Hi Kath

Without analysing the whole dog genome, it's impossible to say if the dog and wolf share exactly the same physiology. There are differences within the domestic dog population so highly likely there are across the subspecies too.

The 0.2% difference in mtDNA just gives an indication of the potential difference in the nuclear DNA. Interesting that Wayne says "relative."

Could you give a webpage if available or the page number. Wolves: Behaviour, Ecology, and Conservation is a whole book

There would be little point in a dog secreting amylase in the saliva as he doesn't chew food in the way a herbivore does. They don't possess the dentition or jaw formation for this. Carbohydrate is digested in the intestines where amylase is present.


Yep agree (except that dogs are omnivores . I have no problem with feeding my dogs raw meat, I just like to give grain too.

This is where we definitely agree Kath

I think most dogs would benefit from the addition of some raw meat to their diet........ but some breeds have in fact developed on diets very low in meat. Border Collies on oats for instance

Hi lizzie

Haven't read you link, but yes there are some non European races that have also adapted to a milk diet too. This is another mutation independant of the European one. A phenomenon known as coevolution.

Just another example of how strong environmental pressure causes genetic adaptation to aid evolution.

[QUOTE=lizziel;963811] Hey, I saw that, sneaky

So you know that our ancestors ate raw meat as an ample part of their diet then?? Are you going back pre homosapien? Pre 250,000 years ago?? Homosapiens have always had fire and even 'cavemen' would have known what makes them sick and what doesn't...same as with what berries to eat. If your going back pre 250,000 yrs ago then I think our digestive systems and the ability to cope with raw meat have been evolving away from that ability for much longer than the dogs. And even then can you prove that the ancestors pre homosapien even did well on eating raw meat?? The risks were probably similar as they are now for us - they probably got sick alot too when they ate it raw, hence starting to cook it at some time in the future.

Now when the dog was first domesticated...apparently 15000 BCE I truely think they would have been eating totally raw for along time to come...any person that feeds raw to their dogs knows it's the most simplest way of feeding a dog aside from commercial dog food, why would people back then have spent time cooking meat for their dogs? Everything they spent taking precious time to cook i'm sure would have been for the humans only...The dogs were probably left to hunt for themselves or got chucked some of what had been hunted pre cooking.

That is in my opinion.

Then you have to take in to account when grains became popular for humans even...14000 to 2000 years ago depending on culture and then only a staple in some cultures...and still you have to think how many people at this time were giving their dogs any grains.

So when you break down the time from 15000 years ago like that it doesn't become such a long time that dogs have been 'evolving' away from what would have been their natural diet and certainly not to be compared to our own evolution in terms of digestion.

On the other hand I do believe evolution will at some point sadly change our dogs for good...I'm glad it wont happen in my lifetime but what happens when dogs digestive systems do officially become something different, people wont be able to make choices on what they feed dogs and if dogs do start to do really poor on raw meat it will be because they can't handle the bacteria and where will that put us?? Will they keel over if they drink from a stagnent puddle? Will we start to have problems because of dogs digestive systems getting 'weaker'? I don't want to see that I certainly never want to see what could be the extream side of this evolution...dogs with funny flat shaped teeth perhaps??

I hope if this continued evolution in dogs is true that dogs don't evolve anymore, away from being at least what they are now.

I like feeding my dogs raw and watching them work the meat and bones the way their teeth are supposed to as much as is possible. I could cook the meat but I believe alot of nutrients and enzymes are lost, then they can't have the bones and so supplements would be a necessity which I don't think when compared to actual food are nearly as good.

This is the best I have seen both dogs do on any food, I take the risks because it was misserable having them have persistant diarreah etc when they were on commercial dog food.

Lastly don't forget, if you don't feed raw food to your dog the most important thing to remember is that, no one is asking you to!! It's only important to believe that a raw diet is good for dogs if you are going to feed it. And no all raw feeding for dogs is not dangerous or bad.

Personal choice...that's what it's all about. That's what I said at the start of this thread and that's what I continue to believe.... :smt002

That old chestnut But I don't understand people that choose not to feed it when they keep explaining why they don't or why they don't think it's a good idea.

ok you've made it hard to quote but...

I haven't actually mentioned grains at all on this thread, I don't see their relevance to be honest, I was discussing when dogs stopped eating raw and when humans did...

Not every point I made was directed at you so when I mentioned about the use of grains it wasn't because I thought you felt it important to discuss but because I was trying to get some perspective of how dogs would have gone from eating prey to what they eat now.

In actual fact to be truthful none of this is relevant to this thread, even the when dogs stopped 'eating raw' (which they haven't - otherwise I don't know what it is mine are eating)...or when we stopped eating raw. But as always this sort of thing always gets discussed by people going off topic I actually wanted to simply say no I do not believe feeding a raw diet is dangerous but as of many posts ago no one seems to be discussing that, so an on topic reply becomes difficult but trying to address some of the loosly based ideas starts to become of some importance.

What possessed man to cook??????? To heat things up??? I'm guessing at some point an accident happened and meat fell in the fire.

either way.

It possibly then just happened that everyone ate it that way...who knows when, I'm sure even the experts have no real idea so I'm not about to offer a theory of when and how. My point is that our ancestors would have eaten raw...just as dogs ancestors ate raw, so why shouldn't we eat raw now?????

There's no point stressing about if we ever ate raw meat and thrived on it? Humans have been evolving for 2.4 million years from homo habilis to homo sapien to this present point in time. We have been homo sapiens since 250,000 years ago. As you can't define if we ever ate a diet consisting mostly of raw meat in any of our forms - current or pre homosapien and we can't pin point a time there would be no way to compare why we generally don't eat raw meat now yet some of us think it ok for our dogs. It would seem obvious that 250,000 years of evolution for us from when we became homosapien compared to when our dogs ancestors became Canis lupus familiaris 15,000 years ago, that this is a big time difference - even if you do want to think that the early 'domesticated' wolves were getting mostly 'table scraps' (whatever they would have been?!) from that point in time...Also take into account how long it would have been until we got our first type of ancient breeds - dogs as we know them today... So you may like to think evolution has been a similar time frame for both in terms of when we / they would have stopped generally eating most raw meat but it's just not.

Either way ask the experts about the way the dogs digestive system is made up and that is why dogs can and still do well on a raw diet. I assume the digestive system / inerds of dogs have not even slightly changed so why should we think they are any less capable of eating a raw diet than they once were?

People will always have a choice as to what they feed their dogs, the choice will alawys be there, just possibly not raw.

but that is the case with some dogs now anyway.

Is it? So some dogs are intolerant to all aspects of a raw diet??...I know there can be dogs that don't do well on a particular meat but not all meat and that is if it is cooked or not or even if it is in processed dog food. And I think the amount of dogs that can not digest 'dog food' is likely to be far higher.

I personally would hate for dogs to evolve away from being able to eat raw meat because it will mean not only have we arsed about with the external features so much but also the internal ones and that will be sad.

There is always a chance dogs will become ill form drinking from a stgnant puddle, they can and they do, that's why stomach problems are more prevalent in the autumn...

Does anyone know if the bacteria in stagnent puddles, other animal **** and such like is equal to that in raw meat because it seems people arn't concerned about those bacteria. I know I feel uneasy when I see them drink from the worst puddles and feel much easier giving them raw meat than I do seeing them drink from the black / green mud water.

If dogs do loose the ability to cope with bacteria in raw meat then you can only imagine what will happen to them having drank from one of these puddles - it doesn't bear thinking about. Again I truely hope dogs will continue to be able to easily deal with most bacteria from what ever source it may be or we will be in big trouble if their systems get weaker - unless we can teach them to wash their 'hands' and not do what dogs do.

I know this is off topic but I just have to say it!

What bugs me is peoples perceptions that any animals digestion system (or any bodily system) is sooo weak that the slightest sniff of something "bad" will make it collapse into a heap!!!!!! Do these people really thing that millions of years of evolution have left such systems weak enough to be susceptible to such an attack????

Sorry but NOPE! We're expose to hundreds, if not thosands of harmful bacteria every week and yet we survive completely unharmed.

I've spent this week nursing a patient with the Norwalk virus. I've worked within the "barrier nursing" protocol, but I'm willing to bet there will have been a few episodes where I will have been exposed to the virus. Will I be overcome by it, highly unlikely. What's more likely is my body will sample it, make a note of it (as such) and I'll continue as normal.

To assume that any animals system is so naive as to be overcome that quickly is ridiculous. Evolution is there for a reason. To evolve!

quote by Pod"Yep agree (except that dogs are omnivores ."

Missed you sneaking that one in Now you know that's not true...Dogs belong to the order Carnivora. They are scientifically classified as Carnivores, not Omnivores.

I will agree with you though that some have evolved so as they can feed as omivores but they are still scientifically classed as carnivores and for good reason too

Yep, just a sneaky last comment I couldn't resist

BUT..... there are two meanings of 'carnivore.' The one dictated by diet and the other by classification.

The order Carnivora (there is no 'Omnivora') to which the canids undoutedly belong, has very little to do with diet as classification is based on phylogeny, which is relationship by descent. The Carnivore group also includes other omnivores such as the Bears, of which the giant panda is almost exclusively herbivorous. Closer to the wolf/dog in relationship is the urban fox which also thrives on an omnivorous diet.

The domestic dog is a Carnivore by classification and an omnivore by habit.