I think you can stop right there. The dog thing happened not because dog "wanted" to be with humans. Dogs were clueless about what happened, it just did. The explanation is on a higher level, not in their desires, not even in the desires of the humans who participated in most of the dog domestication (even if some of them may have thought about it, but by then it was already happening).
How can you talk about these things with such a high degree of certainty?
I've read different theories about dog domestication. All of them have some strong and some weak points. All of them don't have enough evidence to be taken as the only source of truth.
> How can you talk about these things with such a high degree of certainty?
Because "in hopes that they can integrate with us" is just silly.
Of course, I admit that I take for granted that I don't have to justify a believe in evolution.
If you entertain the possibility it was a deliberate human act it would have required an effort like the Fox breeding experiment in Russia. They would have had to go out and catch wild wolves and breed them for generations - that seems extremely far-fetched. Much more likely that there already were wolves that had gotten used to humans, which means they had already changed. Which is what I said:
> even if some of them may have thought about it, but by then it was already happening
It sure is likely that humans at some point thought it useful, but the domestication started not because anybody in particular wanted it to happen.
By the way, I think horse domestication is (was) probably different. It's easy to see how wolves benefit from leftovers found near humans, but horses just need grass. Horses also still don't depend on humans nearly as much as dogs do.
The statement that requires proof is the one that dog evolution was caused by desires of any one in particular, especially "hopes to integrate with us" of wolves.
> not even in the desires of the humans who participated in most of the dog domestication (even if some of them may have thought about it, but by then it was already happening).
Again: Can you support this claim with anything? I'm actually curious, and you seem evasive.
Again: Proof has to be provided by the one making the extraordinary claims.
The statement that requires proof is the one that dog evolution was caused by desires of any one in particular, especially "hopes to integrate with us" of wolves.
Are you referring to the statement that he himself called an "highdea" and started with "what if"? In any case, I can't be bothered with this anymore. If you don't have a source for what you stated, then that's fine with me.
It was "please can you indicate what specifically about the claims you think is unlikely; or your purpose in questioning and expectations for a response".
I mean you don't actually think there's documentary evidence from the time dogs became domesticated of either what the people, or the dogs, were specifically thinking, do you? It was my hope that, perhaps, by reflecting on that I might draw attention to the obvious futility of the direction of questioning.
I just wanted to know how OP could state so precise things about the intentions of humans back then. I didn't even consider the types of existing evidence or whether the direction of questioning was obviously futile; I just asked a person if there was a source or data behind a statement. But thanks for the snark, it really improved the discussion.
If you want to claim they caught wild wolves and started a breeding program like what was done with the famous Russian foxes then it is you need to bring a citation.
The outrageous claim that needs citations is that the wolves had "hopes that they can integrate with us".
How exactly do they "see how we treat dogs"? I must admit I don't see a "reasonable" hypothesis at all.
> Selective quoting,
Yes - because that statement does not make sense regardless of context, so I didn't quote the rest. It also saves space. I always only quote the part that I respond to, the rest of the context always still is right there in an Internet forum, unless OP deletes the post. If I quoted in a different place, for example I quote someone in my own blog post, copying from another website, then I would have to provide the context.
I think you can stop right there. The dog thing happened not because dog "wanted" to be with humans. Dogs were clueless about what happened, it just did. The explanation is on a higher level, not in their desires, not even in the desires of the humans who participated in most of the dog domestication (even if some of them may have thought about it, but by then it was already happening).