I think comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges. Evolutionarily speaking, they are "maximizing" different fitness criteria. Wolves are still wild and they are continually evolving to live in the wild. Dogs are domesticated, and they are evolving to be better pets or workers (let's ignore the issues with breed standards and sub-par breeding practices...that's a can of worms unto itself). So I think comparing them from an evolutionary standpoint requires that we evaluate how good they are relative to their individual fitness functions. Both have some glaring issues.
Wolves are endangered in many areas because they have not adapted to the threats that our expanding metropolitan areas and technologies have put on their populations. Dogs, on the other hand, are becoming overly inbred to extremes and are having health problems as a result that make them unfit companions or workers. But, because the failure of the wolf to maximize its fitness criterion puts them in danger of extinction, I believe there is an argument to be made that the domestic dog is more "advanced" evolutionarily speaking. Despite certain health and temperament issues, the domestic dog is "thriving" in the sense that its sheer numbers ensure it is far from extinction, despite the overall health of the population not being great.
This perspective, by the way, invites a broader question about evolution and natural selection. If you step back far enough, the domestic dog became so fit for its fitness criterion that we, as a species (homosapiens), have all but ensured their survival (or at least linked it inextricably from ours). They became so fit that their fitness criterion changed. IMO, the selective breeding that we do is actually a logical conclusion of natural selection---natural selection led domestic dogs to the current artificial selection breeding practices that occur now. So in that sense, there is something very natural about the state of evolution of domestic dogs. It's all a matter of perspective I guess.
I feel as though dogs have the advantage, because of the way we have bred them. Whereas in the wild it could take hundreds of years for a wolf to evolve to be faster, better hunters, etc., we humans have domesticated dogs and honed in on whatever genes or characteristics we want them to have - we have made dogs that specialize in areas (such as agility or hunting) much more rapidly than wolves have been able to evolve in the wild. And while I think that a dependency on humans is not necessarily the best evolutionary factor (especially, as Dave pointed out, due to inbreding and the genetic issues that humans have either caused or proliferated), being further away from us, as wolves are, puts them in more of a danger. We aren't breeding wolves like we do dogs, and if anything, we are responsible for the destruction of wolves and their habitats. So I think it could be seen that the closer an animal is to cohabitating with or being used for a purpose by humans, the more likely it will survive in a long run. Even the dogs that have genetic issues are surviving, not only as the result of poor breeding habits, but also because of advances in veterinary medicine and because of the people who choose to help the dogs that, in the wild, would not have a chance of surviving.
I agree with dlroberts, it really just depends on which part of their abilities you want to focus on. Dogs are essentially wolves bred to a specific purpose, whether that be companionship, hunting, herding, endurance, or speed, humans take one aspect of the wolf for every breed, and put that aspect on steroids (so to speak). That is really the main difference between them, in my opinion.
Selective breeding seems to accelerate the evolution of certain qualities of dogs, while simultaneously taking something away. One general example is domestic dogs' habit of polygamy, leading to severe over-breeding and inbreeding, whereas wolves generally try to avoid this for the health of their species. And of course, humans tend to help dogs accomplish both these tasks, while encroaching upon wolves. I have no doubts this contributes a lot to wolf vs dog evolution. Some more specific examples include things like the Saluki and other sighthounds, who have been bred for speed running, but lack any real endurance and ofttimes have easily broken bones (like the Italian Greyhound). Or Brachycephalic dogs like the English Bulldog, who were bred for bull baiting or other fighting, but on the other hand cannot even breathe or swim regularly. Even the superior Border Collie has been conditioned to stalk with severe restraint, and mostly bred to not bite that which it is stalking. Good for the sheep, very bad for the dog if it ever has to hunt for its' food.
All in all, I'd have to say that animals usually do not evolve quickly, without human help. Dogs have this, whereas most wolves do not, so it is all very relative. The dog has evolved to be adept at certain tasks the wolf would not be able to do, but then again, the wolf generally has a handicap. But I do believe a lot of the dogs we've (humans) created would not be able to survive without human assistance, without having to "devolve" back into a more wolf-like state. The animal/human relationship is an interesting thing, indeed.
Dave pretty much said what I was thinking. Dogs certainly seem more successful. There's certainly more diversity and more adaptability. Coyotes seem to have this advantage over wolves, too. Domestic dogs and coyotes can live in a much more varied environment and take advantage of a wider range of food sources.
On that note, I've read about human evolution, and the species was almost entirely wiped out several times due to natural disasters or drastic climate change, and being put through the ringer like that so many times is what made our species become so incredibly adaptable. We can eat practically anything and live in practically any climate. Being social helps. And, of course, having a complex social system and being omnivorous both require a fairly big brain.
Comments
Wolves are endangered in many areas because they have not adapted to the threats that our expanding metropolitan areas and technologies have put on their populations. Dogs, on the other hand, are becoming overly inbred to extremes and are having health problems as a result that make them unfit companions or workers. But, because the failure of the wolf to maximize its fitness criterion puts them in danger of extinction, I believe there is an argument to be made that the domestic dog is more "advanced" evolutionarily speaking. Despite certain health and temperament issues, the domestic dog is "thriving" in the sense that its sheer numbers ensure it is far from extinction, despite the overall health of the population not being great.
This perspective, by the way, invites a broader question about evolution and natural selection. If you step back far enough, the domestic dog became so fit for its fitness criterion that we, as a species (homosapiens), have all but ensured their survival (or at least linked it inextricably from ours). They became so fit that their fitness criterion changed. IMO, the selective breeding that we do is actually a logical conclusion of natural selection---natural selection led domestic dogs to the current artificial selection breeding practices that occur now. So in that sense, there is something very natural about the state of evolution of domestic dogs. It's all a matter of perspective I guess.
You said it all IMO!!
Selective breeding seems to accelerate the evolution of certain qualities of dogs, while simultaneously taking something away. One general example is domestic dogs' habit of polygamy, leading to severe over-breeding and inbreeding, whereas wolves generally try to avoid this for the health of their species. And of course, humans tend to help dogs accomplish both these tasks, while encroaching upon wolves. I have no doubts this contributes a lot to wolf vs dog evolution. Some more specific examples include things like the Saluki and other sighthounds, who have been bred for speed running, but lack any real endurance and ofttimes have easily broken bones (like the Italian Greyhound). Or Brachycephalic dogs like the English Bulldog, who were bred for bull baiting or other fighting, but on the other hand cannot even breathe or swim regularly. Even the superior Border Collie has been conditioned to stalk with severe restraint, and mostly bred to not bite that which it is stalking. Good for the sheep, very bad for the dog if it ever has to hunt for its' food.
All in all, I'd have to say that animals usually do not evolve quickly, without human help. Dogs have this, whereas most wolves do not, so it is all very relative. The dog has evolved to be adept at certain tasks the wolf would not be able to do, but then again, the wolf generally has a handicap. But I do believe a lot of the dogs we've (humans) created would not be able to survive without human assistance, without having to "devolve" back into a more wolf-like state. The animal/human relationship is an interesting thing, indeed.
On that note, I've read about human evolution, and the species was almost entirely wiped out several times due to natural disasters or drastic climate change, and being put through the ringer like that so many times is what made our species become so incredibly adaptable. We can eat practically anything and live in practically any climate. Being social helps. And, of course, having a complex social system and being omnivorous both require a fairly big brain.
I have to go - baby. I'll fix this later.