Post by Hardcastle on Jan 26, 2023 15:45:34 GMT
Sorry wyatt but I wrote a response, so... don't know why you deleted it, but I'm responding anyway.
You asked which is superior? and why? this is my response-
-------------------------------------------------
Dogs are demonstrably superior, and inferior, and everything in between. Dogs are remarkably diverse, like no other species that ever existed, and this diversity isn't limited to superficial traits. They are even diverse in how they think and behave. They are diverse not just in size but in proportional features of their anatomy. Diverse in muscle fibre type, muscle density, muscle mass to body mass ratio, diverse in bone mass and bone density, diverse in blood volume, diverse in organ size. They are diverse in speed, diverse in strength, diverse in agility, diverse in stamina.
"Dog" is a huge umbrella and the wolf merely sits in the shade of it. It is not bigger and better than the umbrella.
Now, is the wolf dead-square in the middle in every category? No. It's somewhat specialised itself. It's stamina, for example IS elite, not the best, but very very very impressive especially for it's size. It's size itself is also very impressive. It's way up there in height and length with a short list of the tallest and longest dogs. It's also afforded, thanks to this size, with a very large skull. One merely in proportion to it's height and length, BUT this is a rare level of height and length so wolves have among the largest skulls out of all dogs. AND if you start talking about "lbs for lbs", they have the largest skull, because they are incredibly light for their height and length (as marathon runners). So the dogs that match them in height and length weigh about 30% more than they do, sometimes more. This leaves wolves (especially large wolves, some smaller dogs are also proportionately light) matching up with dogs in weight that are 20% shorter than them (or more). Just due to being so much taller and longer they will then "lbs for lbs" have a bigger skull and bigger teeth (and a bigger butthole).
So that's something, BUT, generally you can find a dog that beats a wolf in any category you care to mention. Of course. They have the luxury to specialise, not just for a specific task, but even if they are "jack of all trades" to some extent they still have a lot of alleviated limitations that would be hampering and hamstringing wolves from attaining excellence. Things a dog doesn't have to worry about which would potentially weigh on prospering in this or that field.
People don't seem to understand that "independence" is cool but comes with implications that shackle elite performance.
Example- so wolves obviously could benefit from being really strong, right? It would be nice if they were super strong, then they could grapple down any bison with their jaw and eat freely. What a nice feature that would be. So why didn't they evolve super strength? Because they ALSO need to do other stuff, they need to cover long distances, they may even need to be fast sometimes, these requirements are going to naturally put a cap on the anatomy of the wolf going down a road of having insane strength. It's evolution could just strap bigger denser super powerful muscles all over it and make it a bison crushing machine, but then it would naturally lose mountains of stamina, and speed. Too much, it couldn't live as a wolf. That's just reality. So it's evolution had to find a balance where it's attributes were all "good enough", and it's behaviour even adjusted to these compromises. I'd like to just waltz up and tackle that healthy bull bison, but I also need to be able to run a marathon literally every single day, SO... my solution is run marathons, be as big as possible while still having marathon stamina (so be insanely tall with a long stride) so that your weight is substantial enough to potential bother a bison, but then ... you know, pick your battles. Choose weak/sick/old/young bison and then weaken them further before you engage. You're a very lightweight build for your frame size so lets just relax on going all in on any nasty prey animal we see, we'll wade in cautiously and strategically and try and choose compromised specimens.
Just compromise after compromise. That is necessary when you are a wild survivalist. Being social helps a little, the team can pick up some slack, but generally you can't afford to specialise down a road and become a "master of one trade". You must remain a "jack" of many.
Is the wolf the ultimate "jack" at least? Well... maybe in a pre-human world. But the real world today is a man's world, and adapting to man is a factor. Wolves are bad at it. Feral dogs, are incredibly good at it, and are the most successful wild carnivoran on the planet easily and by far. We're talking 3000 times more successful, or 300 000% more successful. That is specifically wild feral domestic dogs (not counting pet and working dogs).
Still, sure, take away the human factor, perfect Pleistocene conditions complete with all the abundance of megafauna and everything there used to be, THEN the wolf is the superior survivalist in that world. It's not superior to "dogs" in any other category.
You asked which is superior? and why? this is my response-
-------------------------------------------------
Dogs are demonstrably superior, and inferior, and everything in between. Dogs are remarkably diverse, like no other species that ever existed, and this diversity isn't limited to superficial traits. They are even diverse in how they think and behave. They are diverse not just in size but in proportional features of their anatomy. Diverse in muscle fibre type, muscle density, muscle mass to body mass ratio, diverse in bone mass and bone density, diverse in blood volume, diverse in organ size. They are diverse in speed, diverse in strength, diverse in agility, diverse in stamina.
"Dog" is a huge umbrella and the wolf merely sits in the shade of it. It is not bigger and better than the umbrella.
Now, is the wolf dead-square in the middle in every category? No. It's somewhat specialised itself. It's stamina, for example IS elite, not the best, but very very very impressive especially for it's size. It's size itself is also very impressive. It's way up there in height and length with a short list of the tallest and longest dogs. It's also afforded, thanks to this size, with a very large skull. One merely in proportion to it's height and length, BUT this is a rare level of height and length so wolves have among the largest skulls out of all dogs. AND if you start talking about "lbs for lbs", they have the largest skull, because they are incredibly light for their height and length (as marathon runners). So the dogs that match them in height and length weigh about 30% more than they do, sometimes more. This leaves wolves (especially large wolves, some smaller dogs are also proportionately light) matching up with dogs in weight that are 20% shorter than them (or more). Just due to being so much taller and longer they will then "lbs for lbs" have a bigger skull and bigger teeth (and a bigger butthole).
So that's something, BUT, generally you can find a dog that beats a wolf in any category you care to mention. Of course. They have the luxury to specialise, not just for a specific task, but even if they are "jack of all trades" to some extent they still have a lot of alleviated limitations that would be hampering and hamstringing wolves from attaining excellence. Things a dog doesn't have to worry about which would potentially weigh on prospering in this or that field.
People don't seem to understand that "independence" is cool but comes with implications that shackle elite performance.
Example- so wolves obviously could benefit from being really strong, right? It would be nice if they were super strong, then they could grapple down any bison with their jaw and eat freely. What a nice feature that would be. So why didn't they evolve super strength? Because they ALSO need to do other stuff, they need to cover long distances, they may even need to be fast sometimes, these requirements are going to naturally put a cap on the anatomy of the wolf going down a road of having insane strength. It's evolution could just strap bigger denser super powerful muscles all over it and make it a bison crushing machine, but then it would naturally lose mountains of stamina, and speed. Too much, it couldn't live as a wolf. That's just reality. So it's evolution had to find a balance where it's attributes were all "good enough", and it's behaviour even adjusted to these compromises. I'd like to just waltz up and tackle that healthy bull bison, but I also need to be able to run a marathon literally every single day, SO... my solution is run marathons, be as big as possible while still having marathon stamina (so be insanely tall with a long stride) so that your weight is substantial enough to potential bother a bison, but then ... you know, pick your battles. Choose weak/sick/old/young bison and then weaken them further before you engage. You're a very lightweight build for your frame size so lets just relax on going all in on any nasty prey animal we see, we'll wade in cautiously and strategically and try and choose compromised specimens.
Just compromise after compromise. That is necessary when you are a wild survivalist. Being social helps a little, the team can pick up some slack, but generally you can't afford to specialise down a road and become a "master of one trade". You must remain a "jack" of many.
Is the wolf the ultimate "jack" at least? Well... maybe in a pre-human world. But the real world today is a man's world, and adapting to man is a factor. Wolves are bad at it. Feral dogs, are incredibly good at it, and are the most successful wild carnivoran on the planet easily and by far. We're talking 3000 times more successful, or 300 000% more successful. That is specifically wild feral domestic dogs (not counting pet and working dogs).
Still, sure, take away the human factor, perfect Pleistocene conditions complete with all the abundance of megafauna and everything there used to be, THEN the wolf is the superior survivalist in that world. It's not superior to "dogs" in any other category.
