Wow that’s interesting!
The study lays out the case that the domestication process is often wrongly thought of as initiated by humans—with people capturing and selectively breeding wild animals. But the study authors claim that the process begins much earlier, when animals become habituated to human environments.
“One thing about us humans is that, wherever we go, we produce a lot of trash,” says the study’s co-author and University of Arkansas at Little Rock biologist Raffaela Lesch. Piles of human scraps offer a bottomless buffet to wildlife, and to access that bounty, animals need to be bold enough to rummage through human rubbish but not so bold as to become a threat to people.
This has absolutely blown my mind. I don’t think I’ve ever considered that, obviously.
Yeah, if you ever run across the theories of how dogs became so close to us, it started with wolves being willing to take the risks of scavenging near us, and eventually co-evolving (until selective breeding started).
Actively, intentionally domesticating a species is a slow process overall, and it wasn’t something that I’ve seen any specialists suggest would have been the case with dogs, or cats.
I’ve felt that dogs have taken the same path. Notice how expressive their facial muscles are? Wolves don’t have nearly so many facial muscles. Wild to learn about isn’t it?!
Wolves also do not understand pointing, most other human gestures and they can not read human emotions through our faces. Dogs can understand all that. Humans and dogs have co-evolved for such a long time that our species now have a deep instinctual understanding of each other.
My dogs definitely do not understand pointing! No arguing, they just don’t get it, though they could be trained to I’m sure.
In that case you might like the PBS Eons video on the domestication of house cats (and it touches on some of the generalised processes):
It’s a popular theory about why dogs were domesticated so much earlier than everything else. Wolves have a remarkably similar lifestyle to human hunter gatherers, and so early dogs could live either in parallel or in close proximity as conditions demanded. With other creatures, like pigs or horses, humans had to run a program and do so consistently for domestication to work. In some places, semi-feral dogs are still a common sight.
My across the street neighbor feeds the racoons cat food. They rip up my garden and antagonize my dogs all night. I tried to scare one away just last night by yelling and waving my arms, but they just stared at me like “yeah ok dude” and went back to their racoon business. They are not afraid of people in the slightest and you could probably pet one if you were so inclined. It sucks 😅
For the new study, she and 16 graduate and undergraduate students gathered nearly 20,000 photographs of raccoons across the contiguous U.S. from the community science platform iNaturalist. The team found that raccoons in urban environments had a snout that was 3.5 percent shorter than that of their rural cousins.
Or maybe people in cities take more photos of “cuter” animals?
If they’re iNaturalist photo submissions then they’re submitting every raccoon (and other animal) they see
I mean every raccoon in the study was photographed. So this wouldn’t explain any difference within that sample.
If you’re cold, they’re cold. Let the trash panda inside your house.
I’m surprised the article doesn’t mention the six decade long silver fox domestication experiment:
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x
They bred the tamest foxes from each generation and started seeing shortened snouts and floppy ears. Although there is some dispute about the initial population from a study in 2019. To my understanding the researchers with the dispute question the existence of domestication syndrome though, so the experiment would still align with the article. And I think there is some dispute over the neural crest cell explanation mentioned in the article too.
City-dwelling raccoons seem to be evolving a shorter snout—a telltale feature of our pets and other domesticated animals
I wonder if it’s softer food.
We are more hostile to ugly raccoons and more often helpful to cute ones. This isn’t evolution, it’s selective extinction based on cuteness, would be my guess. One example of the power humans have in shaping the natural world around what our emotions tell us to.
I’m curious: what do you think evolution is?
it’s selective extinction based on…
As long as whatever trait it’s based on is heritable, that’s evolution.
You could argue whether or not it’s “natural” selection but it’s still evolution.
I think the hangup is thinking evolution can’t proceed quickly. We were taught in school that evolution take millions of years and we resist the idea that it can move quickly.
We’ve been figuring out over the last two decades that evolution can move fast, given enough selective pressure.
Arguing with a reasonalbe Christian on reddit 10-years back; Said African elephants were growing smaller, or no tusks, in response to poaching. He called it “breeding”. I call it hella selective pressure. Same difference?
i think also the concept of “survival of the fittest” was like an alpha thing; who fought nature and won. versus fittest being more about fitting into the environment better. the best fit for the specific environment.
“Survival of the fittest” has been around a long, long time and now we know better.
The example of elephants producing less ivory for us to poach is unintentional selective breeding, yeah. Evolution works way faster when directed by an intelligence than when it’s left up to a relatively stable environment, simply because we exert more pressure for change.
Nature can exert similar pressures without intelligence involved.
There is no such thing as an ugly raccoon.
that is what evoulution is, internet friend.
