Week 1

Darwin states "all our races of dogs have been produced by the crossing of a few aboriginal species" and this implies the source of existing variation between breeds. One problem is his assumption that several existing aboriginal species came together to form the domesticated dog. In nature, these different aboriginal species would have had contact with one another. If they were able to interbreed would their offspring be viable and able to reproduce? In the classic example a horse and a donkey can interbreed but their offspring (a mule) is unable to reproduce. Along those same lines, different breeds of dog can interbreed and produce offspring that are able to reproduce. Based on my understanding of genetics, the two breeding organisms must be similar enough in terms of gene structure in order to produce any offspring. To me this implies that at most two genetically similar aboriginal species produced a singular ancestor to the modern dog. As far as Richard Dawkins is concerned, however, species are motivated by selfishness. His concept, the 'selfish gene' implies that individuals do not act for the good of the whole but for the good of the individual. Dawkins also brings up competition and implies that if this is the motivator for species, then the focus of the species is put on perpetuating that species as it is. If this is the case, then two separate aboriginal species would not have come together to make the dog if each were worried about continuing their own species.