Start Here

[JTEM is my hero]

I queued it up for you:

https://youtu.be/FlR22hcjp_w?feature=shared&t=121

I know he's not talking about Aquatic Ape but this is
the sort of thing, if not the actual thing, that sent me
onto the Aquatic Ape path.

HINT: It illustrates the point that Homo needed a
means AND a motive for traveling across their world.
Aquatic Ape provides both the means and the motive.

They were picking stuff up, eating and then moving
along as the pickings grew slim.

"Pretty sneaky, sis."



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/732929985731493888

[RonO]

That alternative died long before we had the extant population genetics
and DNA from the fossils that tell us that it was definitely wrong.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM is my hero]

RonO wrote:

> That alternative died long before we had the extant population genetics

Your model, or what you pretend is a model, for how our DNA got this
way is a proven fraud.

It doesn't fit other species, it doesn't even fit all the human evidence.

It's just plain wrong.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/732973247328583680

[RonO]

Lying about the situation will never change reality. Removing the
material doesn't mean that you can lie about it. The multi regional
hypothesis hasn't been viable for decades.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM is my hero]

RonO wrote:

> Lying about

As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact
that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs
existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.

This is because DNA "Evidence" doesn't work the way that drool
soaked mouth breathers, such as yourself, insist.

The Chromosome 11 insert, the famous LM3 insert: It proves that
billions of people -- literally BILLIONS -- can trace their heritage to an
unknown population. And without that lucky mutation, the copying
of mtDNA to the nuclear DNA, there could not be a shred of evidence
for this.

According to you jackasses this means that the billions descended
from these archaic humans are not descended from archaic humans...

You're not interested in understanding. You just want to memorize
what some headline told you and pretend that's understanding. And
that is hilarious.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/733593943182311424

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Clearly more works needs to be done to support the "Out of Australia"|
hypothesis.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[JTEM is my hero]

No more work needs to be done refuting Out of Africa purity.

It's just plain WRONG -- and already proven wrong -- to interpret the
DNA the way the purists are insisting.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/733746950604734464

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Are you trying to satirize JTEM's position? Don't you know that there is no
evidence of larger mammals (much smaller than humans, but larger than rats,
to be precise) crossing the Wallace line before ca. 40,000 years ago?
By that time, the invasion of Homo sapiens sapiens was a done deal,
having penetrated a goodly part of Asia.

The great peninsula of Sunda, that existed during the last Pleistocene glaciation,
where the eastern half of Indonesia and Malaysia now stands,
was where humans stopped. Homo erectus, Homo florensis ("Hobbit man,") and other
species of Homo were present there hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Ask JTEM about some of them. Although he is generally dismissed as a kook,
I've seen more good scientific facts from him than I've seen from you so far.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I forgot to mention that there is an unusually good article in Wikipedia, with fine informative maps,
on the great Sunda peninsula of the Pleistocene:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunda_Shelf

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
> > JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > RonO wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lying about
> > >
> > > As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
> > > the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
> > > Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
> > > go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact
> > > that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs
> > > existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
> > >

AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.

> > > This is because DNA "Evidence" doesn't work the way that drool
> > > soaked mouth breathers, such as yourself, insist.
> > >
> > > The Chromosome 11 insert, the famous LM3 insert: It proves that
> > > billions of people -- literally BILLIONS -- can trace their heritage to an
> > > unknown population. And without that lucky mutation, the copying
> > > of mtDNA to the nuclear DNA, there could not be a shred of evidence
> > > for this.
> > >
> > > According to you jackasses this means that the billions descended
> > > from these archaic humans are not descended from archaic humans...
> > >
> > > You're not interested in understanding. You just want to memorize
> > > what some headline told you and pretend that's understanding. And
> > > that is hilarious.
> > >
> > Clearly more works needs to be done to support the "Out of Australia"|
> > hypothesis.
>
> Are you trying to satirize JTEM's position? Don't you know that there is no

Well erm, Yes!

> evidence of larger mammals (much smaller than humans, but larger than rats,
> to be precise) crossing the Wallace line before ca. 40,000 years ago?

Yes.

> By that time, the invasion of Homo sapiens sapiens was a done deal,
> having penetrated a goodly part of Asia.
>
> The great peninsula of Sunda, that existed during the last Pleistocene glaciation,
> where the eastern half of Indonesia and Malaysia now stands,
> was where humans stopped. Homo erectus, Homo florensis ("Hobbit man,") and other
> species of Homo were present there hundreds of thousands of years ago.
> Ask JTEM about some of them. Although he is generally dismissed as a kook,
> I've seen more good scientific facts from him than I've seen from you so far.
>

I'm mostly a spectator here, I'm not out there brandishing exciting new
"theories".

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:41:40 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)
> "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
> > > JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > RonO wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Lying about
> > > >
> > > > As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
> > > > the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
> > > > Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
> > > > go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact
> > > > that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs
> > > > existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
> > > >

> AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.

That's a fascinating possibility that never occurred to me, because the dog was the main beast of
of the indigenous people of USA and Canada before the horse supplanted it.

However, aren't you forgetting about the Inuit? Aren't some sled dogs
of today on New World dog lines? Also, what about Chihuahuas and related
breeds like the Mexican Hairless?

However, you could take a more active role, like you do in this post.
Even if your idea of New World dog lines is shot down, at least
you've given me something interesting to think about.

And this is a talk* group, not a sci* group, so we don't need to be
too careful about sharing ideas with others.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[erik simpson]

The indigenous people brought they're dogs with them. There were also plenty of native wolves in
New World (coyotes are small wolves), and they interbred with imported dogs. Dog domestication
took place in the Old World, probably in several places and several times.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:35:01 -0800 (PST)
erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 11:01:42 AM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:41:40 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)
> > > "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
> > > > > JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > RonO wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lying about
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
> > > > > > the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
> > > > > > Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
> > > > > > go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact
> > > > > > that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs
> > > > > > existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
> > > > > >
> >
> > > AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.
> > That's a fascinating possibility that never occurred to me, because the dog was the main beast of
> > of the indigenous people of USA and Canada before the horse supplanted it.
> >
> > However, aren't you forgetting about the Inuit? Aren't some sled dogs
> > of today on New World dog lines? Also, what about Chihuahuas and related
> > breeds like the Mexican Hairless?

[]

> > Even if your idea of New World dog lines is shot down, at least
> > you've given me something interesting to think about.
> >
> > And this is a talk* group, not a sci* group, so we don't need to be
> > too careful about sharing ideas with others.
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> The indigenous people brought they're dogs with them. There were also plenty of native wolves in
> New World (coyotes are small wolves), and they interbred with imported dogs. Dog domestication
> took place in the Old World, probably in several places and several times.
>

Sure. But I'd read that the New World people abandoned their breeds in
favour of Old World ones, once the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_exchange
got going.

OK, seems it's the original gene line that's gone, but some
parts of it are incorporated in dogs breeds found in Alaska and Peru

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_Hairless_Dog#DNA_evidence

[Ernest Major]

I looked at bits of WikiPedia. In several places they cite a study that
says that the pre-Columbian American dog lineages are extinct. But they
also mention some native ancestry in the Peruvian Hairless Dog, the
Mexican Hairless Dog, the Chihuahua and especially the Carolina Dog. It
might be better to say that the pre-Columbian American dog lineages have
been genetically swamped by Eurasian breeds.

Reading between the lines, the Canadian Eskimo/Greenland Dog, is
pre-Columbian, but a relatively recent introduction associated with the
Thule culture. The Malamute would seem to be an Alaskan development of
sled dogs from eastern Siberia.

--
alias Ernest Major

[erik simpson]

We'll probably never untangle the lineages of dogs, since they hybridize so readily. Domestic
dogs seem to have originated from a line of wolves that is "extinct", but I'm not sure what
that means, since Canis familiaris is so widespread.

[John Harshman]

That means "extinct in the wild" and not a current wolf lineage.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Naturally, I perked up when I read that last phrase. The following excerpt
from the Wikipedia article suggests that the "genetic swamping" of which
you next write might not be overwhelming in this breed:

"Three Carolina dogs in the study exhibited up to 33% pre-contact/Arctic lineage, however the study could not rule out this being the result of admixture with modern Arctic dog breeds.[27]"
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Dog

> It might be better to say that the pre-Columbian American dog lineages have
> been genetically swamped by Eurasian breeds.

The fact that Carolina dogs were feral when first discovered by Americans is cause
for speculation -- were they domesticated by Native Americans? The fact that
they were not used as food argues against true domestication:

"Moore, in the course of various explorations in Florida and Georgia discovered many remains of dogs, apparently of this type. In a large mound on Ossabaw Island, Georgia, he (1897) found several interments of human and dog-skeletons, the latter always buried separately and entire, showing that the dogs had not been used as food. Other dog-skeletons of a similar sort were found by Moore (1899) in aboriginal mounds on the South Carolina coast ...
... Putnam considered them the same as the larger Madisonville (Ohio) dogs.[7]"

[7] Allen, Glover Morrill (1920). "Dogs of the American Aborigines". Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. LXIII (9): 137.
Allen cites the following study in the course of [7]. :
"Cope (1893) was the first to describe the jaw of this dog from a specimen collected by Moore from a shell-mound on St. John's River, Florida. He was struck by the fact that the first lower premolar was missing and appeared not to have developed. He also noticed strong development of the entoconid of the carnassial".

Finally, here is a statement in [7] that stretches the meaning of the word "dog":

"Packard (1885) appears to have been influenced by Coues's belief, and agrees with him in considering these dogs as merely tamed coyotes. In a journey through provincial Mexico he was struck b^' the general resemblance of the native dogs to these animals, and again, in 1877, on the upper Missouri took special note of the dogs of the Crow^ Indians, describing them as of ipvolfdike appearance, of the size and color of a co3^ote— a whitish taw^ny — but less hairy and with less bushy tails. "

Misprints are from the original.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia

https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Thanks for pursuing this.

[JTEM is my hero]

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)
> "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)

> > > JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
> > > > the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
> > > > Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
> > > > go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact
> > > > that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs
> > > > existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.

> AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.

I knew I was wasting my time with you, and I know I'm wasting it now but,
you're wrong. These modern dogs are descended from the pre contact
dogs. It's just that the pre contact DNA has been swamped by the new
arrivals. They were also probably wiped out by diseases carried in during
more recent, like rabies.

You obviously can't grasp the macro scale so try to absorb it on the
micro scale: The y-chromosome and mtDNA.

A man marries a non-related women. They have three children, all
daughters. There. In a single generation his mtDNA line is gone, as is
his y-chromosome.

Now 10 or 100 or 1000 generations later it's impossible to find his
mtDNA or y-chromosome, testing the modern population. But he really
could have descendants.

That's the micro scale.

The macro scale is vastly more complicated but can hide the entire
genome the same way we just did the mtDNA and y-chromosome.

Breeding between two groups is frequently (normally?) not symmetrical.
There's disparity. Wealth. Status. Power.

Numbers!

There's 300 of them and 50 of you... even if you're all equals, whose
DNA is going to get swamped over time? Can you guess?

A more likely scenario is that there's 50 of you and 5 or 10 of them.
And then another 5 or 10 of them. And another. And another. And
another. And another... they keep coming...

That's probably the more likely scenario for our New World or
Egyptian dog breeds. Or the missing DNA from the population that
gave us the chromosome-11 insert. That sort of thing.

BREEDING ISN'T RANDOM!

The more attractive partners are favored. The bigger, stronger
and richer partners are favored. In a matriarchal society the woman
are making the choices. In patriarchies the males are deciding.

Can you say "r/K selection," anyone?

There were many different POPULATIONS, different CULTURES
and it's genuinely impossible that they all followed the same
breeding strategies -- customs/traditions.

When Out of Africa nuts say "African" they lie. There were many
different populations in Africa. Africa has distinct ethnicities
right now! It was MORE not less diverse prior to the Bantu
Expansion, and that was only like 3k years ago! The so called
Out of Africa expansion was supposed to be, what? Like 60k
years ago? Typically put at that time frame...

I always suggested that the African population to "Win," to
recover first and spread out into the vacuum after events like
Toba must've been sexually selected. So their numbers
recovered the quickest, they "Won."

...would also mean that butt ugly Neanderthals were
deciding between females from a sexually selected group
and females that looked like big muscled males, but maybe
with shorter beards...

> I'm mostly a spectator here, I'm not out there brandishing exciting new
> "theories".

Nor grasping the fundamentals.

Come on! This stuff isn't even Genetics 101 here! It's more
like Genetics 100, and still you can't understand it...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/734187383885529088

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> erik simpson wrote:

> > We'll probably never untangle the lineages of dogs, since they hybridize so readily. Domestic
> > dogs seem to have originated from a line of wolves that is "extinct", but I'm not sure what
> > that means, since Canis familiaris is so widespread.

> That means "extinct in the wild" and not a current wolf lineage.

It is virtually impossible for there to has been only one single
domestication point, and I only add "Virtually" to keep the
collective from flying into a tizzy over some laughably remote
scenario it is able to conjure out of necessity to object and
obstruct.

Did anyone think that feral dogs were only invented last week?
Or 1972? Or sometime just before WWII?

My favorite, and a very plausible, theory is that dogs became
domesticated by eating our throw aways, our garbage. The less
aggressive they were they closer they could be to humans,
interact, without humans feeling that they had to protect
themselves...

IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE that human interaction made wolves
more aggressive, by drawing off the least aggressive and
driving away the most aggressive...

You need to obstruct, not understand, which is why you're
closed to reality.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/734187383885529088

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 1:26:42 AM UTC-5, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> >
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)
> > "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
>
> > > > JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
> > > > > the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
> > > > > Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
> > > > > go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact
> > > > > that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs
> > > > > existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
>
> > AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.

> I knew I was wasting my time with you, and I know I'm wasting it now but,
> you're wrong.

You may be wasting it with John Kerr-Mudd, and probably other readers,
but not with me. It's good to see an articulate, reasoned statement
of a sort that I haven't seen from your main critics in a long time.

> These modern dogs are descended from the pre contact
> dogs. It's just that the pre contact DNA has been swamped by the new
> arrivals. They were also probably wiped out by diseases carried in during
> more recent, like rabies.
>
> You obviously can't grasp the macro scale so try to absorb it on the
> micro scale: The y-chromosome and mtDNA.
>
> A man marries a non-related women. They have three children, all
> daughters. There. In a single generation his mtDNA line is gone, as is
> his y-chromosome.

I've never seen it put that way before, but it is quite correct.
Of course, his mtDNA isn't passed on in any case, because his sperm cell
head does not have mitochondria, but you've made the statement symmetrical.

> Now 10 or 100 or 1000 generations later it's impossible to find his
> mtDNA or y-chromosome, testing the modern population. But he really
> could have descendants.

This makes it all the more interesting that a good percentage of Carolina dogs have been
found with unbroken maternal ancestral lines that are very distinct from any found in other breeds:

"In 2013, a study looked at the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)[b] sampled from Carolina dogs. The study showed that 58% of the dogs carried universal haplotypes[c] that could be found around the world (haplotypes[c] A16, A18, A19, and B1), 5% carried haplotypes associated with Korea and Japan (A39), and 37% carried a unique haplotype (A184) that had not been recorded before, and that is part of the a5 mtDNA sub-haplogroup that originated in East Asia.[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Dog

The following statement by Kerr-Mudd is incomplete,
but you are to be commended for staying on-topic [1]
in your response to it.

> > I'm mostly a spectator here, I'm not out there brandishing exciting new
> > "theories".

> Nor grasping the fundamentals.

[1] Which is probably why you haven't gotten any feedback until now:
the two last posts to this thread until now were by you,
and the others besides me "can't see them because they don't want to see them,"
as a useful talk.origins formula goes.

> Come on! This stuff isn't even Genetics 101 here! It's more
> like Genetics 100, and still you can't understand it...

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 1:36:42 AM UTC-5, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
> > erik simpson wrote:
>
> > > We'll probably never untangle the lineages of dogs, since they hybridize so readily. Domestic
> > > dogs seem to have originated from a line of wolves that is "extinct", but I'm not sure what
> > > that means, since Canis familiaris is so widespread.
>
> > That means "extinct in the wild" and not a current wolf lineage.

Harshman is parroting Wikipedia here.

"Genetic studies suggest that all ancient and modern dogs share a common ancestry and descended from an ancient, now-extinct wolf population – or closely related wolf populations – which was distinct from the modern wolf lineage.[3][4]."
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_dog

> It is virtually impossible for there to has been only one single
> domestication point, and I only add "Virtually" to keep the
> collective from flying into a tizzy over some laughably remote
> scenario it is able to conjure out of necessity to object and
> obstruct.

I fully agree. Dogs are social animals, unlike cats, and so have a natural
affinity to other social animals like *Homo*. By the time of the first possible
domestication [1] humans were very widespread, as were possible
dog ancestors.

Tizzy-prone objectors should keep in mind that
the various candidates for ancestral dog genes
readily interbred, creating an illusion of a single domestication point.

> Did anyone think that feral dogs were only invented last week?
> Or 1972? Or sometime just before WWII?

The Carolina Dog was fully feral when discovered alive by
Americans. It seems to have been domesticated in pre-Columbian
times, but the majority may have remained feral, inasmuch
as some 37% were of a purely matrilineal lineage going back
to before the arrival of wolves in the Americas. See what I quoted
in my post of yesterday from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Dog

> My favorite, and a very plausible, theory is that dogs became
> domesticated by eating our throw aways, our garbage. The less
> aggressive they were they closer they could be to humans,
> interact, without humans feeling that they had to protect
> themselves...

All plausible, and favored by Wikipedia, but I favor the theory that early humans picked up
whelps abandoned by the wolves that they had been following,
and bred them for two uses: hunting in human-supervised small packs,
and protecting villages from wolves, other predators,
and humans from other villages.

Jane Goodall did a TV series in which she was in close contact
with a pack of "African Wild Dogs" ("Cape Hunting Dogs").
In it, the dominant female (named "Havoc" by Jane) killed all but one of the pups of
a subordinate female, "Black Angel". That pup, whom Jane named Solo,
was abandoned while the pack was moving to new hunting grounds.
It could not keep up because it had not been nourished as well
as Havoc's pups had been, and Havoc and her mate forbade Solo's
parents from carrying it. Jane adopted it and nourished it back to health.

Such scenes could have played out many times, in far-flung villages.

> IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE that human interaction made wolves
> more aggressive, by drawing off the least aggressive and
> driving away the most aggressive...

"more aggressive" could be replaced by "more afraid of humans":
lack of fear of humans due to insufficient prior experience (or none)
was probably the main cause of most megafauna extinctions
in the Pleistocene and early Holocene.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> The Carolina Dog was fully feral when discovered alive by
> Americans. It seems to have been domesticated in pre-Columbian
> times, but the majority may have remained feral, inasmuch
> as some 37% were of a purely matrilineal lineage going back
> to before the arrival of wolves in the Americas. See what I quoted
> in my post of yesterday from:

I should guess that the fact that they were feral is what preserved
them so well.

But, there are breeds which physically resemble the ancient dogs
yet carry European DNA. Pretty easy: Selective breeding.

Could also be temperament or color -- anything.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/734463040073957376