How alike are domestic dogs to humans

[Carrie]

Do we need to strive hard to communicate to our dogs in "dog" language? Or can they understand our body language, gestures, posturing and other of our forms of communication? Science says they can much better than was ever thought. Or should we utilize both? Are dogs and we living in an unnatural situation since they're really animals, probably descended from wolves? Or have they been domesticated long enough that they and we have evolved together to the point where our life with them, in our homes IS the natural thing?

Dogs have been bred, naturally and artificially selected to suit humans' needs. Some of those traits in the dogs which perpetuated were more tameable dogs, more cooperative, dogs which could bond better with humans than others and dogs especially skilled at certain tasks.

I believe that not only humans had a strong influence on changes made to dogs from their ancestors, but that dogs too, influenced our own evolution. They made it easier for us to hunt, for one thing. They made it safer for us as they warned us of foes. In the beginning, I'm quite sure they were used for food and we probably were used by them for food. Did we invite wolves or dogs to our camps? Or did they invite themselves? Either way, an incredible and unique bond was formed and many evolutionary changes occured.

How we communicate and treat our dogs now and in years to come will undoubtedly cause more changes in their physical as well as behavioral make-up. Pysical and behavioral changes seem to happen simutaneously over time.

If we put pressure on them to bend even more to our life style ways, our communication ways, will they change into something different even than what we have now......assuming, though, that there is some sort of limit in their cognitive abilities, although to some degree, that could change too, I would think. And there are probably other factors that would remain fairly static.

My opinion is that we should understand what dogs are trying to tell us by being familiar with some of their most basic or obvious body language, signals, gestures, how they probably perceive things etc. But even biologists have a very difficult time discerning the many assertained, subtle communication signs dogs have. Do dogs recognize those signs from us when we attempt to mimick them? I think to some degree and with some signs, they do, but I don't think we can mimick dogs closely enough to enough of a degree to be wholey effective, to rely on that as a sole means of communication. I think some of the posturing people attempt...to resemble what a dog does may be misinterpreted by a dog, since we stand upright and simply are not dogs. Not only that, but it is conventional to attempt to mimick wolves and dogs have considerable behavioral differences from wolves, although their DNA is very close.

But, what about dogs understanding human body language, gestures, postures etc? They've been around us for an awful long time. (14,000 to 140,000 years..depending on mitochondrial evidence or archeological evidence) Surely, they've learned some of our body language and other ways of communication too. I believe that not only environmental influences cause them to understand a lot of what we do, but I think it's in their genetic make-up by now and they're born, designed and hardwired to understand some of our ways of communicating even without special training. (Of course they don't come understanding how to not go to the restroom in our homes or how not to nip and jump up on us) They have to be taught to live in a "civilized" fashion with us. I'm talking about more subtle gestures, facial expressions, eye contact etc.

So, my idea is that we should incorporate a little of both; we trying to understand what they're trying to tell us and we should expect (but not blindly) that they understand some of our ways. And much of what they don't understand, we can teach them while they teach us. Obviously, they're very capable of learning to live in our world our way.

Will putting pressure on them....just a little bit by little bit cause more evolutionary changes which would make them even more like us or have a bigger understanding of us? Judging from the history of our close relationship with domestic dog, I would say, "yes."

[Raised By Wolves]

Even if humans could make dogs more like us, I wouldn't necessarily want to create it.

I love the fact that dogs are dogs. I love the fact that they connect us to nature...and maybe even give us back something we've lost. I have no desire to turn them into people.

No debate from me, really. It's like discussing cloning and genetic manipulation. Just because we could, doesn't mean we should.

I embrace the differences and the different perspectives they bring.

I enjoy being pulled back into a more pure and primal state when I am exploring with my dog and trying to understand HER language. This is the mystery and the thrill for me. It's like having an alien in my house, who is a distant relitive, too.

I know, I'm being sentimental and "cosmic" here. But, the debate for me is "should we".

You always get me thinking, Carrie.

PS After all of our years of manipulation, it doesn't take domestic dogs many generations to revert back to a more primal form once we are out of the picture. And, able to function apart from man as they were originally designed by nature, just fine.

[Carrie]

I wouldn't want to turn them into people. I like dogs better than people. In fact, I love dogs.

This is meant to be about the domestication process, the evolution and how things have changed over tens of thousands of years.

No debate from me, really. It's like discussing cloning and genetic manipulation. Just because we could, doesn't mean we should.

They already have changed by natural selection and later by artificial selection, not cloning. Personally, I'd rather live with a dog than a wild wolf. And I don't think a wild wolf would much care for hanging out in my livingroom and doing all the other crazy things we do with dogs.

I also firmly believe that dogs are not wild animals and that the way they live with humans, in our homes is what is natural to them because of having been living this way for so very long....they've been domesticated longer than any other animal. The difference between a domestic animal (or plant) and a wild one is that the offspring, when first born do not act like the wild counterpart, but like the domestic parents. It is not the same as taming a wild animal. They're born like this, it's in their genes.

I too revel in being in touch in some small way with their primal instincts which are part of how and why we get along with them. You are not unique in that way. There is an intrinsic attraction in that way, I believe with humans and dogs or else we wouldn't share this bond and they wouldn't have become domestic. I also enjoy seeing them bond with us in the way only a dog can because of his ability to be in touch with our specie. It just wouldn't be the same with a wild animal. There is a very unique relationship between humans and dogs....that just doesn't exist in the same way with any other animal. And there's a reason for that.

I'm fascinated and am constantly reading and searching for research in the science of behavior and the science of genetics in the way of evolution and domestication, how, why, what, when and where they understand us...to what degree, when did it start to happen, what makes it happen. And what about us? The history....etc.

After all of our years of manipulation, it doesn't take domestic dogs many generations to revert back to a more primal form once we are out of the picture. And, able to function apart from man as they were originally designed by nature, just fine.

I am not sure what you mean by original. Domestic dogs were originally domestic dogs. They most probably descended from wolves which were wild animals. If wolves is what you mean, then yes, that would be original. But it's a different animal.

As far as their doing just fine in the wild, at least in the near future, that I would have some reservations or questons about. But it's late, so I'll think about that tomorrow. LOL.

[linnie]

Carrie I do believe that the more we have dogs the more they respond and re-act to us and yes we also can learn from them.

Dr Hugh Worth(less) the rspca leader in Australia said recently that the dogs role has changed and not necessarily for the better.
He talked of a time when dogs were on the fringe of the family and had to fit in with that family, basically outside and fed scraps and treated as an unimportant part of a family to be dispensed of if one felt like it.
How people these days have made dogs take take on the role of children, fullfilling needs in todays society.

My personal opinion for what its worth is..... People could learn a hell of a lot from animals.
And I am more than happy to have my Bella as an important and vital part of my life.

[Carrie]

Dr Hugh Worth(less) the rspca leader in Australia said recently that the dogs role has changed and not necessarily for the better.
He talked of a time when dogs were on the fringe of the family and had to fit in with that family, basically outside and fed scraps and treated as an unimportant part of a family to be dispensed of if one felt like it.

Worthless is right. If he thinks being on the fringes of our lives and being kept outside is for the better, I have to disagree with that one. LOL.

I think humans have done so much with dogs to make them live healthier and better lives over all. Sure there's abuse and mistreatment, mishandling, but in general, dogs fit well into our homes.

The way they are now wouldn't be better for them if they were dumped out into the wild to survive. I think that some breeds would fare better than others, but when dogs are turned out, they go feral first, not wild in the true sense and they become an eccologically intrusive and damaging factor; they can interbreed with wolves, although fairly rare and with their defects (as once domestic) interfer/dilute with the wolves or wild dogs' genetic suitability for the wild. They also become a nuisance to farmers and ranchers, preying on their lifestock and are shot. Feral dogs depend, in part on humans still. They get into garbage, hang around on the outskirts of towns, so they're not all exactly living in a wild state.

Domestic dogs have inherently...genetic mutations which have occured over thousands of years.... which do not allow them to easily make it in the wild. For one, their intelligence (brain size) is substantially less than a wolf. Their predatory skills are not as good, they're not as fast, (not having long back legs like wolves) their other senses are not as keen.... etc. Genetically, they are not as well adapted to survive in the wild.

Competition with other wild animals makes it difficult as they have much keener instincts of survival than domestic dogs. Then there are the eliments to which many of our breeds are ill equipped. Now this is
very general. I believe there are some breeds which would make it better than others. And of course, the ones that would survive would pass on those genes which would in turn cause the next gererations to be stronger and better adapted. But, I think it would take more than just a few generations for dogs to revert and evolve to a healthy, naturally wild state.

I could be wrong. There is evidence to support the idea that some of these evolutionary changes happen much quicker than was once thought. It would be interesting to investigate this idea of reverse evolution further.

However, again....the way they were intended was not to be wild IMO. They were intended to bond with humans and be domestic. Wolves were intended to be wild and should be left alone and not bred with domestic dogs. It ruins wolves. But domestic dogs belong with humans or we wouldn't have developed this synergistic relationship with them so very long ago.

If this had just recently begun to happen, say, in the last hundred years.... that there were no domestic dogs, that some wolves were becoming tamer and adusting and bonding to humans, I might say that they are meant to be left in the wild. But because of tens of thousands, (maybe more) of years of domestication, I can no longer say that. I can confidently say that living in our living rooms with us is their natural state at this point....every bit as natural as a wolf living in the woods without us.

I sure wouldn't like to see domestic dogs evolve back into wild ones.

As an aside, I saw what looked to be a Pit mix standing on the side of this little hwy. in the dead of winter. He was all bones, wounded, limping and I got out of my car to see if he was trusting and would come get in my car so I could take him to the vet. He was not trusting and backed away and into the woods. This dog, it seemed must have been dumped or lost. And I knew without a doubt that he wasn't long for this world. He sure wasn't making it in the wilderness. So sad.

[linnie]

Domestic dogs are spoken of in the bible right back to pre christian days. I agree with you they were never meant to be wild but were designed as companions.
Wolves and dingo's are and always have been wild animals so they survive adequately but dogs need man to truly flourish

That poor dog you saw, makes you want to rip your hair out with frustration, again I say it often but I have to say it again...
I hate humans who lack compassion and kindness toward the animal kingdom

[Carrie]

That's interesting Linnie. Of course, domestic dogs were around long before Christianity but it's really something how important they were in so many walks of life with man.

Yes, that episode with that dog really upset me for quite some time afterward...still does when I think about him. Such a darn shame.

I think I must clarify: When I say that I think that dogs were meant to be with people, I mean they got to be that way. I don't know that they were pre-destined to be with people. Maybe. But what I mean is that wolves came around people, more docile ones thrived and cooperated with early man and from there it went, passing those genes on and on, the ones who were the most docile thrived. After changes which continued over thousands and thousands of years, all the while they were living with humans....during this time and into the present is the reference or frame where I get my opinion that they are meant to be with humans, that it has become THE nature of them.

I believe that evolution of dogs and man happened together and in part, because of eachother...cooperating. Man may have survived better because of living with dogs or wolves. They may have eaten differently and better.

I believe that on account of the very close living arrangements and bonding relationships with dogs all this time has created an animal which can indeed understand a good deal more about our body language, intonations, gestures than other domestic animals, which of course weren't domesticated until after dogs already had a good start.

Of course, in the past, I don't think dogs have been treated the way our modern society treats dogs. They were workers but they still shared the food and fireplace as a general thing, I'm guessing. But again....cooperation was the deal. Dogs worked for man and man gave food to the dogs.

With understanding dogs and our interactions with them, I think it is very imporatant to understand their ancestors' ways without us, to learn what the primal signals, instincts and communications are that we can recognize in our dogs. But, we should keep it uppermost in our minds how they came to be, how man and dog evolved together and had a synergistic relationship with eachother. To understand our dogs, I think it's important to understand them as they are and have been for tens of thousands of years and that is.....that they were with man as a domestic (not just tame) animal. As domestic dogs, they have always been with man. It has shaped them into what they are and it's in their genes. They're born with certain understandings of humans as far as associations they make automatically... better than a wolf pup raised by humans from 2 or 3 weeks of age, even better than a chimpanzee, who is suppose to be our closest relative.

I think there's more than meets the eye with these wonderful creatures. What a gift.

[D.Schäferhund]

Hello
How much are we alike?

For once we both like to play till old age, most speciece don't they quit playing, atleast to a certain degree...
Other speciece do not play that extreme to an high age.
dogs don't grow up to be pure predetors like wolves do, they kinda stay adolecent wolves, same with humans, they play all their live, eventhough it is not for life training anymore.

humans don't use all their brain, do dogs?
humans can adapt with the brain use they ahve to a wide varitey of things, they also can stay retarded, if not stimulated enough. same with dogs, what humans and dogs get and will be depends really on the invironment.
Dogs and humans are not specialized to a certain habitat, like humans their senses and abilities, are in a middlefield wich gives them a broad range of flexibility, wich makes them able to live almost everywere. of course some do better in certain areas then others. but in genreal the ability to adapt is very great.

intelligence to a certain degree is born but to a big field it is trained.
take that kid that grew up with dogs, probably came out of a somewhat "normal" family, bushpeople whos kids were brought into "civilized" homes adapted just fine with the things given by birth.

so how much did we and how much did the dogs really change, or do we just use different areas of the rbain more, to we learn different things because they are there, not because we changed, but because of what our invironment is?!?!

Our Genes are the same , still over all them million thousand years. but our abilities change, if knowledge gets passed on to the next genration, isolate dogs and isolate humans in a invironment without all that stuff we have now, we both will find back in a very short timeframe to a wild us, because our instincts are still there....
not that far away than some people like to think....

humas, well parts of them lost the ability to take the time to learn from their invironment, but still some do and the abilities are still there. regardless if they are used for that or not.

Regardless of these facts, i belive dogs and humans started out as wolves and humans getting in a symbiosis.
both speciece are profiting from eachother, wich of course gives one and the other a certain degree of "understanding" for each other...

[flyndog]

This links to the NY Times article about the genetics of tameness. In the article is a link to Cornell's movies of tame and aggressive foxes (bred from Belyaev's experiment) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/he...ewanted=1&_r=1

[Carrie]

Thanks for sharing that Kit. It's very interesting and a little twist on the article I posted somewhere about the fox experiment. Or maybe I didn't post it, but talked about it. LOL. I forget already. (It's a good thing I didn't have too many kids or my forgetful genes would be a real detriment to future generations and who know what could evolve from there? Scary thought.)

It is interesting that with the breeding for docility as the only goal, other physical manifestations occured, including biochemical differences, such as a higher seretonin level. So, that makes me think that this breeding for tameness caused changes, (of course) in the brain, which in turn were the very causes for the physical changes....the retention of juvenile characteristics and the retention of more youthful behavior as opposed to adult wolves or foxes or most any animal, even many other domestic animals. (paedomorphism) And what's especially interesting to me is how very few animals share this phenomenon. But here we humans are.... thought to be paedomophs of primates and dogs are of wolves. And here we are, our own evolution influenced by dogs and theirs by us. What a unique relationship!

I do find all this science of the evolution of domestication fascinating and it really influences in part how I feel about dogs and how we interact with them. They are definitely not wolves behaviorally and especially where it concerns their interactions with, and their understanding of us...very different, yet they are social animals and IMO retain some of those ancestoral instincts and behaviors. But to base an entire training philosophy and an entire relationship on wolf -like or wild dog-like behavior is a big mistake...IMO. They... with us are quite different.

Kit, I'd love to read what your thoughts are about all this. I like reading everyones' thoughts or ideas.

Thanks again for posting that link.

[D.Schäferhund]

Oh i wish you could purchase some of the German books, and read them...
I know of that experiment with the foxes....
I loiked up a book from Konrad Lorenz you should read, of course we know a bit more by now about that but this book should be read, it is a awsome classik:
"Man meets dog" from Konrad Lorenz
It really is a must read!

a nother good one wich is availlable in english(but not his best book)
is "Your dog and You" from eberhard Trumler.
He wrote some awsome books and this is one you should read, too.
He has written more books, awsome books with foundation knowledge, haven't found them in english, yet but maybe some of you can read german. he has several books out there.
He is criticly thinking has some asome foundation in it, has the ability to revise and correct himself in what he wrote.
I admire his work and his books give you plenny things to think about, and combind knowledge, that really makes you think.
ohI wish you could read them.....
i agree in so many ways with the things he writes.....
Ziemen, a man who lived with wolves, wrote some awsome books, too but i can't find them in english, maybe i haven't looked good enough because I think PatriciaOConnell, mentioned him in her book, "on the other end of the leash"

I was looking through these books, trying to find a passage I could translate to give you an idea but man there is so much and when I want to write one i want to write all....
so if you can have a look and see if you can get your hands on one of these books, it really is worth it....

[flyndog]

I have "Man Meets Dog". Lorenz' books are common in English. But, "You and Your Dog" is rare in English (I want it) and I don't think any of his other books are translated. Are they?

Carrie, some researchers, Coppinger for example, don't believe that dogs came from tamed wolves but that wolves tamed themselves. When human societies became agrarian and people began to settle, wolves that were less shy ("tamer") were the ones who benefited from all the wonderful human refuse around the settlement - food, garbage, bodies, excrement. The very act of creating refuse selected for those individual wolves that were less shy of people. Maybe some humans kept wolf puppies, but that isn't what led to domestication. It is populations that evolve, not individuals. And there has to be an isolation of the population. In "Evolution of Working Dogs", Coppinger says,
"Meggit's (1965) observations suggest a model for the domestication process. Australian aboriginal people collected dingo pups from dens and although these animals were eaten only in times of distress, they were fostered and allowed to scavenge around the settlement. After 2 years these dingoes would become sexually active and return to the wild to breed. If pups collected for village life have a better survival rate than their siblings left in the wild, then a number of selective forces could be postulated. Females that made dens and whelped near villages where their pups could be found would have a higher likelihood of reproductive success than more secretive nesters. In canids with a long maturatoin period, growth nd delveopment are limited by the provisioning capacity of the mother (Macdonald & Moehlman, 1983). Wolves and African hunting dogs solved the pup feeding problem with packing behavior, in coyotes the male helps, and jackal pairs are assisted by the 'maiden aunt.' The tremendous success of the domestic dog is based on its abilty to get people to raise its pups. The advantage to people for this service is food and fur and of course the clean-up function... The advent of village life and its changes on the immediate environment created enough differential mortality for adaptation to transform the wild wolf into a tame village dog."

He goes on to say that the genetic "tape" we are looking for is not found in the wolf. By the time people began selecting for working breeds, a greatly modified wolf tape had already evolved into the small-headed, small-brained, small-toothed, tameable, trainable village pet.

So, maybe we domesticated each other. And that's what makes us "best friends".

I dunno.