"Pack Leader Theory" debunked

Good article, well worth reading...

https://positively.com/dog-training/myths-truths/pack-theory-debunked/

Thanks Caryll

Thanks! I like stuff like that.

Thank you, Caryll!

Where does the dominance thing that some dogs do (whereby they put their paw or front leg over the other dog's shoulders and lean over his neck) come into this - isn't this "I'm the boss" display an attempt to establish alpha status?

Kuchar is perfectly prepared to play, even with a bigger dog, until they do this and then Kuchar gets scared and the other dog knows it.

The way I see it is most dogs will either be strong or weak (formerly dominant/submissive). The stronger one will try to be 'bigger' and more intimidating & will either walk stiffly, right up on their toes with their heads high, or will climb onto the back of the other one.

It's a way of showing how confident they are in themselves, but has nothing to do with pack hierarchy. If you watch a wolf pack (which is where the pack theory is supposed to come from) this doesn't happen. Wolves make a show of posturing and vocalisation to establish their feelings, but the pack is fluid - you get a pack leader, yes, but the rest change status on a daily basis, depending on mood, surroundings, nearness of prey & probably a lot more!

Pack theory came from watching a disparate group of wolves brought together in captivity; in reality, a wolf pack is a family group, all members are related. Fundamentally though, dogs are not wolves, and never have been. They have both evolved to fill different ecological niches from a common ancestor that was neither a wolf, nor a dog.

Lorraine wrote:  Fundamentally though, dogs are not wolves, and never have been.  They have both evolved to fill different ecological niches from a common ancestor that was neither a wolf, nor a dog.

Exactly- and put far better than me!

Lorraine wrote:Pack theory came from watching a disparate group of wolves brought together in captivity; in reality, a wolf pack is a family group, all members are related.  Fundamentally though, dogs are not wolves, and never have been.  They have both evolved to fill different ecological niches from a common ancestor that was neither a wolf, nor a dog.

Thank you! I've had this debate with people at university so many times!

One of my lecturers (who I am on very unfriendly terms with right now anyway) insisted that all dogs are direct descendants of Canis lupus. I politely disagreed, saying that this theory has been discredited and that recent research has shown that grey wolves and dogs share a now-extinct common ancestor, similarly to how humans and apes share a common ancestor. She then Googled it to try to prove me, as well as other students, wrong. Even after finding several reliable sources confirming the common ancestor idea, she decided to go with the one unreliable source which claimed dogs are directly descended from grey wolves.

You can't help some people!

No response from me, for fear of.....

tracyp wrote:No response from me, for fear of.....

Respond all you want - disagreement/discussion is healthy!

Lorraine wrote:You can't help some people!

You really can't! And this is the lecturer who's going to be marking the assignment I'm currently working on - a Genetics assignment on population genetics and genetic variation in dogs. I'm screwed!

A colleague at work wrote her Masters on the theory that vaccination of chickens against Marek's Disease Virus is causing the virus to evolve into ever more virulent strains. She doesn't 'believe' in evolution! Go figure!

Wait... what? What does she think evolution is?

Who knows?!? I certainly couldn't understand her arguments, she believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis.

Lorraine wrote:Who knows?!? I certainly couldn't understand her arguments, she believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis.

Oh dear.

Oh wow I consider myself a religious person, but it's never seriously clashed with my studies before.

Some people can't keep an open mind or find a way to make 2 opposing lines of thought mash.

Evolution v Big Bang v Creationism

The debate will always cause a divide, but if people could just be open minded there wouldn't be a problem!

I think they're all fascinating and why can't a bit of all of them be true?

I think they probably are!

I can't get my head around the Big Bang theory.

Evolution as far I'm concerned is fact - we can see species evolving over years so it can't be denied. Creationism? Well, I'm a catholic, so I believe that God created everything, but maybe not as we see it all now! Maybe He put 'things' on the earth & just let them adapt and change as necessary.

I believe that Genesis was written very much like the parables that Jesus used to tell to illustrate but not to be taken literally. As a scientist, it seems crazy that anyone does not 'believe' in evolution - after all, it's a theory, not a belief system for a start - but the evidence is overwhelming. I have to believe there is something 'more', although my mind changes frequently as to how that is manifest.

I just don't see why there can't be compromise, at least to a certain extent, between religion and science. I'm religious, but I follow the theory of evolution. The whole 'God created us in his own image' belief doesn't even clash with my scientific views; I don't think it was meant in the physical sense.

As Lorraine said, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, to the extent where I feel that I'd be deliberately blinding myself if I chose to disregard it as being fabricated. You only have to look at the dog sitting next to you in order to see the results of evolution through artificial selection.

For me Creationism and Evolution can be seen in one light: God is improving on what he created. To my knowledge He didn't look at what He created and thought ... Yes! Everything is perfect. Nothing to be changed.
Also how do we know our time and God's time runs at the same length?