THE EVOLUTION OF DOGS

By :
Fitria Ayudi (B1B015008)
Vio Indah B (B1B015009)
Alvi Sari Agita (B1B015010)
Dyah Retno A (B1B015011)
Kiki Siti Zakiah (B1B015012)
Nurul Amalia (B1B015013)

STRUCTURAL ASSIGNMENT OF EVOLUTION

MINISTRY OF RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY, AND HIGHER EDUCATION

Presupposing that all knowledge is the study of a unitary order of nature, so the
study of literature should be included within the larger field of evolutionary theory.
There are four elementary concepts in evolutionary theory. The most important
biological concept is the relationship between the organism and its environment. This
relationship is a matrix concept that provides an alternative to the matrix concepts
available in other critical, philosophical, and ideological schools. The second
specifically biological concept is the idea that innate psychological structures such as
perceptual, rational, and affectiveness, have evolved through an adaptive process of
natural selection and that these structures regulate the mental and emotional life of all
living organisms. The third biological concept is the idea that all "proximate causes"
are regulated by the principles of inclusive fitness as "ultimate cause." This concept
does not imply that all organisms at all times are directly seeking to maximize their
reproductive success. The fourth biological concept is the idea that representation,
including literary representation, is a form of "cognitive mapping." That is,
representation is an extension of the organism's adaptive orientation to an environment
that is, in the first place, spatial and physical. The concept of cognitive mapping is
common to evolutionary psychology, neurology, linguistics, and ethology (the science
that concerns itself with the biological basis of behavior) (Carroll, 1995).
Dogs are one of the best known examples of domestication, the process of
species modification over time by human-induced selection. Domestication often leads
to increased phenotypic variation and a geographic distribution that can be heavily
influenced by human dispersal. The extensive phenotypic variation among dog breeds
hinders a simple inference of dog origins based on the presence of traits shared
between dogs and any specific population of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from which
dogs derive (Thalmann et al., 2013). The previous statement is goes along to Miklsi
(2014) that dogs are referred to artificial animals, probably because of their history of
domestication. This idea sounds romantic, because like there are savage people who
stole a wolf child from his mother, which then evolved and became a domestic dog
after many generations of close contact to humans.
According to Kercsmar (2016), a combination of social and ecological factors
on twentieth- and twenty-firstcentury reservations, notably poverty and a paucity of
food outside of towns, led dogs to adapt in ways that appeared savage to outsiders.
This disturbing change in how dogs looked and behaved. For example is the Indian
dog. The general aspect of the Indian dog, he reported, is much more that of the
wolf than of the common domesticated dogs. The body is more slender than that of
other dogs. It is remarkably small behind. The ears do not hang like those of other
dogs, but stand erect, and are large and sharp-pointed. It has a long small snout, and
very sharp nose.
Phylogenetic analyses derived from molecular markers support an origin of the
domestic dog from one ancestor, the wolf (Canis lupus), thus refuting Darwins
hypothesis. The unresolved issue relates to whether or not all lineages of dogs
originated from a single wolf stock or multiple stocks of wolves. Most studies of
variation at the mitochondrial control region. Issues related to estimates for the centre
of origin for the domestic dog are still complicated and, again, it relates to how one
interprets the archaeological and molecular data (Honeycutt, 2010).
Furthermore, inferences from genetic data are confounded by a long history of
trade and admixture among dogs from disparate geographic areas, ancient and ongoing
local admixture with wolves, intense inbreeding within some lineages, and the
stochastic effects of incomplete lineage sorting. Nevertheless, centers of dog origins
from genetic data have been proposed, including the Middle East and East Asia.
However, the oldest putative dog remains are found in Western Europe and Siberia
and date from 15,000 to 36,000 years ago, although the classification of these
specimens remains contentious. The earliest putative dog remains from the Middle
East and East Asia are no older than about 13,000 years ago (Thalman et al., 2013)
The ancestry of the domestic dog unresolved issue relates to whether or no tall
line ages of dogs originated from a single wolf stock or multiple stocks of wolves.
Most of variation at the mitochondrial control region suggest that patterns of
relationship among dog and wolf mitochondrial lineages is the result of multiple
origins of dogs from different wolf stocks followed by introgressive hybridization
between dogs and wolves and a recent study of variation at the Mhc (major
histocompatibility) locus also suggested that the high level of variation observed at
this locus is best explained by continued backcrossing between dogs and wolves
subsequent to domestication these results contrast with a recent study based on
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that implies an origin for the domestic dog from a
single gene pool, rather than multiple domestication events and continued
hybridization with wolf stocks, there is a high likelihood that dogs and wolves
interbred subsequent to hybridization, thus complicating the derivation of the number
of founders for dog lineages (Honeycutt, 2010).
Based primarily on archaeological evidence that reveals the first appearance of
a small dog phenotype in the Middle East. Nevertheless, older dates for the origin of
dogs have been reported and one must question a date based on archaeology alone.
The conflicts between dates derived from molecular and archeological data, it appears
that most recent molecular studies embrace data provided by archaeological evidence
(Honeycutt, 2010).
The discrepancy seen between divergence times derived from fossil materials
and molecules is not unique to dog origins. Part of the incongruence relates to the
inherent error associated with any estimates of time since divergence for recent
divergences among lineages, especially when the origin of such lineages is
complicated by the possibility of multiple origins from an ancestral stock and
admixture some of the earliest fossils identified as dog occur between 12,000 and
17,000 years ago in Europe and the Middle East, and there is some evidence for Eastern
European wolf populations contributing to the origin of the domestic dog. In contrast,
based on higher levels of mtDNA variation in dogs from East Asia and the general
phylogeographic partitioning of that variation for the origin of small-sized dogs in the
Middle East are based on the similarity between wolves from the Middle East and
small dogs. Nevertheless, from a phylogenetic standpoint, support for this hypothesis
is tenuous, given the small bootstrap values. As an alternative, one might argue that
the two shared traits associated with small size in dogs may reflect convergence as a
result of artificial selection for size rather than divergence from a single common
ancestor in the Middle East (Honeycutt, 2010).
Genetic basis of morphological diversity in the domestic dog. Despite the high
level of phenotypic variation among breeds, genetic divergence within the domestic
dog and between most species of the genus Canis is quite low. All species of Canis
have identical karyotypes and genetic comparisons based on mitochondrial and
nuclear genes reveal low levels of divergence between members of this genus . In part,
this level of genetic similarity explains the level of inter-fertility seen among species
of Canis. Although mtDNA markers fail to reveal breed-specific markers, both
microsatellite loci and SNPs are capable of assigning individual purebred dogs to their
specified breed. Nevertheless, genetic markers to date are considerably less effective
at providing well-supported phylogenetic groups of breeds, primarily as a result of
most breeds differing more by allele frequency than fixed differences. Therefore,
reconstructing the overall phylogeny of domestic dogs is considerably more
complicated as a result of the recent origin of many breeds coupled with high levels of
admixture during breed formation. Deciphering the underlying genetic causes of
morphological diversity in the domestic dog presents consider able challenges (Vil et
al., 1997).
 REFERENCES

Carroll, J. 1995. Evolution and Literary Theory. Human Nature, 6(2), pp.119-134.
Miklsi, . 2014. Dog behaviour, evolution, and cognition. OUP Oxford.
Kercsmar, J. A. 2016. Wolves at Heart: How Dog Evolution Shaped Whites
Perceptions of Indians in North America. Environmental History, 21(3),
pp.516-540.
Thalmann, O., Shapiro, B., Cui, P., Schuenemann, V. J., Sawyer, S. K., Greenfield, D.
L., Germonpr, M. B., Sablin, M. V., Lpez-Girldez, F., Domingo-Roura, X.,
& Napierala, H. 2013. Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Ancient Canids
Suggest A European Origin of Domestic Dogs. Science, 342(6160), pp.871-
874.
Honeycutt. L, Rodney. 2010. Unraveling the mysteries of dog evolution. BMC
Biology, 8(20), pp.1-5
Vil. C, Savolainen. P, Maldonado. JE, Amoim IR, Rice JE, Honeycutt RL, Crandall
KA, Lundeberg J, Wayne RK. 1997. Multiple and ancient origins of the
domestic dog. Science, pp.1687-1689.