

-with- genetic testing they could discern between the two, but

currently they cannot as the test isn't capable of it. Or am I

talking (and reading) round in circles?

 

Caron

[Guest guest]

FYI, more from Carrie:

 

(This shows a) lack of an understanding of the difference between DNA

and mtDNA. Humans and chimps share 98% of DNA. Dogs and wolves share

100% of their DNA.

 

In Wayne's limited sample, there was *up to* a 0.2% difference in

mtDNA, no difference in DNA. There was no difference in mtDNA between

some samples. And much more work has been done since that was

published.

 

So, if one accepts the idea of using mtDNA as an evolutionary clock,

humans diverged from the other great apes several million years ago.

Some, but not all, dogs diverged from the wolf several thousand years

ago. There has not been sufficient time for speciation to occur, and

indeed, dogs and wolves produce viable offspring.

 

 

rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote:

 

Well, this explains why this conversation has seemed so " off " to me.

Belinda, you have stated repeatedly there there is NO genetic

difference

between wolves and dogs. Now you have provided your source, which

states

that there ARE genetic differences affecting about 0.2% of the genetic

sequences.

 

The difference of mtDNA sequences between bonobos and humans is also

less

than 1%, yet I have never met anyone who considers humans just another

variant of bonobos!!!

[Guest guest]

I was referring to the debate on dogs are wolves and wolves are dogs.

 

Creditable, in this case would be scientific evidence and

documentation of the topic of conversation.

 

Perhaps creditable would be a poor choice of words. Because

creditable could be seen as a matter of opinion.

 

Belinda

 

> Hi RFers,

>

> The debate about the safety of feeding a dog raw meaty bones is akin

> to questioning whether raw vegans get enough protein or vitamins.

> These are the least of raw vegan concerns who follow a 80/10/10

diet.

> I'd venture to say that 99% of humans are not eating a species

> appropriate diet, or rather, food our bodies are designed to digest

> and assimilate with the least amount of wear and tear.

>

> Belinda wrote: " At that time I searched everything on the internet

> that would tell me what El tries to say. I could find nothing that

> was credible stating this. "

>

> What statement that Elchanan posted are you referring to, Belinda?

> Also, my experience has been that " credible " sources of information

> are likely the opposite, especially when their bottom line is

> concerned. Think of the FDA, for instance. Many, many people

consider

> that corrupt agency to be " credible " .

>

> Janet

>

> rawfood , " Belinda " <MistyBlueTN@> wrote:

>

> Yes, Caron, this is what I was attempting to say.

> Perhaps I should quote from someone that is more educated than I.

> I found this digging through some of my info. I have lost my links

> from years ago when I was researching the differences in dogs and

> wolves. I too thought they were very different with different

needs.

> But I was wrong. At that time I searched everything on the internet

> that would tell me what El tries to say. I could find nothing that

> was credible stating this. Only found this info on websites of

people

> that thought feeding raw meat and bones to be cruel and dangerous.

It

> gets to be a very heated discussion on canine food and nutrition

> boards about feeding a BARF or similar diet, whether or not dogs are

> able to eat this way safely.

>

> So here it is. A quote from " Molecular Evolution of the Dog

Family "

> by Rober K. Wayne The Evolution of the Domestic Dog.

>

> " A limited mtDNA restriction fragment analysis of seven dog breeds

and

> 26 gray wolf population from different locations around the world

has

> shown the genotypes of dogs and wolves are either identical or

differ

> by the loss or gain of only one or two restriction sites, differing

at

> most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence. Dogs are gray wolves, despite their

> diversity in size and proportion, the wide variation in their adult

> morphology probably results from simple changes in developement. "

>

> There are bibliography references in this quote if anyone is

interested.

>

> There are also tons more articles, publications, on the web that say

> pretty much the same thing.

> Encylopedias also agree with this.

>

> Both dog people and wolf, wolf/dog folks would love for their to be

a

> scientific way to tell the differences in not only wolves and dogs,

> but between breeds.

>

> And maybe, one day there will be. Science is an ever changing

thing.

>

> Belinda Belinda wrote:

> There is no way(at this time) to genetically tell the difference in

a

> dog and a wolf OR to tell how much wolf or dog is in a wolf/dog

cross.

>

> Without the genetic testing they cannot tell.

>

> With all due respect, did you not just contradict yourself, Belinda?

> I mean to only clarify.

>

> Janet, I think Belinda is saying they currently cannot tell the

> difference, as there is not genetic test for it (or not a conclusive

> one showing differences, at least). There is an implication that

> -with- genetic testing they could discern between the two, but

> currently they cannot as the test isn't capable of it. Or am I

> talking (and reading) round in circles?

>

> Caron

>

[Guest guest]

On Thursday 28 June 2007 18:25, Laurie Swanson wrote:

> [Raw Food] Re: Updating our understanding about dogs ...CORRECTLY !!!

> (Laurie Swanson, Thu Jun 28 18:25:52 2007)

 

Thankyou so much for posting this Laurie and please thank your friend too. Her

objectivity communicates well as do her understanding of both animal and

human behaviour.

 

neal.