by cantleave 227 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Yes but what has that got to do with anything specific that is under discussion?
The ability to read the genetic code makes our knowledge of evolution far more secure than when we were relying on fossils, comparative anatomy and bio-geography for example.
The amazing thing is that genetics is confirming the patterns of relationships that evolution previously predicted.
One day some humans baked some bread
On some fire so they said
a wolf stopped by and licked a log
and then he turned into a dog
the grains were better than the meat
besides it made him very sweet
it all began just like a flash
when humans started eating grass
Please keep wibble off science threads.
Let’s start over, I'll try again.
The study claims they tested 12 wolves and found none of them had the gene/genes that help in digesting starch. It doesn’t tell us much about these wolves, and there are a few different types, gray wolf being most common, I believe. They also claim to have tested 60 dogs all of whom had the gene/genes. Well, there are over 500 hundred different breeds (over 150 AKC), though some not as common as others.
That’s only 12 out of how many of all the wolfs worldwide over some 10,000 years. I can’t help but, wonder if that gene sequence is or has been (many times) present, somewhere in the wolf population over that period of time. I also have to wonder if by manipulating the diets of dogs (feeding them like wolves maybe) that gene sequence could be reversed, if that hasn’t happened or if there are some breeds in whom it was never present.
Wolf man said his English was limited and I think he may have made a good point. I don’t want to speak for him, but I understood him differently than some other posters. I think they jumped to conclusions, not really supported, without enough facts given the adaptability of canines. In short their numbers are way to small to support their claims.
There have also been Coyote crosses (in the wild) to consider, that could play a factor, were they?
As I stated at the beginning of the thread the orginal paper was published in nature, I have not read the paper just various summarys and blogs.
DD the answers you are looking for maybe in the original paper. The supplemantary information is published here...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature11837-s1.pdf
So DD you think that a team of geneticists made a beginners mistake by not sampling enough breeds of dog do you?
They published a paper about it and none of the best geneticists in the world noticed this fundamental error but - you did!
Please have a read at this other paper by the same author as the paper referred to in the OP and them tell me he doesn't know what he's talking about regarding the accurate comparison of dog genomes...
Author Summary
There are hundreds of dog breeds that exhibit massive differences in appearance and behavior sculpted by tightly controlled selective breeding. This large-scale natural experiment has provided an ideal resource that geneticists can use to search for genetic variants that control these differences. With this goal, we developed a high-density array that surveys variable sites at more than 170,000 positions in the dog genome and used it to analyze genetic variation in 46 breeds. We identify 44 chromosomal regions that are extremely variable between breeds and are likely to control many of the traits that vary between them, including curly tails and sociality.....
I also have to wonder if by manipulating the diets of dogs (feeding them like wolves maybe) that gene sequence could be reversed - DD
Oh dear.
From the supplementary info.......
Unequal sample size of dog and wolf.
To reduce the risk of introducing biases due to unequal sample size in dog and wolf we have used a method to estimate FST 40
that takes differences in sample size into account.
Nevertheless, to test if the unequal dog and wolf representation may have contributed to variance of statistics across the genome, we redid the FST and HP analyses based on a random sub sample of the dog data such that the average coverage in dog equalled that in wolf (6.2x) (Fig. S10 and S11).
First, analysing the sub sampled data we detect 17 regions with Z(HP)<-5, out of which 12 overlap the 14 regions from the original analysis. The 2 regions from the original analysis that did not overlap a region in the sub sampling analysis still show a clear reduction in heterozygosity (Z(HP)<-4) in the sub sampled data.
Secondly, we find 20 regions with Z(FST)>5 in the sub sampled data, out of which 18 overlap the 35 regions detected in the original analysis. The 17 regions from the original analysis that do not overlap a region in the sub sampling analysis still show a clear increase in FST in the sub sampling analysis (8 regions have Z(FST)>4 and the remaining 9 regions have Z(FST)>3).
The majority of the original CDRs were thus identified as CDRs in the sub sampled data, and the remainder still stand out, although not significantly so. These results suggest that the unequal sample sizes of dogs and wolves likely have little effect on the overall results of our selection analyses.
Cofty
About the quote you pointed out, I was speaking in terms of breeding over generations, not that the food it's self would have any effect. My point being if you have a dog or wolf without the gene to start your "new breed" if you will, it could be bred out, much like some other genetic conditions/disorders. Grayhounds for example do not carry the genes for dysplasia. Most breeders of other breeds today are trying to breed it out so to speak.
I still don't understand DD.
The research shows that " a key step in the domestication of dogs was their ability to digest starch-based food, in contrast to poor starch digestion by the entirely carnivorous wolves. "
The precise mutations in specific genes have been identified.
What is your point?
