Just had the UKRCB leaflet through......thier annual symposium is on Dominance, heirarchy and structure - A look at pack interaction..... talks by David Montgomery and Alexandra Semyonova.

Anyone thinking of going? (I might if I can sell my house!)

Hi Tassle Wys posted about it earlier in the thread, I would love to go and hear what Semyonova has to say but don't think it will be possible.

Just googled very quickly and found this, I presume it's a reasonable source:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1013104633.htm

"The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., ...). These 'Human Accelerated Regions' (HARs) provide clues into our evolution".

Not sure how scientific this is but suggests DNA similarity has been shown to be 95% (?)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp
it's clearly a support Genesis site but what is important is if the science is correct, I don't know.

Interestingly I was checking out my behavioural biology of dogs the other night (as you do) and realised I've got loads of info on DNA etc one thing that was interesting was that although it's generally agreed wolves are the ancestors of dogs, the mitochondrial DNA (think it was this, haven't got it in front of me) is only available via the female and not the male, so there is a very slight chance there is something else in there but only a very slight chance as most agree the wolf is the ancestor.

Wys
x

I don't understand it Wys either, but I think what you are referring to is the research done by the Smithsonian Research Institute in the 90's that resulted in dogs being reclassified as the same species as wolves, rather than being the sub-species previously thought. They discovered through DNA that dogs and wolves share 99.8%. In addition, via the mitochondrial RNA (not DNA), they have traced all domestic dogs back to 4 original females wolves. Now I am sure you are going to ask me what is the difference between DNA and RNA - I'm not sure, but RNA is carried by the female line of a species only I think I am right in saying. I'll have to check with the Oracle !!

I found several references to human beings and chimpanzees sharing almost the same DNA, but I knew that this was rubbish simply because humans and chimpanzees cannot achieve conception, and therefore a successful pregnancy ... even assuming a mating could take place in the first place, which I suppose anatomically it could, although would be vile and very definitely illegal. I think Labradork is pulling my plonker, norty girl !! A good Gotcha though I thought !!

Didn;t realise Sorry

I try and get to them if possible....Coventry is about 4 hours away from me so it is do'able' in a day but only if I am talking someone else to kep me awake!

Hi Gnasher, it was a general discussion coming up to date to about 2006 so covering pretty much as much as is known to date, it was interesting ... yes, not DNA but RNA quite right, it's ribonucleic acid or might be riboxynucleic acid, one of them is right

I'm quite interested in all this so found a few bits to muse on really, it's always important to consider the other side as otherwise one can't be critical, I have to be critical in my essays you see as long as the source is good and preferably from a journal.

All so interesting isn't it.
Wys
x

I think its the riboxynucleic one Wys, but not sure either ! RNA is summat to do wi'proteins, as they say in Yorkshire !! I'm a bit norty when it comes to proper research of both sides of a coin. I like to learn about something through practical application rather than study, because I'm not a brainbox like yourself ! It drives OH up the wall, s****y ******* with his all BSc Hons degrees and what not ! He had the damn cheek to laugh at my 5 O Levels the other day !!

For instance, I have learned a lot really about wolves and wolf crosses purely through either living, interacting or both with them, for many years. I have done a huge amount of reading, but not really serious heavy research, I leave this to my Professor !! Well, you don't keep a dog and bark yourself, do you !! There has to be SOME point to him for goodness sake !! I'm also a big fan of raw feeding and have many years practical experience, and have read a huge amount about diet, but again, nothing scientifically heavier than Ian Billinghurst's book. But OH has, so fair do's I suppose, horses for courses and all that.

I'm in agreement with the statement that CM is a dog kicker. Sure, he'll call it a touch, and give it a little flair by doing it behind the leg, but in the end it is still a kick.
One of my main (and there are a whole lot!!) problems with Millan is his need to shove the dog face to face with it's trigger (dogs, people, traffic, etc) and then punish the hell out of the dog for something he created.

Gnasher, this isn't religion where you get to decide "truth" based on beliefs. This is about science, and you can't pick and choose. While you are fully welcomed to your opinion, you are not free to make up or ignore facts for the sake of it. There are no "personal truths" when it comes to science; in the face of the evidence your tenacious defence of dominance theory makes as much sense as that of a flat-Earther or a YEC.

Gnasher - I think you just like a good debate TBH. I really don`t believe you hold the opposing view, I think you`ve picked your corner and have decided to make the Forum equivalent of Custers Last Stand.
None of your posts about the way you actually live or treat your dogs bears out your claim to be in an Alpha Male role.
When this is pointed out, you switch to an alternative debating tactic. Have you thought of going into politics at all?