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.
Did you read the full text or just immediately jump to the snarky burn attempt?