I love Coleman, but Dawkins thinks way too much of his idea. I assumed once we discovered genetics, this idea of "creature as book" written in the DNA was the automatic assumption. I had this thought as a child. I cannot believe that millions upon millions of people didn't come to this same conclusion. The ideas of the "greats" are present among much larger populations, we just aren't selling the ideas and promoting ourselves.
"Obscurantism in an academic discipline expands to fill the vacuum of its intrinsic simplicity. Physics is genuinely difficult and so physicists who try to make it simple are doing a great job. There are other subjects which actually have no content at all and therefore and their protagonists will sometimes language it up to make it sound profound when there is no profundity there."
I certainly agree there must be some uncertainty, and I am not even an amateur on this subject . I would have two reactions to what you just said. (1) If the common ancestor, brought to life, resembled modern wolves and could interbreed with either, it does feel like we’d be splitting hairs here, not dealing with a case like humans and chimps. (2) I also think that in situations like this, Occam’s razor is a valid starting point and probably needs to be knocked down with something solid. I don’t know this for certain without looking it up, but I also believe that evolutionarily modern wolves have been around longer than modern humans, and that speaks a lot forthe notion that they’ve been around longer than domesticated dogs
The "facts" are, according to scientists, the ancestor of ancient wolves and dogs has not been found. "Wolves" is a term applied to the modern creatures and not the ancestor.
I “believe” because that is what reliable sources I’ve read have all appeared to say. Evolutionarily modern wolves have been around a long time, far longer than domesticated dogs. Genetic evidence suggested wolves were the sole source of dog DNA.
Over the last 10 years, apparently one paper supports your view that they both evolved from an earlier canine species and that occasional interbreeding between the two evolutionary lines has confused modern geneticists.
You’ve no idea how long dogs have been around and neither do scientists. They can guess, but that’s all it is, absence of evidence in the fossil record is not proof. There is also the “fact” (given to us by science) that dogs and wolves can interbreed and that species of wolf now extinct interbred with dogs and possibly the common ancestor which was neither a wolf OR a dog.
What falls inside and outside the category of "wolf" is entirely a matter of collective belief. There are no objective boundaries in evolution.
Considering the dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a sub-species of the grey wolf (Canis lupus), you can say that not only did dogs come from wolves, dogs ARE wolves, just a particular type.
Within the first 30 seconds he makes a ridiculous claim. You cannot "read" the past of an animal and its environment in its DNA because of RANDOM genetic mutation. You'd also have to know what every gene did both alone and in conjunction with every other gene. And how would you know that?
It can't be done ever because adaptation means that as the environment changes so does the animal. Hence looking at modern DNA won't tell you where the ancester lived, nor will looking at ancient DNA unless you can do what I said. Understand now?
Great! Let’s have more moderation by Coleman.
I love Coleman, but Dawkins thinks way too much of his idea. I assumed once we discovered genetics, this idea of "creature as book" written in the DNA was the automatic assumption. I had this thought as a child. I cannot believe that millions upon millions of people didn't come to this same conclusion. The ideas of the "greats" are present among much larger populations, we just aren't selling the ideas and promoting ourselves.
Had to write this one out...
Dawkins' law of academic difficulty:
"Obscurantism in an academic discipline expands to fill the vacuum of its intrinsic simplicity. Physics is genuinely difficult and so physicists who try to make it simple are doing a great job. There are other subjects which actually have no content at all and therefore and their protagonists will sometimes language it up to make it sound profound when there is no profundity there."
The Free Press didn’t let you out of the basement to write about how DEI was respinsible for the helicopter crash/collision in DC?
They let the gay, white dude do it instead?
Two of my faves. Enjoyed listening!
Dogs are not wolves and didn't come from wolves. Both dogs and wolves are believed to have had a common ancestor that is now extinct.
I certainly agree there must be some uncertainty, and I am not even an amateur on this subject . I would have two reactions to what you just said. (1) If the common ancestor, brought to life, resembled modern wolves and could interbreed with either, it does feel like we’d be splitting hairs here, not dealing with a case like humans and chimps. (2) I also think that in situations like this, Occam’s razor is a valid starting point and probably needs to be knocked down with something solid. I don’t know this for certain without looking it up, but I also believe that evolutionarily modern wolves have been around longer than modern humans, and that speaks a lot forthe notion that they’ve been around longer than domesticated dogs
“IF” is doing a lot of work there.
A poodle can interbreed with a wolf and a coyote and could interbreed with its direct ancestor.
I believe their common ancestor was ancient wolves which are almost the same as modern ones.
What you believe isn't important.
The "facts" are, according to scientists, the ancestor of ancient wolves and dogs has not been found. "Wolves" is a term applied to the modern creatures and not the ancestor.
I “believe” because that is what reliable sources I’ve read have all appeared to say. Evolutionarily modern wolves have been around a long time, far longer than domesticated dogs. Genetic evidence suggested wolves were the sole source of dog DNA.
Over the last 10 years, apparently one paper supports your view that they both evolved from an earlier canine species and that occasional interbreeding between the two evolutionary lines has confused modern geneticists.
But I don’t think this is settled.
You’ve no idea how long dogs have been around and neither do scientists. They can guess, but that’s all it is, absence of evidence in the fossil record is not proof. There is also the “fact” (given to us by science) that dogs and wolves can interbreed and that species of wolf now extinct interbred with dogs and possibly the common ancestor which was neither a wolf OR a dog.
What falls inside and outside the category of "wolf" is entirely a matter of collective belief. There are no objective boundaries in evolution.
Considering the dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a sub-species of the grey wolf (Canis lupus), you can say that not only did dogs come from wolves, dogs ARE wolves, just a particular type.
Within the first 30 seconds he makes a ridiculous claim. You cannot "read" the past of an animal and its environment in its DNA because of RANDOM genetic mutation. You'd also have to know what every gene did both alone and in conjunction with every other gene. And how would you know that?
In the following 15 seconds he says “it can’t be done yet.”
It can't be done ever because adaptation means that as the environment changes so does the animal. Hence looking at modern DNA won't tell you where the ancester lived, nor will looking at ancient DNA unless you can do what I said. Understand now?