# selective breeding is subtraction not addition?



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

IF all dog come from wolves then the complete gentotype can be thought of as the colour white ie all colours mixed together, so a wolf has a white spectrum so to speak. we actually have only deleted genes that were not desired when humans invented breeds, there is no other position that is logical, not possible to add or mutate a gene that is not wolf. unless you cross species. 

each breed in this analogy is just a different colour so to speak. the weak nerve fearful dog is closest to the wolf, should not then every breeding program retain a reactive fearful dog to jump start the breeeding program again and add some colours back to the pallette, cf breeding prey to prey to prey long term, as i stated selective breeding is necesarily deletion what long term damage to the breed by having such a narrow geno-type, it is unnatural (which all dogs are duh) but if the geno-type is narrow then destruction of the species usually looms closer and closer. most of our genes are junk genes as a result of evolution (sorry creationists, not so perefect after all) that junk is necessary.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

What are you talking about? All colors mixed together isn't white.


----------



## Tom888 (Nov 18, 2012)

Syaoransbear said:


> What are you talking about? All colors mixed together isn't white.


Well, that depends on whether we are talking about additive or substractive colour mixing


----------



## Metro_Mike (Mar 29, 2013)

Couldn't sleep and came across your post X11. Think I will take a stab at it. I understand your concept but I have to disagree with you completely. I believe selective breeding is neither a subtraction nor an addition rather a re-mixing of the primary colors.

To make my position I will keep your analogy of “all inclusive genotype” of wolf as being the color white “presence of all color”. Therefore selective breeding of wolves by humans have deleted genes to arrive at the domesticated dog (let’s say color green).

The reason I disagree with your analogy is the very nature of DNA. I would define your color white as the DNA not the genes! DNA is made of four chemicals adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). These four chemicals make up all complex living organisms. The DNA structure or helix is what differentiates the different organisms let’s say humans vs a turtle.

Changes to the Helix structure or genes (mutations) by genetic defect other environmental factors ( i.e. radiation and etc) can ADD, and DELETE changes to the genes to a gene pool. Therefore, since helix of DNA can change you can’t say that future progeny is just deletion of genes. Rather, the helix can be arranged for argumentative purpose infinitely thus adding genes and de-emphasizing other genes recessive. 

For example when you say wolf there are 6 different species of wolves with many sub-species. If there was 1 common ancestor to the wolves would you say that the Himalayan wolf has deleted genes from the Gray wolf? It is quite possible that mutations and environment has emphasized, possibly added genes thus differentiating species? Thus genes are just one characteristic of heredity make-up of DNA.


----------



## Pooky44 (Feb 10, 2013)

You must distinguish between colors of light and colors of pigment. In light, white is the presence of all colors. In pigments, white is the absence of all colors.
In light, black is the absence of all colors. In pigments, black is the presence of all colors.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

x11 said:


> the weak nerve fearful dog is closest to the wolf...


What makes you think so? I would guess the exact opposite to be true, that through natural selection, the weakest are eliminated. And not that I'm an expert on wolves, but I can't imagine the breeding alphas attaining that status within the pack - not with weak nerves.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

x11 said:


> the weak nerve fearful dog is closest to the wolf,


I think wolves would be considered naturally suspicious rather than weak nerved and fearful but I'm no expert on wolves.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

I disagree, because in essence you ARE breeding genetic mutations to an extent. The bracycephalic muzzle of many breeds (bulldogs, pugs, etc) is a mutation of the skull. Many things also change for a dog physically when domestication occurs.

For example, black is not a natural coloration of the grey wolf (or so I have read, it has been YEARS and years so I would want to read up on it again). It was through domestication that black occured and it is believe that domesticated canines breeding back into the wild population caused black to become a color seen in wild wolves.

Read up on the russian farm fox project if genetics and domestication interests you. This experiment over 40 years breed the calmest fox kits to the calmest kits in a controlled environment, and it showed that a wild silver fox could be DOMESTICATED in 14 generations. Not tamed but actual domestication. As the foxes became domesticated physical and temperament changes were noted - odd coloration such as spotting and white points, curled tails, floppy ears, blazes and stars. They also began to bark which wild foxes do not do. I would easily argue that these changes are genetic mutations


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

and what is the mechanism causing these mutations? given in my understanding a mutation is a mispairing of broken chemical bonds on the genes, eg radiation damage, so i am not inclined to go with that?

look at dogs n garbage piles in third world countries, even with geographic isolatio the dogs all end up looking kinda the same. 

like nature is a magnet working against selective breeding bringing a dog back to the same primal form (which is not a wolf).


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Too much X-men, isn't it?

Sorry x11, but your theory is wrong from the very beginning, it would be impossible to explain why without going back to Mendel and 7th grade biology and I don't have that much time.

A couple of things that screeched too loudly. 

Mutations are a natural part of genetics, you can read more about here to understand better: What is a gene mutation and how do mutations occur? - Genetics Home Reference

With the recent theories, dogs are not a human creation. Dogs created themselves because it was beneficial for them, not for us. Very later in their developing we learned how to use them in our advantage, so dogs ARE natural, what we have done with them on the last century... not that much.

I highly recommend you to read the first chapters of this book, The history from wolf to dog is nicely explained: Dog Sense


----------



## Kaimeju (Feb 2, 2013)

Whiteshepherds said:


> I think wolves would be considered naturally suspicious rather than weak nerved and fearful but I'm no expert on wolves.


My best guess is that this is a reference to some shorter-term studies of domestication where it was shown that the "wild type" animals tended to be fearful and aggressive towards humans. This does not mean that weak-nerved dogs are closer the wild type, however. Fear of humans when held in captivity is probably not indicative of weak nerves in general but just lack of domestication. 



x11; said:


> and what is the mechanism causing these mutations? given in my understanding a mutation is a mispairing of broken chemical bonds on the genes, eg radiation damage, so i am not inclined to go with that?


During the recombination of chromosomes in the production of gametes there is also the potential for mutations as biological processes are not perfect. My understanding is that it is sometimes a spontaneous "error" in the RNA. The vast majority of the time, these mutations are either neutral or harmful rather than beneficial. However, with selective breeding you can speed up the process of mutation by allowing individuals with neutral or even harmful mutations to have a reproductive advantage. It is not always due to radiation damage.


----------



## Alyalanna (May 28, 2011)

Anubis_Star said:


> Read up on the russian farm fox project if genetics and domestication interests you. This experiment over 40 years breed the calmest fox kits to the calmest kits in a controlled environment, and it showed that a wild silver fox could be DOMESTICATED in 14 generations. Not tamed but actual domestication. As the foxes became domesticated physical and temperament changes were noted - odd coloration such as spotting and white points, curled tails, floppy ears, blazes and stars. They also began to bark which wild foxes do not do. I would easily argue that these changes are genetic mutations


If you have Netflix streaming you can also look up Dogs Decoded: Nova. In the last third of the show they show foxes from this experiment. It was really fascinating. Actually the whole show was fascinating as it showed some differences behavior-wise between dogs and wolves.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Catu said:


> With the recent theories, *dogs are not a human creation*. Dogs created themselves because it was beneficial for them, not for us. Very later in their developing we learned how to use them in our advantage, so dogs ARE natural, what we have done with them on the last century... not that much.


so the pit bull created itself by killing evry one of its own kind that it came into contact with because it was - "beneficial for them, not for us"

yes duh dogs are natural - they were not made in a test tube. 

very few breeds were created in the last century unless you consider a breed has only existed when a standard was written which is technically correct i guess - the border collie certainly pre-dates its standard and i doubt developed pronounced herding skills all by itself which we later "just learned to use".

the concept that different breeds were created due to people just waiting for a spontaneous mutation to occurr that someone just took advantage of and created a new breed out of - that is more far fetched than X-men.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Uhm... I said dogs, not dog breeds... but really, read the book, its free online if you search for it.

Or if you are not into reading... you can see this documental. Its free around if you look for it too. Amazon.com: Nature: Dogs That Changed the World: Artist Not Provided: Movies & TV


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

i do appreciate the link and will watch/read it, i know this thread is a bit off base - i am just a learning about dogs junkie and never took biology in high school, always found physical science much easier to understand.

this thread has already paid off for me in the great leads people have put up, the rest is just the symptoms of chronic insomnia.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Well now I think you're not wanting the consider the mutation possibility. in my mind there are two different categories of breeds. The first are the breeds with a working purpose. Form follows function so yes you are breeding dogs best suited for a specific job and getting a uniformed form over time. The other type is the pet dogs. Think lap dogs. Its more breeding after something you like (dog is born with short muzzle and you think its adorable so you keep breeding to obtain that short and shorter muzzle) instead of getting results that follow a function.

If it helps to comprehend, most cat breeds were a mutation someone liked and bred for. For example an abyssinian siamese cross litter produced a kitten with spots much like wild cats. Hence the ocicat breed
Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

I also understand is spotting a mutation? Well isnt it if it's abnormal from the lineage? Neither abyssinians nor siamese are spotted. Im just at work typing in between cases, there are many other examples much better. Sphynx, munchkin, etc... also what ISa mutation? Not just 2 heads, but is a coloration or ear set or head shape never seen going to be considered a mutation?

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

unless breeders are putting there females in a microwave;

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In genetics, a *mutation* is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element. 

*Mutations result from unrepaired **damage to DNA** or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical **mutagens**),* from errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Well now thats really closing off your mind and completely ignoring inherited mutations. And even aquired mutation can be caused by defects in the gene itself as the cells divide not related to enviromental exposure

Albinoism, hypermelanistic, and hypomelanistic animals are all due to genetic mutations. Piebald colorations are genetic mutations - think of a piebald deer. King cheetas are a geetic mutation that causes striping instead of spots. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

no doubt but in a planned breeding program the breeder waits for a desired mutation to just spontaneaously appear?

and how many of these mutations attribute to desired behavioural/character type working traits in working dogs as oppossed to striped cheetahs?

just asking?


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

If you think all mutations are caused by radoation then maybe you should revisit some school level biology classes before continuing because its going to be difficult to comprehend much beyond that. 

And as I said earlier what kind of dog are we talkong about? German shepherds that were very much a planned breeding program from a set stock (a breed btw that was founded pretty much in the last century, 124 years ago to be exact) or are we talking about long haired lap dogs (long coat is arguably a mutation as wolves dont have long fur) that were bred during medieval times becase people believed they attracted fleas off their owners?

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Planned breeding programs aim at selective breeding - slowly developing a stock type and teperament by breeding the most desired animals to eachother and in many cases like the gsd heavily inbreeding in the beginning to promote desired traits. Were german shepherds created from genetic mutations? No. But physically they still retain many wolf like qualities. But on the other hand pugs, chinese cresteds, and other like breeds were very much bred off desired mutations, be it lack of fur or other

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

:banghead:


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Anubis_Star said:


> *Planned breeding programs aim at selective breeding - slowly developing a stock type and teperament by breeding the most desired animals to eachother and in many cases like the gsd heavily inbreeding in the beginning to promote desired traits. Were german shepherds created from genetic mutations? No. But physically they still retain many wolf like qualities. But on the other hand pugs, chinese cresteds, and other like breeds were very much bred off desired mutations, be it lack of fur or other*
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


 
that and breeding *away* from undesired traits and i actually think we are very much agreeing with each other?


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Catu said:


> :banghead:


 
what is yr actual point?


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

No.... because its not just taking away genes from a wolf. It's changing genetic makeup. Speeding up evolution.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

ok, based on the mechanisim of random mutations we are changing the DNA on a molecular level...somehow....gene splicing, nano-technology, intelligent design, gives half dog half frog a literal meaning?

can you conjure a "specific spontaneous" mutation at will?

fun thread


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

x11 said:


> what is yr actual point?





Anubis_Star said:


> maybe you should revisit some school level biology classes before continuing because its going to be difficult to comprehend much beyond that.


 Here it's said more politely.


----------



## Cheyanna (Aug 18, 2012)

Junk science is fun.

First, there isn't really junk genes. The most can be said is that we don't know what a particular gene is for yet. Gene mapping is still going on and it will be hundreds of years before we can know every single thing about each and every gene. That is mapping human genes. Who knows how long will it be before all genes of all living things is mapped.

Second, to be clear we are talking about micro-evolution (changes within a species) and not macro evolution (combining of species to get a new species). Wolf and dog are same species.

Finally, mutations happen for reasons we don't always know. We might be able to create a mutation in the future, but now we can't. GSD have no blue eyes. That means that there is not a recessive gene for blue eyes. To get blue eyes, I would have to mutate the gene for eye color, if there was only one and I knew which one it was and I knew how to mutate it to get blue eyes. Not all mutations are inherited. For example, a woman with 6 toes on her left foot does not always give birth to a baby with 6 toes on the left foot. In fact it is rare. So I might get blue eyes in one dog, but then I don't have another blue eyed dog to mate it with.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Cheyanna said:


> Junk science is fun.
> 
> *Gene mapping is still going on* *and it will be hundreds of years before we can know every single thing about each and every gene*
> 
> ...


admit this thread was a long shot but some of thecorrections are just way....longer???

educate me.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

By your theory what did we take away from tiny microorganisms to make wolves in the first place? All life on this planet started at a microscopic level, and by your definition the only way to get from A to B is subtraction. So what did we take away from the amoeba to make the wolf?

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## warpwr (Jan 13, 2011)

I personally think that dogs and wolves may have come separately from a common ancestor rather than down a straight line from pre-wolf to wolf to dog.
Kind of like Neanderthal man and Modern man except with dogs and wolves and maybe even some inter-breeding.

Ancient Egyptians had dogs without any wolves around. Or were there Egyptian wolves?

Did American Indians develop their dogs from American wolves at the same time the Europeans developed dogs from European wolves? 
Or did the native Americans bring their dogs to America with them and ignored the American wolves? Or both?

Or did early man actually domesticate wild dogs and not wolves at all?

That's a theory anyway.

And not theoretical ...
All colors of pigment together will make black.
The lack of any colors of pigment will make white.

All the colors of light combined will make white.
The lack of all colors in light makes black, just the opposite.


----------



## David Taggart (Nov 25, 2012)

Have you ever heard about The Fox Farm Experiment? There is a film about them besides an article in American Scientist. In one word: one of Siberian Universities undertook the task of breeding a dog out of the fox, thus proving that not all dogs are the descendants of the wolf. They suceeded. The number of silver black foxes were more than 700; and very friendly, human-loving, pretty obedient puppies (cubs) were born after 8 th generation of selective breeding was completed. The same scientists have said, that theoretically it is very possible, but it would be extremely difficult to breed a dog out of the wolf, not only because you would have to look after 700 wolves for a start, but because wolves need more space, less tolerant to cages and they are pack animals while the foxes are not.
I believe, it was in his book "The German Shepher Dog in Word and in Picture" where von Stephanitz expressed his belief that original herding GSD is a direct descendant of the wolf. Before they were registered as a dog breed, the selection continued over many centuries and GSD always was one of the oldest breeds on earth occasionally re-interbred with wolves. Huskies were interbred with wolves time to time intentionally and went for it themselves - dogs and wolves interbeed easily!
It is said, that the wolf is even more intelligent creature than the dog, alas, not suitable for human companionship. Dog is a friendly and very brave creature, wolf -is very shy and self-protective. Out of interbreeding modern dogs with the wolves comes out a dog with these undesirable qualities, so, nobody want to breed dogs "backwards".


----------



## Mary Jane (Mar 3, 2006)

Another common mechanism of genetic change is gene duplication. You start out with gene A that codes for something important for the species. After duplication you have A and A'. Because A' is "extra", it can accumulate mutations that might be harmful for the function of A. Then A' might be used for something unanticipated. The major protein in the lens of the human eye is closely related to an early enzyme in alcohol digestion.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Anciet egytian society was around roughly 2, 000-5, 000 years ago. It is estimated dogs started becoming domesticated roughly 15, 000 years ago but some reports say as long as 30, 000+ years ago. Through trading and the movement of man these valuable creatures would of quickly spread across the world, much like the horse that egyptians also had.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Anubis_Star said:


> By your theory what did we take away from tiny microorganisms to make wolves in the first place? All life on this planet started at a microscopic level, and by your definition the only way to get from A to B is subtraction. So what did we take away from the amoeba to make the wolf?
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


strange as it seems i am not that interested in going from first simplest forms of pre-historic early life forms eg bacteria to pet lab on the sofa. my post was rather limited from wolf to mutlitude of modern domestic dogs and how their traits/characteristics have been selected for and inherited.

so......


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Well then there's nothing else anyone can tell you. You've already made up your mind on how genetic change occurs.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

Taggart , the foxes that you reference were the by product of Belyaev who found that by repeatedly selecting FOR tameness in silver foxes , (easier to handle) , generation after generation you started having physical changes , unintentionally, as a by product of that selection.

For the readers out there this is a good book --
Part Wild: One Woman's Journey with a Creature Caught Between the Worlds of Wolves and Dogs: Amazon.ca: Ceiridwen Terrill: Books


----------

