THE PACK Message Boards

PariahPoet wrote:

ravaged_warrior wrote:Aren't they just in the same genetic family?

Yes, actually dogs and wolves are the same species. They have the exact same genetic material. That is one reason why it is hard to prevent people from owning wolves. There is no genetic test to tell whether it is a wolf or a dog because the dna is the same. So you can own a wolf as long as you call it a dog.

Then why don't we just call all canines dogs, because they both share the same stuff.

Well, I did some looking, and dogs are actually called canis lupus familiaris, so yeah, I think they are technically wolves after seeing that.

Here's a link to wolf biology and ecology. If you scroll down, you'll notice that there are acually many sub species of Grey Wolves (Dogs aren't in this but yeah they are also known as Canis lupus familiaris)

http://www.stud.u-szeged.hu/Bogos.Laszlo/wolf2.htm

Lol. So they are not named?

What aren't named?

Nevermind. I'm tired of these labels. Wolves are wolves and dogs are dogs. And there is a reason why dogs make good pets and wolves don't. Yeah they are simular but they are still wolves.

Morkulv wrote:Nevermind. I'm tired of these labels. Wolves are wolves and dogs are dogs. And there is a reason why dogs make good pets and wolves don't. Yeah they are simular but they are still wolves.

dogs are the descendents of carefully chosen Omega pack member minded wolves and thanks to thousands of years of selective breeding we now have submissive minded (for the most part) retarded and deformed wolves as pets.

A dog is a wolf that never grows out of its puppy mentality and is basically the mongoloid of the wolf world.

"to explaine the Omega pack member would be the bottom of the chain in the pack, as in the most submissive and least likely to challenge for dominance" dogs are basically the descendents of those wolf cubs that were chosen because they obeyed their human masters the most. we continue to do this with many dogs especially working dogs, ever grooming their gene pool for ever more obediant mentally challenged wolves.

which as bad as it sounds if someone mentally challenged and was very kindhearted turned into a werewolf they very well could turn out to have floppy ears and a curved tail (two features that for some reason tend to become common in fully domesticated canines and even Vulpines)

I don't give a rat's a** were they descended from. That doesn't make them the same.

And what is your source by the way? Except science-story's?

Rhuen is right about wolves and dogs. I don't know where, but I've seen that before on like...the discovery or National Geographic channel. The only thing that I don't agree on is the werewolf thing. Just because someone is kind hearted and they turn into a werewolf doesn't mean they're going to have floppy ears and a curled tail. That right there could happen either by chance or if said werewolf wasn't really a werewolf, but some sort of weredog.

Morkulv wrote:I don't give a rat's a** were they descended from. That doesn't make them the same.

And what is your source by the way? Except science-story's?

Your hostility is irrational and completly un-called for.

I don't know why you are acting in this idiotic manner but please stop, its offending my sensibilities.
I already stated that behavior wise they are different, genetically though they are the same species.

As for sources a quik google should give you more than enough in a heartbeat if your took the time to look for a whole five minutes.

As for where I originally heard it, it was a show on the Discovery channel or Animal Planet.
In fact at this point its pretty much common knowledge in the zoological world that dogs and wolves are the same species, which is why they changed the scientific name of dogs to include lupus.
(also remember that we are mis-using and somewhat ignoring the term sub-species.
Wolves have several sub-species the dog happens to be one of them.
Placing it along side the Grey, European, Timber, Red, and two extinct Alaskan and Dire, and some others (not sure off the top of my head) but the dog is most decidely a sub-species of wolf.
However sub-species is a strange term as its often regarded that a species is a population that is capable of producing fertile offspring, in most animal groups sub-species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but all wolf sub-species can which in strict biological terms makes them the same species, classification is really a hold over from when they were first classified before genetics came along to tell us they are all just diverse varities of the same thing.

But what the hell as you refuse to even look for your self a few from a quik google search

http://nwcreation.net/dogsandwolves.html

and this one which says the exact same thing (literally)
http://www.grapevine.net/~wolf2dog/genetic1.htm

and for some more diversity
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... i_n9390752

there now stop acting like a douche over such a minor subject. sheesh you'd think with the way your acting I was accusing Jesus of being a homosexual.

BlackWolfDS wrote:Rhuen is right about wolves and dogs. I don't know where, but I've seen that before on like...the discovery or National Geographic channel. The only thing that I don't agree on is the werewolf thing. Just because someone is kind hearted and they turn into a werewolf doesn't mean they're going to have floppy ears and a curled tail. That right there could happen either by chance or if said werewolf wasn't really a werewolf, but some sort of weredog.

I meant not kindhearted but more so submissive and mentally challenged.

Rhuen wrote:

BlackWolfDS wrote:Rhuen is right about wolves and dogs. I don't know where, but I've seen that before on like...the discovery or National Geographic channel. The only thing that I don't agree on is the werewolf thing. Just because someone is kind hearted and they turn into a werewolf doesn't mean they're going to have floppy ears and a curled tail. That right there could happen either by chance or if said werewolf wasn't really a werewolf, but some sort of weredog.

I meant not kindhearted but more so submissive and mentally challenged.

Hmmm....I think over generations yes. But if you were to put werewolves and wolves into the same thing (how humans chose the most submissive) I'd say no. I don't think you can get a werewolf to show physical changes based on one individual...that kind of goes against the known laws of biology, don't you think? I think it would take generations upon generations (basically the same amount of time it too to domesticate the wolf) to show any characteristics like that.
Meaning...you'd need all submissive omega werewolves to mate, and the cycle to continue the next time around. But then again, this is all theoretical. So anything could happen.

you know what....hell, If I saw a little baby wolf.....the mothers coming back so hell no am i staying!

BlackWolfDS wrote:

Rhuen wrote:

BlackWolfDS wrote:Rhuen is right about wolves and dogs. I don't know where, but I've seen that before on like...the discovery or National Geographic channel. The only thing that I don't agree on is the werewolf thing. Just because someone is kind hearted and they turn into a werewolf doesn't mean they're going to have floppy ears and a curled tail. That right there could happen either by chance or if said werewolf wasn't really a werewolf, but some sort of weredog.

I meant not kindhearted but more so submissive and mentally challenged.

Hmmm....I think over generations yes. But if you were to put werewolves and wolves into the same thing (how humans chose the most submissive) I'd say no. I don't think you can get a werewolf to show physical changes based on one individual...that kind of goes against the known laws of biology, don't you think? I think it would take generations upon generations (basically the same amount of time it too to domesticate the wolf) to show any characteristics like that.
Meaning...you'd need all submissive omega werewolves to mate, and the cycle to continue the next time around. But then again, this is all theoretical. So anything could happen.

the number of generations it took is a debate in the zoological world on this subject. As a fox farm that did much the same thing got those domesticated characteristics in as little as 20 generations.

Yeah I head about that, but wolves and foxes are different. I'd think that there'd be different periods for different animals.

BlackWolfDS wrote:Yeah I head about that, but wolves and foxes are different. I'd think that there'd be different periods for different animals.

very true, unfortunatly its not an experiment they are keen on trying out to find out as wolves are endangered so they are moe keen on keeping them wild than ruining perhaps an entire pack and who know how many generations just to find out how many it takes to turn wolves into dogs.

Although doing it the other way would be interesting, we have feral dogs, and dingos are the greatest example that they can eventually go back the other direction.

Feral animals are hard to tame depending on how long they've been out but I think it would be possible as well.

Now that we've covered that topic, does anything else come to mind that we can debate about?

well the thread was about a werewolf being cute, we mentioned the dog connection and the fact that even a normal wolf can be cute which is how all that got about.

well, can a female werewolf be cute in the sexually attractive sense may be a way to go forward. (and with out just being some cat-girl wannabe or just a disheveled woman with fangs)?

Rhuen wrote:

Morkulv wrote:I don't give a rat's a** were they descended from. That doesn't make them the same.

And what is your source by the way? Except science-story's?

Your hostility is irrational and completly un-called for.

I don't know why you are acting in this idiotic manner but please stop, its offending my sensibilities.
I already stated that behavior wise they are different, genetically though they are the same species.

As for sources a quik google should give you more than enough in a heartbeat if your took the time to look for a whole five minutes.

As for where I originally heard it, it was a show on the Discovery channel or Animal Planet.
In fact at this point its pretty much common knowledge in the zoological world that dogs and wolves are the same species, which is why they changed the scientific name of dogs to include lupus.
(also remember that we are mis-using and somewhat ignoring the term sub-species.
Wolves have several sub-species the dog happens to be one of them.
Placing it along side the Grey, European, Timber, Red, and two extinct Alaskan and Dire, and some others (not sure off the top of my head) but the dog is most decidely a sub-species of wolf.
However sub-species is a strange term as its often regarded that a species is a population that is capable of producing fertile offspring, in most animal groups sub-species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but all wolf sub-species can which in strict biological terms makes them the same species, classification is really a hold over from when they were first classified before genetics came along to tell us they are all just diverse varities of the same thing.

But what the hell as you refuse to even look for your self a few from a quik google search

http://nwcreation.net/dogsandwolves.html

and this one which says the exact same thing (literally)
http://www.grapevine.net/~wolf2dog/genetic1.htm

and for some more diversity
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... i_n9390752

there now stop acting like a douche over such a minor subject. sheesh you'd think with the way your acting I was accusing Jesus of being a homosexual.

I'm offended because ignorant worms like yourself keep forcing this s*** down my throat. Wich is quite a natural response. If I am to not label something, who the hell are you to say I'm wrong? Modern Darwinners like yourself are just as bad as Christian douchebags coming knocking on my door on sunday mornings to convince me into the 'love' of they'r god. It sickens me, and your not convincing me into anything, accept putting yourself in a narrowminded position. Furthermore, people who use the internet as a source for facts don't deserve any respect from my side at all, so I don't give a s*** what Google says.

The only side I choose and will ever choose is my own side. I share my own thoughts, and if you don't like that you can just kiss Darwin's a** somewhere else.

And if you read my posts, you would have known that I never said or claimed anything that wolves and dogs weren't related. They are simular, but not the same thing and they will not ever be the same. A wolf is called a wolf for a reason. Have you ever thought about that? I figure you haven't. Now go bother someone else.

Morkulv wrote: A wolf is called a wolf for a reason. Have you ever thought about that? I figure you haven't. Now go bother someone else.

If I say...."dog," do you know which species of dog I'm talking about?

If I say "poodle," or "Husky," or even "German Shepherd," you'll know exactly which dog I'm talking about.

"Wolf" could be the name for that type of dog species just like "German Shepherd" is the name for another.

Sure......you have many different types wolves. You can also have many different types of German Shepherds.

What if the that type of dog species was given another name besides "wolf?" Or if the German Shepherds was the ones in the wild and wolves was our pets and police dogs?

Ever thought about that?

Its pointless. This person is jumping to conclussion about my motive, which is sad because I really don't care about this topic.

Wolf, dog, coyote, eh...they are all just variants of canines. One species with numerous sub-species. its just an interesting fact to store away, not something to be discussed or debated in this clearly hostile manner.


Darwin/christians: such an obvious attempt to alter the course of the discussion to include a more hostile and heated debate is such an old message board trick as to not be fallen for by myself.

so stop this childish behavior and just call them canines if you wish. It doesn't really matter to me if you ignore their genetics.

I find it funny though that he thinks my only source of data is the net. If people over at this forum I go to read that they might die laughing as I am always the first to dismiss net only sources as not enough.
No I believe I already stated my primary source for this data was the learning channels, the net was simply for back up.

"ignorant worms" very cute, and cliche you naredowell. heh.
Yes lets start using out dated insultants like classical super-villians in order to try and move this topic away from logical discussion of clear evidence and genetic facts to a flame war.

I'll be Ming.

Figarou wrote:

Morkulv wrote: A wolf is called a wolf for a reason. Have you ever thought about that? I figure you haven't. Now go bother someone else.

What if the that type of dog species was given another name besides "wolf?" Or if the German Shepherds was the ones in the wild and wolves was our pets and police dogs?

Ever thought about that?

Remember a series called Rin-Tin-Tin? With a wolf in place of "Rinty", the series would be very different. And the dangers of the German Shepherds in the hills... (complete with Lederhosen...)

Or-in the same vein-how about Lassie as a Wolf? About the third time Timmy got in trouble, she'd have b****-slapped him across the set and left. Just substituting wolves for the various Hollywood dogs (and I mean the animals, not the movies) would have resulted in some hilarious scenes.

RedEye wrote:

Figarou wrote:

Morkulv wrote: A wolf is called a wolf for a reason. Have you ever thought about that? I figure you haven't. Now go bother someone else.

What if the that type of dog species was given another name besides "wolf?" Or if the German Shepherds was the ones in the wild and wolves was our pets and police dogs?

Ever thought about that?

Remember a series called Rin-Tin-Tin? With a wolf in place of "Rinty", the series would be very different. And the dangers of the German Shepherds in the hills... (complete with Lederhosen...)

Or-in the same vein-how about Lassie as a Wolf? About the third time Timmy got in trouble, she'd have b****-slapped him across the set and left. Just substituting wolves for the various Hollywood dogs (and I mean the animals, not the movies) would have resulted in some hilarious scenes.

like replacing corky with Sean Pean"sp".

Rhuen wrote:"ignorant worms" very cute, and cliche you naredowell. heh.
Yes lets start using out dated insultants like classical super-villians in order to try and move this topic away from logical discussion of clear evidence and genetic facts to a flame war.

There's nothing that's ever too old for this s***.

And another thing -- don't believe everything the educational programs tell you. If anything, you'll need to research EVERY SINGLE BIT of detail, starting with books, if you want to really inflate your intellectual ego.

Saying that you learnt from the learning channel would likely open a can of worms to him.

And with this whole species bullshit you two have been arguing about like a bunch of geriatric gamecocks, i believe the correct technical term to address dogs and wolves is "canine".

kitetsu wrote:

Rhuen wrote:"ignorant worms" very cute, and cliche you naredowell. heh.
Yes lets start using out dated insultants like classical super-villians in order to try and move this topic away from logical discussion of clear evidence and genetic facts to a flame war.

There's nothing that's ever too old for this s***.

And another thing -- don't believe everything the educational programs tell you. If anything, you'll need to research EVERY SINGLE BIT of detail, starting with books, if you want to really inflate your intellectual ego.

Saying that you learnt from the learning channel would likely open a can of worms to him.

And with this whole species bullshit you two have been arguing about like a bunch of geriatric gamecocks, i believe the correct technical term to address dogs and wolves is "canine".

Actually I have it as something of a motto that in order for the most logical conclussion to be reached all possible data from as many different view points must be examined, however also attempting to avoid the trap of lowest common denomniator that may happen as a result.
However the wolf/dog thing was mentioned in so many sources, including a genetics class I was taken at the time that I have taken it as fact, and really just stored away as trivial "huh, well that's neat" type of data.
I don't mean to engage in any flame war or what not, if anything this situation is just weird to me, as though it were a much more controversal discussion wearing a dog mask.

As far as the educational channels go, I find Discovery and Animal Planet fairly accurate. ignore the travel channel, those twits stated once that a Komodo Dragon grew to 20 feet. (actual full size ten feet).

So to end this sillyness (again as I already attempted to)
Canines.
dog, wolf, coyote, hybrids, all just sub-species groups of the Canine.

Okay now lets discuss once again if a werewolf can be cute.
Honestly I d like to know if a serious movie could be done with a hot werewolf.