>Hey I've decided to rely on humans as a stable source of food>You'll regret this, the humans will domesticate you>I'll be fine
I mean, pugs on average outlive gray wolves and most other dog breeds. They don't need to hunt or scavenge shit of fear harsh winters as they live in some climate control all you can eat buffet living area where you get belly rubs all they want. I think a wolf would kill for that kind of life.
>>5136078dude how can you look at that pug and not see its shallow eye sockets, squashed muzzle, bacteria-ridded skin folds, and domed skull, all of which contribute to a poor quality of life. come on now.
>>5136080Yeah but poor quality of life often translates to poor life outcomes like the british bulldog, but pugs live way longer. Aside from ugliness it's not actually that bad (for the pug).
>>5136081Who cares if they live longer. It's a life of suffering. Street mutt dogs when taken as pets and cared for are the kings of pets
>>5136081>not actually that bad
>>5136091>>5136092>suffering>>outlives most other dogs>>>doesn't need to worry about starving or freezing to deathMaterially, they arn't. Again a wolf would kill to be able to live like that. It's suffering from a spiritually human lense but dogs are not people, they are animals with needs they care about being met. Something that domestication has done for them.
>>5136092He must've been a smart one
>>5136093A pug's life is pure suffering.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pug#Health_problems
>>5136101Most of that list is only a problem if a pug is obese, which is down to the owner and not the breed inherently. Feed a small dog like you would a large dog and you are goung to have problems. UK also has an atrocious track record across the board for domestic animal life expectancy when compared to the global average.
>>5136101
Again with this nonsense. Wolves. Were not. Domesticated. Into dogs. Dogs and wolves are descended from a common ancestor and are actually sister taxa. Evolutionary biology and genetics have proven this more times than I can count. The same retards who spout this shit likely also think humans are descended of monkeys and other dumb stuff. Stop being dumb.Anyway, let me learn ya sumfin': dogs evolved from an ancient, now-extinct population of canid. Wolves are also descended from this ancestor but evolved without human involvement, making them the closest living relatives to this extinct ancestor. But all three creatures, the ancestor, dogs and wolves are distinct species.Also, rather than humans actively capturing and taming wild canids, they began to self-domesticate. We're seeing this same phenomenon with raccoons today. Drawn by discarded food and scraps around human campsites, the less aggressive, more curious and generally friendly and acquiescing ones survived better and gradually adapted to living alongside human communities, leading to distinct physical and behavioural characteristics, differing from those of both wolves and the shared ancestor (which went extinct about 40,000 years ago, during the ice age).Racoons are starting to also display the same changes (tamer behaviour, more curious and friendly personalities rather than frightened/suspicious and defensive, shorter snouts and other overtly neotenous features) because scary, angry raccs are more likely to wind up dead, leaving the cuter, friendlier ones to survive and pass down those traits. That's exactly what happened with dogs.But yeah, pugs are an abomination.
>>5136109Wolves were domesticated into dogs. The common ancestor of modern grey wolves and dogs were still grey wolves, they weren’t a distinct species. There are living populations of grey wolves that share a more recent common ancestor with domestic dogs than they do with other populations of grey wolves>The same retards who spout this shit likely also think humans are descended of monkeys and other dumb stuffBecause we did. Just because we didn’t evolve from any existing monkeys doesn’t mean we didn’t evolve from monkeys at all. Old world monkeys share a more recent common ancestor with apes than they do with new world monkeys
>>5136075Unironically whats the appeal of pugs?
>>5136113How long have you been living with your intellectual disability, ma'am?
>>5136115The closest I have to explain it is like how down syndromes are endearing. That and their personalitys too
>>5136117>down syndromes are endearingI've known some absolutely evil downies
>>5136118Trust me, it's still pretty one to one with pugs. I haven't known intentionally malicious dogs until I met my first pug. Their inbreeding doesn't get in the way of cunning if it means biting people.
>>5136116He’s correct retard
>>5136400False. .
>>5136401Incorrect. Try learning something before embarrassing yourself
>>5136115They're made of marshmallow and cuddles and ugly. So much ugly it comes back around to being cute. They need to stop breeding them because what the fuck have you done to that poor dog, but I can still love the ones that I meet.
>>5136403Precisely what I'm saying, kiddo. : )
>>5136409Can’t imagine what it’s like to be so confidently wrong
>>5136420You know you just disproved your point with that image, right? And confirmed >>5136109? The irony of you posting that picture in an attempt to "own" someone whilst calling him "confidently wrong" is entirely lost on you, huh? And all because you're wholly unable to understand a simple chart.
>>5136505Way to show you don’t understand phylogenetic trees retard. European grey wolves and North American grey wolves are the same species. There is no monophyletic group that includes Eurasian and American wolves but excludes domestic dogs. Please explain how this chart proves that the common ancestor of dogs and wolves wasn’t a wolf, I want to see you grapple with your ignorance
>>5136510Sweetheart, that's a lot of wrong you've managed to pack into just one paragraph. Congratulations. 1) claiming that there is >no monophyletic group that includes Eurasian and American wolves but excludes domestic dogsis accidentally pointing out that Canis lupus (as traditionally defined to include modern wolves but exclude dogs) is paraphyletic. If a group excludes a descended branch (dogs), it is by definition /not/ monophyletic.2) the chart literally shows the divergence from wolves3) genetic data from Nature and PLOS Genetics shows that dogs are sister taxa to wolves. The ancient, extinct late pleistocene canid they both diverged from 40,000 years ago was genetically distinct from Canis lines walking the earth today. Furthermore, canis lupus is now classed separately from canis familiaris which, again, destroys any monophyletic claims. You're using outdated arguments.If you want to be a pedant about taxonomy, the American Society of Mammalogists and the IUCN Canid Specialist Group officially recognise the domestic dog as a distinct species, specifically rejecting the subspecies classification due to distinct evolutionary trajectories. The image/originated from/ IUCN research to that end! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982218311254They even make a point to point out (because the study is specifically about hybridisation within canis) that jackals and wolves hybridise. /that's what the red arrows mean/The thread was started in order to joke about modern wolves being directly bred into pugs. That's funny but scientifically incorrect. Your own chart proved a common ancestor split instead, and now you are frantically trying to use a taxonomic lump-versus-split debate to wiggle out of a basic reading comprehension failure. And even trying to argue that humans are descended of monkeys! Which is an extremely common misunderstanding of how evolution works and what evolution is.
>>5136516>They even make a point to point out (because the study is specifically about hybridisation within canis) that jackals and wolves hybridise. /that's what the red arrows mean/Oh, and I specifically mention this because jackals diverged some 1.9 million years ago /yet still hybridise with dogs, wolves and yo' mama/.
>>5136516>accidentally pointing out that Canis lupus (as traditionally defined to include modern wolves but exclude dogs) is paraphyleticThe monophyletic grey wolf lineage includes dogs, whether or not dogs are traditionally treated as separate to wolves is irrelevant. That isn’t how phylogeny works. Phylogeny is about evolutionary relationships, not arbitrary recognition of species status by a random zoological society>the chart literally shows the divergence from wolvesIt shows that the divergence of dogs from European grey wolves came after their divergence with American grey wolves. European and American grey wolves are the same species. Therefore the common ancestor was also the same species>genetic data from Nature and PLOS Genetics shows that dogs are sister taxa to wolvesThe study very clearly states that they are sister to European wolves specifically>The ancient, extinct late pleistocene canid they both diverged from 40,000 years ago was genetically distinct from Canis lines walking the earth todayGenetically distinct does not mean a different species. American and European grey wolves are genetically distinct but are not separate species. Nowhere does the study suggest dogs were domesticated from a species other than grey wolves. You didn’t read it>Furthermore, canis lupus is now classed separately from canis familiaris which, again, destroys any monophyletic claims. You're using outdated argumentsMultiple species can be in a monophyletic group. If they’re sister species then they form a monophyletic group by definition. You don’t know what monophyletic means>And even trying to argue that humans are descended of monkeys!If old world monkeys and new world monkeys are both monkeys then so are apes>misunderstanding of how evolution works and what evolution isSaying this while completely misunderstanding evolutionary relationships is hilarious
>>5136517This has literally no bearing on the topic. Did you use AI to summarise the paper for you?
1) a sibling branch is not an ancestor.2) the direct progenitor line that birthed /both dogs and wolves/ is an extinct, independent ice age species.3) you literally typed>If old world monkeys and new world monkeys are both monkeys then so are apesand that's a catastrophic taxonomic self-own. Apes (including humans) belong to the parvorder catarrhini. Old world monkeys also belong to catarrhini, while New world monkeys belong to platyrrhini. Those are both monkeys. Apes are not. To claim apes are "monkeys" because old and new world monkeys exist completely ignores the paraphyletic nature of the colloquial term "monkey." It's like the old logic puzzle: All brown cows are cattle. Some cattle are bulls. Are all bulls brown? Of course not. Similarly, all apes are catarrhini. Some catarrhini are monkeys. Are all monkeys apes? No. We share a common ancestor with monkeys; we did not descend from them. You're arguing the exact, uneducated pop-science myth I predicted you would. >>5136519Nope. Trying to point out that hybridisation between even more distantly related canids than dogs and wolves happens. Jackals aren't wolves. They're jackals. That's why they've got a different name.
>>5136520>a sibling branch is not an ancestorNobody said it was>the direct progenitor line that birthed /both dogs and wolves/ is an extinct, independent ice age speciesNo it is an extinct population of Canis lupus. Interesting how you can’t seem to actually place what this extinct ghost canid would be if not a Pleistocene grey wolf. I’m glad you’re as ignorant as I thought you would be>To claim apes are "monkeys" because old and new world monkeys exist completely ignores the paraphyletic nature of the colloquial term "monkey."What about this discussion which has been entirely focused on phylogeny made you think anyone was referring to colloquial terms>Trying to point out that hybridisation between even more distantly related canids than dogs and wolves happensAgain this has absolutely no bearing on the topic>Jackals aren't wolves. They're jackals. That's why they've got a different nameJackal refers to multiple unrelated canids
>Dogs didn't descend from wolves, they descended from a ~common ancestor~>Ok, what is that ancestor? >I'm not tellingFascinating.
There is no real argument against banning pugs, basset hounds, clumber spaniels, etc. none. >i can genetically torture dogs because its cure okThe people who do this shit are the same people who supported the policies that dismantled our society for personal gain. The anglo-aristocracy. Half the “working” dog breeds are just remnants of the anglo-aristocratic sport hunters LARP kits and don’t actually serve a purpose in hunting. They serve a purpose in making hunting “more sportsmanlike”.
>>5136526>Ok, what is that ancestor?It's as of yet still unnamed.>>5136522Oh, my dear, sweet child. It is not canis lupus because, again, it's still unnamed. I'm sad you're as ignorant as I thought you'd be.>What about this discussion which has been entirely focused on phylogeny made you think anyone was referring to colloquial termsWhat about anything makes you think monkeys = apes?>Jackal refers to multiple unrelated canidsYou're only proving my point, you twit.How's your Saturday going, btw? I just got in from grocery shopping and having lunch with my wife. I'm hoping yours is going well, too. : )
>>5136075>m-muh beautiful and perfect livestock murdering monsters Lol, whatever, yiff in hell, sicko.
>>5136505Who the fuck makes an elleiptically curved cladogram?
>>5136543It's worse than that. She's just created Schrödinger's Clade: a branch that is simultaneously the ancestor and the sibling after agreeing that a sibling is not an ancestor. >>5136522 You are contradicting yourself. If "nobody said a sibling is an ancestor" and you tacitly agree the sibling is canis lupus, then by that argument alone, the ancestor cannot also be canis lupus.
>>5136545>NOOO NOT THE LIVESTOCK>*industrially slaughters them, throws away 20% of the meat because the free market is in fundamental conflict with efficient logistics, repeats 100000000x a year*Yeah, we need canines to be uselessly deformed gross, bad smelling, drooling mutants because some welfare queen farmer can’t fence in his chickens. Sure. Sterilize all dogs that deviate from a natural phenotype and exhibit skin folds, lip droop, and foul odorSterilize all dogs under 25lbs and over 100lbsSterilize all dogs with genetic defects (hd, chondro, dcm, mdr1, epilepsy, etc) Sterilize all fighting dogsMake Dogs Healthy Again
>>5136551False dichotomyOf any two recent taxa one of the two sisters will also be the ancestorYou're taking the familial analogy too far. They're not literally sisters
>>5136557>Of any two recent taxa one of the two sisters will also be the ancestorWell that's simply not true.
>>5136561I agree in the 90's we started pretending it's not true to appease creationists. But it's generally true. The MRCA of dogs and wolves was the wolfthe MRCA of humans and chimps was the chimp. the ancestral population wasn't different enough to merit a new species.
>>5136563Sweetie. Pookie. Poodle (not wolf). Luvvie. Booboo. Schnookums. No. The Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor (CHLCA) was an extinct miocene ape that didn't have the specialized knuckle-walking thingy chimps evolved after our lineages split. It was not a chimp.
>>5136554Nigger, the farming industry does not abide to what you sickfucks find fuckable. Seethe, cope and dilate.
>>5136565it was indistinguishable from chimps
>>5136587Except for the fact that paleoanthropologists quite literally distinguished it from chimps, yeah, sure. "Indistinguishable". You got it, sweetheart.
>>5136077>>5136075This is a more question of "is complete loss of individual character and decoration of being worth the possibly the highest comfort in future".This is a question that many types of people have to answer at some point. Military men, prostitutes, actors, servers, politicians... if you think about it...every occupation where the individual is a "service" themselves..
>>5136543>It is not canis lupus because, again, it's still unnamedThere is no undescribed specimen that’s been identified as the the ancestor species of European wolves and dogs. You’re just making shit up now. Go on, find a single reference to this mythical ghost Canid that states there was a distinct species from grey wolves that gave rise to dogs>>5136551>If "nobody said a sibling is an ancestor" and you tacitly agree the sibling is canis lupus, then by that argument alone, the ancestor cannot also be canis lupusNo, the sibling is European Canis lupus. The ancestor was a now extinct population of Canis lupus. Also samefag
>>5136115Ugly-cute. Especially before it was well publicized how miserable and dysgenic their existence is. I mean just look at that ugly butthole of a face and tell me it doesn't make your heart melt a little.
>>5136109>>5136543>>5136551Read this you tardshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_dog
>>5136581>dogs cant be healthy because i think they’re sexy i mean because you do. t. 2hufanart.jpegAll tranime fans are pedos. All pedos are gay. All gays are zoophiles. Checks out.
>>5136588>Except for the fact that paleoanthropologists quite literally distinguished it from chimpspassive voice no citationmore boring is this is the same factoid you've been posting here for at least 4 years now meaning I'm talking to the same exact moron I've listened to dozens of times before and you haven't gotten one iota smarter in that time.pathetic.
Same has happened to humanity>"YOU GOTTA FEED, SHELTER, AND SPOIL YOUR OFFSPRING UNTIL THEY'RE 18+!!">They have no desire to 'leave the nest' because life is too comfortable at home.And, heck, even if they wanted to leave they couldn't because barriers are put up that disallow young people from earning money and obtaining personal shelter for themselves. AND PEOPLE WONDER WHY "kids" in their 20's/30's are still so child-like these days, not getting married and all that. Everyone, humans and animals alike, get programmed and corrupted by their upbringing. In a perfect world, I would've left home at 13, got married, and thrived on my own.
>>5136642>Everyone, humans and animals alike, get programmed and corrupted by their upbringing. Or maybe because raising children sucks (and is no longer a necessity, like in pre-industrial life) - most people will not willingly do it more than once, twice is pushing it. Go ahead, accuse me of being an antinatalist Redditor just by me stating an observable fact.
>>5136643It's difficult. You may want to raise your children one way, and you may even get your spouse onboard with it, but everybody around them will want to corrupt them. The lesson that has taken me far too long to figure out for myself is that men need to be taught to be husbands and women need to be taught to be wives. Society at large is really "hands off" with this and pretends we can be "whatever we want." You're doing a disservice to your son/daughter if you aren't training them their role.
>>5136642Its because women have abortion, alimony, child support, and no fault divorce and all men have is the choice to not participate while being told they’re the cancer of human history because they’re white, the children of satan because they’re jewish, monkeys because they’re black, etc. We’ve fallen a long way from ending animalistic mating competition and saying things like “many great races, one great nation”.
>>5136652I agree.All of the race stuff is dishonest. everybody who may call you a racist isn't playing by the same rules. You can't use their rules against them, any hypocrisy is ignored. Your country, whether you're of European descent, Asian.. (pretty much all except for Africans) is built off of thousands of years of warfare among themselves. People DIED all across the world making places like Europe and Asia the places they are today. They fought for their right to exist; their people, their borders, cultures, and all that. African people, by comparison, are still fighting amongst themselves in Africa the way our ancestors did. They aren't past that stage yet, they haven't spilled enough of their own blood to form their borders and become peaceful. They just want to cheat their way to the top with entitlements and "muh racism" and 'those powers that be' are playing off of our sympathy.Also, women do need their rights taken away.
>>5136543>It's as of yet still unnamedHow convenient>>5136551>She's just created Schrödinger's Clade: a branch that is simultaneously the ancestor and the sibling after agreeing that a sibling is not an ancestorWhere on earth did you get that idea. It’s one clade where euro wolves are sister to the wolves that gave rise to dogs. The split between euro wolves and American wolves is older than that but those are still both Canis lupus. That means the common ancestor of euro wolves and dogs was also C. lupus
>>5136630I'm not even a PhD biologist like the denizens of this thread and even I understand that>Prehistoric megafaunal wolf>Dying out at the end of the ice age>Several small pockets of population adapt to the new environs >One line became modern gray wolf>Another became Japanese wolf >Another one was the domestic dog>Dog and gray wolf are the closest related
>>5136115I can't help but think the original pugs do look cool, how the fuck did we reach what they are today? I get it's breeder's faults but, how did the original dog just disappear through inbreeding like that, I don't see normal pugs ever unless it's an antique photo or old painting.
>>5136505Do you usually embarrass yourself like this
>>5136115Older style pugs are quite cute.They're bred purely to be friendly, the scrunched face is due to inbreeding and incest. They just unironically exist to love their owners
>>5136952
>>5136658>Also, women do need their rights taken away.Good news incel! There's a country called Saudi Arabia that does just that. So when can we expect you getting a one-way plane ticket and settling out there? I'm sure you'll be excited to join people of similar middling intellect levels.
>>5136642humans are social animals and lived in close tribes for most of their existence. the leave the nest narrative exists only for divide and conquer purposes.
>>5136967More of a gene puddle really...
>>5137078Not him, but Afghanistan is a better example. Unless you mean working in modern slavery as a migrant worker in Saudi Arabia.
WE WUZ WOLVES N SHEEIT
