

The truth dogs reveal about evolution - bootload
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6808173.ece

======
bootload
_"... We can imagine wild wolves scavenging on a rubbish tip on the edge of a
village. Most of them, fearful of men throwing stones and spears, have a very
long flight distance. They sprint for the safety of the forest as soon as a
human appears in the distance. But a few individuals, by genetic chance,
happen to have a slightly shorter flight distance than the average. Their
readiness to take slight risks — they are brave, shall we say, but not
foolhardy — gains them more food than their more risk-averse rivals. ..."_

I see flight distance every day outside with birds but have never seen it
explained well.

There are some birds like Coots ( _Purple Swamphen, Pukeko_ ~
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pukeko> or _Porphyrio porphyrio_ ) who's flight
distance is about 20m. I cannot take an photo from the front
~[http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/492391687/in/set-72157...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/492391687/in/set-72157600195774723/)
The same with the little Corella ( _Cactua Gymnopis_ ) ~
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3594879014/in/set-7215...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3594879014/in/set-72157600195774723/)
No matter how careful the approach they always fly away at a set distance. Now
compare this to the common everyday Magpie ( _Cracticus tibicen_ ~
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Magpie>) who even a young age ~
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3046710061/in/set-7215...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3046710061/in/set-72157600195774723/)
don't seem too concerned how close I get ~
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3993808413/in/set-7215...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3993808413/in/set-72157600195774723/)
The Sulphur Crested Cockatoos ( _Cacatua galerita_ ~
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur-crested_Cockatoo>) also seem to have
evolved a shortened flight distance ~
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/490365274/in/set-72157...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/490365274/in/set-72157600195774723/)

Now the question I'd really be interested in is, _"could ideas like 'flight
distance' be explained in Startups with respect to risk?"_ , _"Can you think
of Startups in business evolutionary terms? where founders take more risks to
obtain more personal reward?"_ , _"What are the 'pleiotropy' traits associated
with Startups? and are they close to what's described in 'Startups in 13
sentences'?"_ ~ <http://paulgraham.com/13sentences.html>

~~~
seldo
The most obvious pleiotrope that I can think of associated with startups
(possibly all businesses) is that CEOs tend to be, putting it bluntly, jerks.

The same qualities that make for a successful CEO -- ruthlessness, tenacity,
the ability to play fast-and-loose with the facts when necessary -- also make
for the kind of person you don't want to hang around with much. The better
CEOs I've seen are able to compartmentalize this ability: they can be
likeable, loyal friends, and restrict their ruthlessness to their business
relationships. In the close-knit startup world, where the lines between
business partners and friends blur, this is less practical.

I'm not saying I would change this -- I need a CEO who is ruthless -- but the
side-effects are unfortunate.

~~~
andymism
> The better CEOs I've seen are able to compartmentalize this ability: they
> can be likeable, loyal friends, and restrict their ruthlessness to their
> business relationships.

I've been thinking about an idea in this vein a lot recently due to a less
than ideal business transaction. It seems to me that the idea of a ruthless
CEO is a myth constructed and put up on a pedestal by a largely male business
community (combative/competitive instincts, right?). A successful business
person need not be ruthless in the strict dictionary definition. What they
need to be is persistent in pursuing their own economic goals or those of
their organization. From the outside, this might look like ruthlessness,
especially in a transaction between friends, but experience has shown me that
applying social norms to a situation where market norms should rule can end
badly.

------
radu_floricica
This is just a taste of what this guy can write. If you liked this, do
yourself a favor and check out couple of his books. (They're pretty evenly
divided between atheism and evolutionary biology. If it's first published
before 2000, it's probably the latter. And don't be afraid of older dates, The
Selfish Gene was published in the 70s and it's still probably the best).

------
chipsy
I feel that dogs are somewhat of a plighted animal in modern society. They
have a strong desire to wander and be social within their neighborhood, but
our living environments today are so heavily bisected along property lines and
car traffic that for the most part, they are not allowed outside except in
very restricted ways at specific, supervised times.

So the modern dog owner has to work extra hard to keep their instinctual needs
satisfied, and most owners can't manage this. Hence, the dogs will bark, and
bark, and bark, or try to escape or misbehave, because that's the next best
thing they can do when they want to communicate and get attention.

~~~
ricosroughnecks
I'm raising a high content wolf hybrid and a Shiba-ken. I can see the plight
you speak of daily. However, the strange thing is that it affects my dog more
than it does my wolf. During their walks, the little Shiba just wants to run
wild, play with everyone, and generally explore his world. The wolf just wants
to run to every shadowy corner he finds, and generally avoids people. He is
happiest when back home.

A strange thing I've noticed is that, while at home, both of the animals
behave as though they were the same species. Only when outdoors, do the
differences become pronounced.

It's interesting having both these guys, I can easily identify which traits of
the wolf have been suppressed, and which have been amplified.

------
akamaka
I think the most important truth about dog evolution is that we still don't
know how it happened. Dawkins only discusses one of many plausible theories
that have been put forward (see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog>).

We still live in a mysterious world, with lots of unanswered questions and
plenty of avenues of exploration open to anyone curious enough to pursue them!

~~~
fnid
I think we kind of know. I mean, wolves and dog like creatures live along side
humans all over the world. They hunt with us and eat what we leave behind and
we use things or did for a long time, things they left behind. It's only
natural that the ones that shared knowledge with each other among the group
benefited more along the direction of a shared ability to communicate amongst
themselves than would members of groups that did not care to share such a
bond. ref: <http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=3804>

We see avatar and see how far into the future he saw those animals and they
had evolved these complicated neuronal cross species connections. Now if you
believe in evolution, then you can't argue with that as a potential reality in
the future. In a way, it does exist across species now in more trivial forms,
including, if you will allow me, eye contact. I would offer to suggest that
eye contact may actually be one of the first forms of cross species and even
family. Birds, fish, all kinds of mammals... You can make eye contact and
communicate with them if you have the patience. The more primitive the
organism, the more patience is required to communicate with it -- if it can
communicate.

------
michael_dorfman
_When you notice a characteristic of an animal and ask what its Darwinian
survival value is, you may be asking the wrong question. It could be that the
characteristic you have picked out is not the one that matters. It may have
_come along for the ride_, dragged along in evolution by some other
characteristic to which it is pleiotropically linked_.

I wish the evolutionary psychology folks would paste this sentence to their
wall.

~~~
berntb
You find bad research in all areas, also in evolutionary psychology.

BUT -- most of that type of criticism of evol psychology also painted Dawkins,
which you quote here, with the _exact_ same brush... :-)

(For some fun, go read Dawkins' criticism of "Not in our genes"
<http://dba.fc.ul.pt/evo/textos/Dawkins.pdf>)

------
ShardPhoenix
Wow, the end of this article really brought home to me in a visceral way
something that I already intellectually knew - that I (and the rest of us)
really do have distant past ancestors that were fish, mouse-like creatures,
etc.

~~~
jeromec
Whip up some minnow soup and algae salad, Aunt Edna is coming over. ;)

------
seldo
This kind of clear, accessible relation of everyday observation to real
science is what Dawkins became known for, excels at, and what I wish he would
stick to. His strident anti-God rhetoric elsewhere does much to damage the
reputation of evolutionary science, turning it from a widely-accepted theory
into a symbol of the inevitable triumph of rationality over irrationality, to
be fought tooth-and-nail by religious zealots everywhere.

~~~
CamperBob
I'll be more sympathetic to your point of view when 40% of Americans no longer
believe the Earth is <= 6,000 years old and that humans were created in their
present form.

Religion is voluntary stupidity, and stupidity has consequences for
civilization. Dawkins understands that, having seen it firsthand.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I don't describe myself as religious as that to me has connotations of order
and regulation that I don't ascribe to. However, I am a man of faith (I
believe we all rely on faith in some way) - I've directly experienced God and
as a Christian most people would pigeon-hole me as "religious". I have not
directly experienced or observed evolution. I find macroevolution to be too
large a leap based on the evidence I've seen.

You describe me¹ as adopting voluntary stupidity. Could you give me some
pointers as to where I'm being stupid.

\--- ¹ I'm assuming "religion is voluntary stupidity" to mean "all those with
religious faith are choosing to be stupid".

~~~
Labelle
Could you be more precise about your experience of God ?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Yes, but I don't have time right now - suffice to say I have as much faith in
the external existence of the world as in the existence of God. I'm quite
skeptical (in the metaphys sense, not quite pyrrhonic though) but as much as I
experience through sense data the world and by extension other minds; as much
as that I believe in the triune God of Christianity (but not all the details,
many I'm agnostic on).

------
mynameishere
A female fox is a "vixen" and not a "bitch".

~~~
dmix
From the article: "The females came on heat every six months like a bitch,
instead of every year like a vixen."

He understands the difference.

------
electromagnetic
Finally, Dawkins at his prime, not preaching anti-god bullshit. The man is a
complete genius when it comes to explaining natural selection, yet he wastes
so much of his time preaching atheism.

IMO any intelligent person should come to the logical conclusion: God cannot
be proved or disproved, so stop wasting your time! It's as useless as
discussing whether a glass is half-full or half-empty, it's a glass with
liquid in it!

Dawkins' massive waste of time preaching atheism like it's the Papacy 2.0 is
retarded. It loses him all his credibility to everyone except the atheist
wackos who are holding him in infallible regard like it's the second coming of
Jesus.

Dawkins is a scientist, and as such should be working to teach people to
conquer ignorance. Yet he'd rather spend his time alienating the people he
could be enlightening. It's, quite frankly, a pitiful waste of such genius.

Edit: I repeatedly hear Dawkins being praised as highly as Feynman, and he is
_far_ from Feynman. Feynman was a pure genius, possibly the greatest scientist
to grace the earth, but he was so great because he had the ability to relate
to the common person, to every person and he had the ability to explain even
the most complex ideas to the simplest of people.

~~~
cabalamat
> _Dawkins' massive waste of time preaching atheism_

Given the amount of harm religious extremists do, fighting them seems
reasonable. If you reduce the amount of religion in a society, you reduce the
number and effectiveness of religious extremists.

> _Dawkins is a scientist, and as such should be working to teach people to
> conquer ignorance. Yet he'd rather spend his time alienating the people he
> could be enlightening._

One of the worst aspects of religion, IMO, is when the religious claim that
their beliefs and values deserve to be givne special status over and above
everyone else's beliefs and values. This is bullshit of the first order, and
needs to be fought.

~~~
electromagnetic
Fighting religious extremists just justifies their existence, which further
enhances the problem.

Creationist moronism is a mainly US problem, linked directly to the abhorrent
education system. Creationist belief is inversely linked to the quality of
education, but instead of actually spending time increasing the quality of
education and managing to spread understanding of the sciences people are
wasting time fighting the extremists.

It's, quite frankly, ignorant. Instead of advocating education, you're
advocating wasting time. You can destroy the creationist and extremist belief
through positive efforts and action towards increasing education. The 40 year
olds who believe in creationism will never be educated, you have to educate
the 10 year olds who haven't had their minds set in poor ways by time and lack
of education.

Dawkins has a remarkable talent for explaining science, and he should be
targeting this towards the young. If he managed to strike the right chords, he
could destroy creationist thought in the majority of that 40% of US citizens
who believe during his lifetime. If he hit the next 20-years of highschool
students strong and hard, the US could easily drop its creationist belief well
into the ranks of the rest of the western world.

Sadly, Dawkins does little more than provide fanservice to the atheist masses.

