Remarkably well-preserved 18,000-year-old puppy found frozen in Siberia

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,125
Los Angeles Area
✟820,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Ice preserved a tiny puppy in near-perfect condition for 18,000 years. Scientists are fascinated.

I realize 18,000-year-old puppy is kinda an oxymoron, but anyway...

Researchers have big outstanding questions about the puppy they have named Dogor — “friend” in a language of the Siberian area where the creature spent 18,000 years in permafrost.

They’re still trying to figure out if the tiny animal is a dog or wolf. They wonder whether he could be part of the evolutionary bridge that turned a fierce wild animal into man’s best friend.

They don’t have to speculate about what Dogor looked like, however, because icy conditions have left him remarkably frozen in time. Scientists can touch his fur, lift his padded paws and pull back his lips to bare small, yellowed teeth.

Testing on a rib bone has revealed the animal’s age: about two months, said Stanton, a postdoctoral scholar who’s been working for over a year on a broader attempt to answer lingering questions about canine history.

For those without WashingtonPost subs - Gizmodo LINK.

 

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
They wonder whether he could be part of the evolutionary bridge that turned a fierce wild animal into man’s best friend.

Or maybe he's just a puppy, however, he will be whatever scientists want him to be..

I thought it was common belief that man has always tamed the wild animals, no evolution required.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,125
Los Angeles Area
✟820,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
I thought it was common belief that man has always tamed the wild animals, no evolution required.

Domestication has led to changes in gene frequencies. It is artificial selection rather than natural selection, but the result is evolution.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Please explain "change the gene frequencies"
. Are you serious? That is what evolution mainly is . Gene duplication, for example, changes how many copies of a gene there are. The consequences of doing that vary. Sometimes you get more protein from the genes. sometimes you get a feedback effect that shuts down the genes faster so you get more protein in less time . Sometimes you get a feedback effect that shuts both genes off. (They did that with a purple flower, iirc a petunia, gave it two purple pigment genes , expecting dark purple flowers and got pure white.) There are certainly other effects if these genes interact strongly with still other genes . Changing a single amino acid in a The DNA of a gene can change the rate that it forms a protein. It speed up or slow down how fast the cell makes it, without changing the protein itself .

Why would you think that this isn’t part of evolution. These affect how the organism responds to its environment?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,125
Los Angeles Area
✟820,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Please explain "change the gene frequencies"

Dogs are different genetically from wolves. This didn't happen by human beings whipping wolves until their genes changed.

In natural selection, maybe a cheetah species might respond to natural selective pressures of faster prey by producing successful faster (relatively speaking) cheetahs (who thus get food while their slower brethren starved). And these faster cheetahs are more likely to pass on their faster genes to their progeny who may become even faster. Genes for fastness will become more common. Their frequency will increase.

In artificial selection, maybe a wolf species might respond to the artificial presence of human beings by producing successful friendlier and more docile (relatively speaking) wolves (who thus get fed by humans, while their bitier, angrier brethren starved). And these more docile wolves are more likely to pass on their friendlier genes to their progeny who may become even friendlier. Genes for friendliness will become more common. Their frequency in the population of wolves will increase. Particularly in the subpopulation that hangs around humans.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I thought it was common belief that man has always tamed the wild animals, no evolution required.

There is evolution required. There are genetic traits that exist in domesticated dogs that don't in wolf populations for instance.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
How old ?

About 454,000 results (0.86 seconds)
Search Results
Scholarly articles for unreliable dating Radiocarbon
Unreliable 14C dating of long-stored deep-sea … - ‎Geyh - Cited by 48
New Zealand radiocarbon age measurements—6 - ‎Grant-Taylor - Cited by 120
The unreliability of 14 C dates obtained from buried … - ‎Geyh - Cited by 56
Featured snippet from the web
Radiocarbon dating, which is used to calculate the age of certain organic materials, has been found to be unreliable, and sometimes wildly so - a discovery that could upset previous studies on climate change, scientists from China and Germany said in a new paper.
Many global warming studies may be wrong as carbon dating ...

https://www.scmp.com › tech › science-research › article › many-global-war...
I love the way you post links to completely irrelevant material as if it supports your implied argument.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I love the way you post links to completely irrelevant material as if it supports your implied argument.

Almost like he didn't even read anything he linked. :/
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Dogs are different genetically from wolves. This didn't happen by human beings whipping wolves until their genes changed.

In natural selection, maybe a cheetah species might respond to natural selective pressures of faster prey by producing successful faster (relatively speaking) cheetahs (who thus get food while their slower brethren starved). And these faster cheetahs are more likely to pass on their faster genes to their progeny who may become even faster. Genes for fastness will become more common. Their frequency will increase.

In artificial selection, maybe a wolf species might respond to the artificial presence of human beings by producing successful friendlier and more docile (relatively speaking) wolves (who thus get fed by humans, while their bitier, angrier brethren starved). And these more docile wolves are more likely to pass on their friendlier genes to their progeny who may become even friendlier. Genes for friendliness will become more common. Their frequency in the population of wolves will increase. Particularly in the subpopulation that hangs around humans.

Hasn't that always been highly controversial in that is can cause such extreme changes in the wild as an ameba to a man? Or whatever it's claimed started the pool? But it shouldn't surprise me it's touted as fact still.

Are you serious?

Very. Are you?

I often try to get folks to post proof of evolution with no takers, so this way, I at least got something on the table.

Do you think with time, an amebae can naturally be bred into a man, or anything even close? Or I'll make it even easier, even with selective breeding, how far have we gotten in trying to breed out such a high form of life from a single, already living cell?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Hasn't that always been highly controversial in that is can cause such extreme changes in the wild as an ameba to a man?

Not in the slightest. It's the same process, just over a much longer period of time (from first life to now). The only people who find it controversial are those who feel it contradicts their religious views.

Part of the issue is also that humans have difficulty conceptualizing vast time periods. So some people have difficulty imagining the level of evolutionary change that could happen over billions of years versus the level that happens over a much shorter period of time.

Consequently it's a lot easier for those people to understand the evolution required to domesticate modern dogs, as opposed to visualize the magnitude of changes that would have taken place since life first appeared on Earth.

This is why I think creationists often talk as though the two scenarios are different processes, when it fact they are effectively the same, just different orders of magnitude.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
hgb
Not in the slightest. It's the same process, just over a much longer period of time (from first life to now). The only people who find it controversial are those who feel it contradicts their religious views.

Part of the issue is also that humans have difficulty conceptualizing vast time periods. So some people have difficulty imagining the level of evolutionary change that could happen over billions of years versus the level that happens over a much shorter period of time.

Consequently it's a lot easier for those people to understand the evolution required to domesticate modern dogs, as opposed to visualize the magnitude of changes that would have taken place since life first appeared on Earth.

This is why I think creationists often talk as though the two scenarios are different processes, when it fact they are effectively the same, just different orders of magnitude.

I never thought they were different.

Sure it's controversial, it's as controversial as evolution itself that a higher form of life like man came for a single celled animal in that way, yet you have the nerve to say it's not the slightest bit controversial??

It's reasons like that, among others, I can't trust some of you enough to carry on a debate? See, there has to be at least something that resembles honesty here in order for one party to take the other seriousely.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
hgb


I never thought they were different.

Sure it's controversial, it's as controversial as evolution itself that a higher form of life like man came for a single celled animal in that way, yet you have the nerve to say it's not the slightest bit controversial??

It's reasons like that, among others, I can't trust some of you enough to carry on a debate? See, there has to be at least something that resembles honesty here in order for one party to take the other seriousely.
Lol. Honesty, he says. Lol.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0