Jump to content


Photo

Science: Puppy Ate Twigs And Grass (Sound Familiar?)

primative dogspuppies science archeology twigs grass primative dogs genomes humans

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Denise E.

Denise E.

    Advanced Member

  • IIDOBA Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1595 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Broward County
  • Interests:Lakota Ceremonies, praying, helping others, reading, camping, farming, horses, dogs, cats. History, science, Universe & other learning shows and of course my entertaining mindless TV shows: sci-fi, supernatural, anime, action, comedy ... Oh, and I have an ironic sense of humor

Posted 14 July 2016 - 08:59 AM

Hi all!

 

Just saw this article which I found most interesting with all our "part goat" puppies we have talked about on the forum.

OK, these puppies died 12,460 years ago - science is slowly finding out more about dogs through evolutionary biologists.

 

http://phys.org/news...utm_campaign=im

 

 

 

 



#2 Allison

Allison

    Troublemaker

  • Administrators
  • 7666 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Seattle, Washington & Walla Walla, Wa.
  • Interests:Martial Arts, Yoga, weightlifting, Frisbee and fun with my pup Coyote Crow Dog, cooking, art, languages, math, science.....the list goes on.

Posted 14 July 2016 - 02:21 PM

That was a really good article.  I enjoyed it immensely.


One could argue that evolution suggests were not idiots, but I would say, Well, no. Evolution just makes sure were not blithering idiots."

--David Dunning

#3 NorCal

NorCal

    Advanced Member

  • IIDOBA Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:walnut creek CA
  • Interests:travel yoga hiking gardens family DOGS and water and my new buddy Zuni Blue

Posted 14 July 2016 - 03:59 PM

That was really interesting to me as my pup is more than part goat! And I am naming my next dog Yakutia!! Thanks !!

#4 miz molly

miz molly

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 3285 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:ben lomond california
  • Interests:My 4 legged friends, photography, music, painting, hiking, fishing, the beach, and a good cup of coffee in the early morning.

Posted 18 July 2016 - 09:00 AM

Fascinating article.  Thanks for the sleuthing and sharing.


When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world. ~John Muir

#5 Sherab

Sherab

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • 2215 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Sanford Michigan
  • Interests:Wishing you Joy, Blessings and Wisdom

Posted 19 July 2016 - 04:58 AM

I'm excitedly awaiting the results of the genome sequencing. Here is more information on sequencing. My 2 cents - it's a fairly complex process where error can be introduced at many points. Contamination is a huge issue - people - note the people w/o protective clothing vs the ones without. Fungi, bacteria, etc. I'm working through a book now on Neanderthal sequencing that discusses these issues and some funny publishings (i.e. possible "dinosaur DNA" in amber turned out to be human contamination). Where I'm going with this is that the field is new, evolving fast with regard to technique, math modeling and machinery and the results won't be "settled science" for some time, which makes it very interesting but also leaves room for caution with regard to results. I think we'll get there. Especially with replication of results by independent labs over time.

http://www.genomenew...me/Chp2_1.shtml

My personal thoughts on doggy DNA tests - not yet worth it. From what I can tell the tests look for snippets of sequence matches from one sentinel study (not replicated as far as I can tell) done in 2004 (which is ancient in the world of genetics). The study found that using microsatellite genotypes, breeds could be distinguished between with high accuracy. Note that the study did not extrapolate to mixed breed identification. The original study used a data set with 85 breeds (there are over 300 breeds out there). Fast forward to today's Doggie DNA test....From what I've been reading results from repeating tests with the same lab on the same dog are inconsistent as well as running tests on the same dog with different labs. As an aside I'd like to know how all these rare horny Kelpies from a different continent get around? Here is a typical comparative article: http://news.vin.com/...articleId=23206 my 2 cents - save your $ it's not worth it yet. There's obviously a lot of interpretive "art" in reading the results and probably a lot of extrapolation of data beyond reasonable boundaries. Plus I suspect from reading a third article the general groupings are broadly interpreted such that if you submitted a wolf's cheek swab you'd get a "closest possible match or three" among the ancient asian herding dogs, since these are "the most closely related". Now that would be an interesting test he he he.

Edited by Sherab, 19 July 2016 - 04:59 AM.


#6 Allison

Allison

    Troublemaker

  • Administrators
  • 7666 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Seattle, Washington & Walla Walla, Wa.
  • Interests:Martial Arts, Yoga, weightlifting, Frisbee and fun with my pup Coyote Crow Dog, cooking, art, languages, math, science.....the list goes on.

Posted 19 July 2016 - 08:11 AM

Here are Kim's thoughts on DNA testing for dogs, and the AID.


One could argue that evolution suggests were not idiots, but I would say, Well, no. Evolution just makes sure were not blithering idiots."

--David Dunning

#7 Denise E.

Denise E.

    Advanced Member

  • IIDOBA Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1595 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Broward County
  • Interests:Lakota Ceremonies, praying, helping others, reading, camping, farming, horses, dogs, cats. History, science, Universe & other learning shows and of course my entertaining mindless TV shows: sci-fi, supernatural, anime, action, comedy ... Oh, and I have an ironic sense of humor

Posted 19 July 2016 - 09:09 AM

When I posted this I was actually thinking of the Blue Wilderness commercial and laughing because it sells us or implies that dog's recently descended from wolves and that dog's just need to eat meat.

I'm sure they sell a lot of food from that commercial, it appeal's our human hearts of the nature and spirit of dogs (all kinds of dogs).

 

I've got nothing against Blue Wilderness food and yes, my AI dogs like meat.

They also like grass, mulch, twigs, weeds ..... and so forth.  ....  it just seems a lot more than modern domesticated dogs I've had, who seem to eat grass when they were feeling 'off'.

 

 

I like science shows and scientists.  It's fun to learn of the next big breakthrough, and then the opposing breakthrough, and so on.

I like the Ancient Aliens shows too.  What would Georgio say?   "Are there Aliens here?  Of course, this proves it.  Clearly that's a picture of a dog and a spaceship on that rock.  Dogs were created by the aliens through genetic modifications or they must have brought the dogs with them".  (that's my best channeling of that guy)



#8 Denise E.

Denise E.

    Advanced Member

  • IIDOBA Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1595 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Broward County
  • Interests:Lakota Ceremonies, praying, helping others, reading, camping, farming, horses, dogs, cats. History, science, Universe & other learning shows and of course my entertaining mindless TV shows: sci-fi, supernatural, anime, action, comedy ... Oh, and I have an ironic sense of humor

Posted 19 July 2016 - 09:48 AM

I'm excitedly awaiting the results of the genome sequencing. Here is more information on sequencing. My 2 cents - it's a fairly complex process where error can be introduced at many points. Contamination is a huge issue - people - note the people w/o protective clothing vs the ones without. Fungi, bacteria, etc. I'm working through a book now on Neanderthal sequencing that discusses these issues and some funny publishings (i.e. possible "dinosaur DNA" in amber turned out to be human contamination). Where I'm going with this is that the field is new, evolving fast with regard to technique, math modeling and machinery and the results won't be "settled science" for some time, which makes it very interesting but also leaves room for caution with regard to results. I think we'll get there. Especially with replication of results by independent labs over time.

http://www.genomenew...me/Chp2_1.shtml

My personal thoughts on doggy DNA tests - not yet worth it. From what I can tell the tests look for snippets of sequence matches from one sentinel study (not replicated as far as I can tell) done in 2004 (which is ancient in the world of genetics). The study found that using microsatellite genotypes, breeds could be distinguished between with high accuracy. Note that the study did not extrapolate to mixed breed identification. The original study used a data set with 85 breeds (there are over 300 breeds out there). Fast forward to today's Doggie DNA test....From what I've been reading results from repeating tests with the same lab on the same dog are inconsistent as well as running tests on the same dog with different labs. As an aside I'd like to know how all these rare horny Kelpies from a different continent get around? Here is a typical comparative article: http://news.vin.com/...articleId=23206 my 2 cents - save your $ it's not worth it yet. There's obviously a lot of interpretive "art" in reading the results and probably a lot of extrapolation of data beyond reasonable boundaries. Plus I suspect from reading a third article the general groupings are broadly interpreted such that if you submitted a wolf's cheek swab you'd get a "closest possible match or three" among the ancient asian herding dogs, since these are "the most closely related". Now that would be an interesting test he he he.

 

 

Sherab,

 

found another couple of articles of the scientific "breakthroughs":  

 

Dec. 2015 http://phys.org/news...-tale-dogs.html

 

& June 2016  http://phys.org/news...ated-world.html

 

This is my takeaway from the articles:

Lead author Dr Laurent Frantz, from the Palaeo-BARN, commented: 'Reconstructing the past from modern DNA is a bit like looking into the history books: you never know whether crucial parts have been erased. Ancient DNA, on the other hand, is like a time machine, and allows us to observe the past directly.'

 

".... a bit like looking into the history books: you never know whether crucial parts have been erased. ...."     I think this line of thought applies a lot!  everywhere!

 

 

OH, and I sent my DNA away to help with some ancestry research and BOY is that a novelty also!  I am in the Beta version and so every once in a while I look at it and it changes (what they say my ancestors were).  First I was mostly Viking and Mediterranean, after a few emails telling my known history, it is slightly more accurate but is that really accurate then?  How many thousands of years did the test go back?  Also it is based on Mitochondrial DNA not nuclear, so it can only see part of me?  I received an answer one time explaining that DNA doesn't always show the same as some one's known heritage:  for example someone can be 1/2 Italian but show 0% Italian in the DNA (not even because of mitochondrial testing), it doesn't calculate.  Ie. both parents 50% Italian and 50% Irish, child DNA could show 100% Irish on test even though math would say child is 50% Italian and 50% Irish.

 

From all of this, and BTW - your genome article was informative,  I'm waiting & watching for targeted cancer cures so the treatment doesn't kill good cells!  and less side effects from the medications too!

I believe most of this research, DNA, genomes, and the like  ...   can be piggybacked once it gets to a certain degree of sophistication (and I'm OK with learning from history too) 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: primative dogspuppies, science, archeology, twigs, grass, primative, dogs, genomes, humans

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users