Special Bond between Dogs and Humans?

[symbolipoint]

Herd guarding was just an existing example for the general function 'guard against the wild'. Existing ancient hunt breeds (the ones which are excepted to fight) are an example too. Both has examples for the same size as volves.

As I see, we have a chicken or the egg problem here. To have pre-dogs accepted through being different qualities than wolves we need an already accepted population subject to selection to produce those qualities. So that 'hung around' is quite tempting approach and it might actually fit if we stretch the timescale with some 10k years.

As in post #83 and a few others requested,

..., look for other information or sources if member/s interested.

-----which can or should also include scientific references, or other formally qualified experts.

 

[BillTre]

As I see, we have a chicken or the egg problem here. To have pre-dogs accepted through being different qualities than wolves we need an already accepted population subject to selection to produce those qualities. So that 'hung around' is quite tempting approach and it might actually fit if we stretch the timescale with some 10k years.

I don't doubt that there are some early kinds of dogs that had/have those traits at some time in their evolutionary journey to today's many varied kinds of modern dogs.
Nor do I think they were little wimpy dogs

However, in any evolutionary scenario, every little step toward a later form will have to be adaptive for the conditions and circumstances of its time.

Large proto-dogs, threatening to wolves, and not behaviorally or visually distinctive from wolves would not be well adapted to integration into a human society.
Combined with that, I think likely that a general vermin hunting,prey tracking, and alarm generating traits might be benefit enough for humans to get things started towards domestication.
The first steps will establish the relationships where humans gain greater control over reproduction and thereby speed up the rate and directing of further evolution.

Once those traits are established and human acceptance has been developed (over many generations), there will be still be plenty of generations for herders to develop dog lines suited to fighting off wolves. This be based on the proto-dogs inherent genetic variability, but also wolf genes, since be some frequency of breeding with wolves would introduce wolf traits (which might have been lost during the initial steps of domestication) into the proto-dog population's genomes.

Fossil evidence of early dogs:
Fossils frequently don't show the earliest steps, but they can show morphological features, contain DNA (useful for determining relationships with wolves and other kinds of digs), and establish time points.
The earliest dog fossils show smaller skulls and shorter snouts that wolves and are thought to be 33,000 years old, predating agriculture and perhaps herding.
Later (~15,000 years ago), there is some evidence of dog breeds specialized for different purposes.

 

[Rive]

Large proto-dogs, threatening to wolves

This here I think rings a bell. I'm a bit in a hurry, so I'll make some digging only later on, but actually why do we think that pre-dogs were against wolves? Right now wolves are apex predators, but that was not always the case.
The suspected timeframe is exactly the end of the Pleistocene, which is famous about its megafauna. There were some pretty big predators there to compete for the title of 'apex'.

Might be interesting:

...tigers depress wolf numbers, either to the point of localized extinction or to such low numbers as to make them a functionally insignificant component of the ecosystem. Wolves appear capable of escaping competitive exclusion from tigers only when human persecution decreases tiger numbers.

Saber-tooth tigers are not close relatives to modern tigers, but the cat-dog (feline-canine) relations seems to be universally bad. Maybe there was a reason for wolves to 'hang around' humans (and develop tolerant gene variations for later selection)?

 

[activist in the know]

As I understand she is opposed to using dogs as food on the grounds that there _is_ an objective criterion. But I have not seen any layout on her part to this effect. I think the existence of said criterion would be necessary to have objective grounds to using dogs as food in the East and in general. I guess we have to wait for her to clarify this.

I never made such a claim. The question you posed was whether a special/unique human-dog biological bond exists. I pointed to objective evidence to show that it does. I then asserted that this objective fact should be taken into consideration on the separate questions of whether dogs should be used as food, or chained outside for hours on end, or milled for puppies.

 

[WWGD]

I never made such a claim. The question you posed was whether a special/unique human-dog biological bond exists. I pointed to objective evidence to show that it does. I then asserted that this objective fact should be taken into consideration on the separate questions of whether dogs should be used as food, or chained outside for hours on end, or milled for puppies.

Hence the "As I understand it". While the evidence is objective, the claim of the uniqueness/specialness of the bond, I believe, is not. Terms like "Special" are not objective. Unique, could be, but "Special", I don't think is an objective term. EDIT: As I remember it, when I brought up the issue, you stated that bringing up this issue was "inane". Difficult for me to be clear with a higher level of precision, given answers of this sort.

 

[activist in the know]

Hence the "As I understand it". While the evidence is objective, the claim of the uniqueness/specialness of the bond, I believe, is not. Terms like "Special" are not objective. Unique, could be, but "Special", I don't think is an objective term.

You seem to be hung up on semantics. Try “special” or “unique” as in, the dog’s neurobiological connection to us is distinct from other nonhuman animals.

 

[WWGD]

You seem to be hung up on semantics. Try “special” or “unique” as in, the dog’s neurobiological connection to us is distinct from other nonhuman animals.

No, not just me. I think if you take even a small sample of people few would agree on just-about anything being called "special". I believe this is culture- and many-other-variable- dependent and not as objective or even mostly objective as you seem to bellieve. EDIT If not, please do provide a "Specialnessmeter" to assess the "specialness" of different entities. Or do you intend to use something like a study of latency to assess this? EDIT2: Or please give me a working definition of "Special" that is not vague and/or inherently general to cover a great variety of cases.

 

[activist in the know]

Now you’re back to conflating topics. The science is objective and the science shows that the dog’s affinity for humans is distinct or special or unique or out of the ordinary. See studies and canine neuroscientists’ statements above.

 

[symbolipoint]

The argument about what "special" means, is useless.

How about making part of the original post, like this:

animal rights activist claimed something to the effect that there is a different kind of bond between humans and dogs, unlike the bond between humans and other animals, and that this is supported by science. I think she alleged there is fMri data to thus effect. I , not being an expert assumed dogs' behavior was the result of selective breeding and domesticationn;

EDIT: Since italicization of the changed parts does not work, a different font effect in the above 'quote' is used instead. (changed font size to 5)

 

[PeterDonis]

The question you posed was whether a special/unique human-dog biological bond exists. I pointed to objective evidence to show that it does. I then asserted that this objective fact should be taken into consideration on the separate questions of whether dogs should be used as food, or chained outside for hours on end, or milled for puppies.

While the evidence is objective, the claim of the uniqueness/specialness of the bond, I believe, is not. Terms like "Special" are not objective. Unique, could be

I think the substance of the discussion does not depend on whether we can agree on a meaning for the word "special". We have two separate questions under discussion, neither of which needs to have that word defined. The first question is, what evidence do we have about dogs and their interactions with humans, and how those interactions compare with those between humans and other animals? The main evidence that I can see in this thread is the evidence referenced by @activist in the know here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...en-dogs-and-humans.963333/page-3#post-6113371

There is a lot to digest there, but there is also the question of how much of most people's attitudes towards dogs are informed by such evidence; my sense is that the answer to that is "not much, if any", since the evidence is so new.

The second question is, given whatever evidence we have, what, if any, ethical implications are there? @activist in the know has raised several possibilities for such implications; @WWGD raised a question about the first of those here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...en-dogs-and-humans.963333/page-4#post-6113874

Again, I think these questions can be discussed without having to argue about the meaning of the word "special" (or "unique"). I would ask participants to focus on the substance of the questions, and to make an effort not to use words whose meaning might be ambiguous or disputed, even if that means having to be more verbose to explain what you mean.

 

[nitsuj]

lol I think defining special in this case is pretty easy with breeds like pugs, chihuahuas on and on and on.

Bred to be companions. I think companionship is something special.

For probably thousands of years the "dog" is simply the medium.

 

[symbolipoint]

lol I think defining special in this case is pretty easy with breeds like pugs, chihuahuas on and on and on.

Bred to be companions. I think companionship is something special.

For probably thousands of years the "dog" is simply the medium.

This is going onto the wrong track. Earlier in dog breeding or domestication breeding, the process was done with the goal of practical purposes; to breed something that could help humans with hunting, guarding, pulling for transport. If an individual dog seemed to be easy enough to work with and to train, this individual was used for breeding. Much much later, breeding goals might include some very bad ideas such as to breed for short muzzles, malformed ears, unhealthy wrinkles, and many other unhealthy things. STill, it is Dog, so the 'special' human-dog bond continues. The dog breed does not need to have several malformed parts in order to be a fine, pleasant companion animal.

 

[.Scott]

... However, this does not seem to limit the eating of dead offspring by parents after they die (such as mice or foxes (which I recently saw on a TV documentary)).

In the case of alligators and most fish, live young are tasty bites.

 

[.Scott]

The problem in this debate, as pointed out in the beginning, is with the word "special". A scientific study can measure and score a dog's performance on a test. But that result can't convey "special" and require associated "special" status. The measurement if viewed in isolation is objective data, but the meaning applied to it - the criteria for assigning the judgement - is not.

In the context of this discussion, I believe this is "special":

It is also known as oxytocin.

Among mammals, what makes that someone-special "special" is oxytocin:
from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3858648/

Across the animal kingdom, affiliative social relationships exist between individuals and their parents, offspring, mates, and non-related conspecifics. While most mammals interact prosocially only to mate or rear young, in some cases the benefits of group living have led to the evolution of complex social structures. The behaviors exhibited may vary from species to species and between individuals within a species, but the neurobiological substrates of many of these behaviors likely share common elements. The peptide oxytocin (OT) has been investigated and implicated in the context of a wide variety of social behaviors. While the majority of research on social behavior in mammals has focused on the role of OT in reproductive attachments—between a mother and her young, or between male and female mates—this review focuses on the roles of OT in mammalian social groups, and behaviors that promote group living (sociality).

But can this occur across species? And more specifically can oxytocin induce a dog to see his human with rose-colored glasses?
Why, yes it can: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01854/full

The pupil diameters of dogs were also measured as a physiological index of emotional arousal. In a placebo-controlled within-subjects experimental design, 43 dogs, after having received either oxytocin or placebo (saline) nasal spray treatment, were presented with pictures of unfamiliar male human faces displaying either a happy or an angry expression. We found that, depending on the facial expression, the dogs’ gaze patterns were affected selectively by oxytocin treatment. After receiving oxytocin, dogs fixated less often on the eye regions of angry faces and revisited (glanced back at) more often the eye regions of smiling (happy) faces than after the placebo treatment. Furthermore, following the oxytocin treatment dogs fixated and revisited the eyes of happy faces significantly more often than the eyes of angry faces. The analysis of dogs’ pupil diameters during viewing of human facial expressions indicated that oxytocin may also have a modulatory effect on dogs’ emotional arousal. While subjects’ pupil sizes were significantly larger when viewing angry faces than happy faces in the control (placebo treatment) condition, oxytocin treatment not only eliminated this effect but caused an opposite pupil response. Overall, these findings suggest that nasal oxytocin administration selectively changes the allocation of attention and emotional arousal in domestic dogs. Oxytocin has the potential to decrease vigilance toward threatening social stimuli and increase the salience of positive social stimuli thus making eye gaze of friendly human faces more salient for dogs. Our study provides further support for the role of the oxytocinergic system in the social perception abilities of domestic dogs. We propose that oxytocin modulates fundamental emotional processing in dogs through a mechanism that may facilitate communication between humans and dogs.

(Leave it to a psychologist to dissect puppy love down to the point of tedium)

What about wolves? Well, because of genetics, they are not so friendly with humans.
From: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X16304810?via=ihub

The oxytocin system may play an important role in dog domestication from the wolf. Dogs have evolved unique human analogue social skills enabling them to communicate and cooperate efficiently with people. Genomic differences in the region surrounding the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene have previously been associated with variation in dogs' communicative skills. Here we have utilized the unsolvable problem paradigm to investigate the effects of oxytocin and OXTR polymorphisms on human-directed contact seeking behavior in 60 golden retriever dogs. Human-oriented behavior was quantified employing a previously defined unsolvable problem paradigm. Behaviors were tested twice in a repeated, counterbalanced design, where dogs received a nasal dose of either oxytocin or saline 45 min before each test occasion.

I don't have access to that full article, but this article is based on it:
https://liu.se/en/article/hundars-samspel-med-agaren-kopplat-till-kanslighet-for-oxytocin

The researchers suggest that these results help us understand how dogs have changed during the process of domestication. They analysed DNA also from 21 wolves, and found the same genetic variation among them. This suggests that the genetic variation was already present when domestication of the dogs started, 15,000 years ago.

“The results lead us to surmise that people selected for domestication wolves with a particularly well-developed ability to collaborate, and then bred subsequent generations from these,” says Mia Persson.

Now, regarding that issue of cuisine:
Subject 1: a cute baby or puppy
Subject 2: a oxytocin-affected person gazing at subject 1
Subject 3: a hungry person gazing at subject 1
With this set up, the interactions between Subject 2 and Subject 3 will be supported with another hormone: adrenaline

 

[nitsuj]

Earlier in dog breeding or domestication breeding, the process was done with the goal of practical purposes. If an individual dog seemed to be easy enough to work with and to train, this individual was used for breeding. Much much later, breeding goals might include some very bad ideas such as to breed for short muzzles, malformed ears, unhealthy wrinkles, and many other unhealthy things. STill, it is Dog, so the 'special' human-dog bond continues. The dog breed does not need to have several malformed parts in order to be a fine, pleasant companion animal.

I completely agree with your last sentence, and my point requires it, a dog doesn't need to be a "companion breed" to be a companion. I was using hyperbole (pugs, chihuahuas) to highlight how far this has gone. From "day one" we've been selecting for traits that lead to dogs being "companions", you refer to this a "easy enough to work with", no difference semantically; both involve spending time together in a "cohesive" way.

Then just the simple statement that companionship is something "special". In turn I figure the dog is just the "medium" of our our choices. Dogs being "pack animals" likely predisposed them to being good companions.

I know with pugs personality is big part of the breed, not just the "deformed" frame.

 

[pinball1970]

Late to the party on this- the below study is a few years old about wolves verses dogs and behaviourhttp://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/864/tab-figures-dataApologies if repeating (no time to read all the comments right now)
Comments about the special bond and social animals has been mentioned by Mark44, but there was study in Russia (?) suggesting certain genes come in groups.
The more friendly wolf pups were selected and those pups gave rise to friendly still pups, no surprise passing on similar traits However those friendly pups also had physical characteristics associated with more this behaviour, big eyes floppy ears “smiley” rather than growly faces.
Apologies if details are scant and flaky- the reference was from a Dawkins book so I will find the correct book and ref for this study and feedback. Those friendly traits associated with co-operation acceptance by the top dog (us) I think the “bond” thing is pure survival and selfish genes chiming, genes we have encouraged via selective breeding.

 

[Marcus Parker-Rhodes]

Hi All,
In a recent discussion ananimal rights activist claimed something to the effect that there is a special bond between humans and dogs, and that this is supported by science. I think she alleged there is fMri data to thus effect. I , not being an expert assumed dogs' behavior was the result of selective breeding and domesticationn; wild , undomesticated dogs do not ,afaik, display any such bond. Can anyone clarify the issue for me here, please?

I'm pretty sure it's not just the face we're reading, but the attitude of the tail, the ears, the entire body. I know instantly if a dog is approachable and friendly or not, because the dog itself is telling me with all of those things.
I would guess that's a learned thing on my part. But it goes back to earliest childhood so I can't remember learning it.

Dogs are wolves that have discovered a new ecological niche and have become parasitic on the planet's new dominant species - Ourselves.
Like many other parasites they have found ways of manipulating their host’s behaviour to their own advantage. The main driving force behind their evolution, is the directive “be loved or die” and since an unloved dog is generally a dead dog, evolution has made them incredibly good at this, giving them an uncanny ability to press every button on the human psych to make themselves lovable. In some cases, cuckoo like, becoming a substitute for their hosts own offspring.
Among the many strategies they have developed is the ability to mimic their hosts own individual personality, acquiring a human like body language. Communicating their wants and desires using a wide variety of human like stances, facial expressions and eye movements. (It's disturbing to note that this can work in two directions. The licking the lips emoji meaning “Yum Yum” it Is not a natural human gesture but has been borrowed from the dogs)
They have also evolved to eat a similar diet to humans. Unlike their wolf ancestors, they can digest starch.
In the unlikely event we ever meet another intelligent species like ourselves, but coming from another planet, they will be amazed to find that although our technologies have found ways of combating all our other parasites, we appear to have overlooked one that is large enough to clearly see with the naked eye.

 

[symbolipoint]

Dogs are wolves that have discovered a new ecological niche and have become parasitic on the planet's new dominant species - Ourselves.
Like many other parasites they have found ways of manipulating their host’s behaviour to their own advantage. The main driving force behind their evolution, is the directive “be loved or die” and since an unloved dog is generally a dead dog, evolution has made them incredibly good at this, giving them an uncanny ability to press every button on the human psych to make themselves lovable. In some cases, cuckoo like, becoming a substitute for their hosts own offspring.

Characterizing the relationship as parasitic is not accurate - but that depends on the breed of dog, of which HUMANS have been responsible.

 

[Marcus Parker-Rhodes]

Characterizing the relationship as parasitic is not accurate - but that depends on the breed of dog, of which HUMANS have been responsible.

The widely held belief that us humans are responsible for selectively breeding the domestic dog from the grey wolf is mistaken. At first the similar hunting techniques of man and wolf made co-operation between the two species an advantage to both. There would be a competition amongst the wolves for acceptance into the human world, with those that had successfully been adopted driving away those that had not.
Since those early days, 83% of the 900 million dog population are still nameless free-ranging dogs and only the remaining 17% have been selected by mankind as pets to be bred into a wide variety of individual breeds the majority of which become too monstrous to survive more than a few centuries before becoming extinct. The rest, however, do become truly symbiotic with us as working dogs.

 

[symbolipoint]

The widely held belief that us humans are responsible for selectively breeding the domestic dog from the grey wolf is mistaken. At first the similar hunting techniques of man and wolf made co-operation between the two species an advantage to both. There would be a competition amongst the wolves for acceptance into the human world, with those that had successfully been adopted driving away those that had not.
Since those early days, 83% of the 900 million dog population are still nameless free-ranging dogs and only the remaining 17% have been selected by mankind as pets to be bred into a wide variety of individual breeds the majority of which become too monstrous to survive more than a few centuries before becoming extinct. The rest, however, do become truly symbiotic with us as working dogs.

You may be referring to the idea that some wolves learned to spend time near human communities and to scavange from humans. Some of these wolves maybe were breeding themselves without knowing it, to be less wild, which by was the symbiosis.

 

[Ophiolite]

The widely held belief that us humans are responsible for selectively breeding the domestic dog from the grey wolf is mistaken.

This is a very clear assertion. When challenging "widely held beliefs" it is good practice to provide citations or detailed arguments to support the assertion. Could you provide those now please? Similar support for your earlier assertion that the human-dog relationship is parasitic would also be appreciated.

 

[PeterDonis]

Dogs are wolves that have discovered a new ecological niche and have become parasitic on the planet's new dominant species - Ourselves.

"Parasitic" implies that humans gain no benefit from their relationships with dogs. Perhaps that's true of you, but it's very presumptuous of you to assume that it's true of everybody else as well.

 

[Klystron]

working dogs.

Working dogs implies domestication as much as riding horses, pulling carts with oxen, deploying raptors near airports, shearing sheep for wool and growing/gathering, roasting, and grinding certain seed pods, then pouring hot water through the grinds to make a nice cup of coffee.

 

[symbolipoint]

Main point about the symbiosis commentary is that dogs in cooperation with humans is not parasitic.

 

[RPinPA]

Working dogs implies domestication as much as riding horses, pulling carts with oxen, deploying raptors near airports, shearing sheep for wool and growing/gathering, roasting, and grinding certain seed pods, then pouring hot water through the grinds to make a nice cup of coffee.

Wait, I missed something. Which breed was selected for an ability to roast coffee beans and make a good cup of coffee?

 

[WWGD]

Wait, I missed something. Which breed was selected for an ability to roast coffee beans and make a good cup of coffee?

Maybe there is a Barista breed? :).

 

[Klystron]

Working dogs implies domestication as much as riding horses, pulling carts with oxen, deploying raptors near airports, shearing sheep for wool and growing/gathering, roasting, and grinding certain seed pods, then pouring hot water through the grinds to make a nice cup of coffee.

Wait, I missed something. Which breed was selected for an ability to roast coffee beans and make a good cup of coffee?

That last bit was my subconscious asking for another cup of java .

Stepping away from doggies for a moment, this thread has touched on several ethical issues. For instance, wearing wool thereby supporting sheep-shearing industry occupies a distinct ethos from wearing leather since the animals recover from shearing but not skinning. Similarly, breeding dogs to perform dog-like work such as herding and guarding seems more ethical IMO than breeding "grotesque monstrosities" such as dogs as spectacle that can barely breath or walk correctly due to excessive inbreeding.

 

[RPinPA]

That last bit was my subconscious asking for another cup of java . Appy-poly-gees.

I was going to go for a joke with a plausible sounding breed name with "Java" in it, but couldn't rev up the brain cells sufficiently to pull it off.

Stepping away from doggies for a moment, this thread has touched on several ethical issues. For instance, wearing wool thereby supporting sheep-shearing industry occupies a distinct ethos from wearing leather since the animals recover from shearing but not skinning. Similarly, breeding dogs to perform dog-like work such as herding and guarding seems more ethical IMO than breeding "grotesque monstrosities" such as dogs as spectacle that can barely breath or walk correctly due to excessive inbreeding.

Agreed. I do not understand what motivated humans to create the modern version of the bulldog, which apparently not only has breathing difficulties but can't mate without artificial insistence and has a variety of lifelong health problems.

I have always favored mongrels.

 

[nuuskur]

I don't keep flees as pets. How is the relationship between a dog and the owner parasitic?

There would be a competition amongst the wolves for acceptance into the human world, with those that had successfully been adopted driving away those that had not.

I don't think the wolves care about 'our world' in the first place.

 

[symbolipoint]

I don't keep flees as pets. How is the relationship between a dog and the owner parasitic?

I don't think the wolves care about 'our world' in the first place.

The idea to keep is that, for your second sentence, some wolves did care about humans' world, or so was such a theory that Dr. Coppinger discussed.