This article is from
Journal of Creation 32(2):20–28, August 2018

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

Creationist modelling of the origins of Canis lupus familiaris—ancestry, timing, and biogeography

iStockphoto

by Cody J. Guitard

It is commonplace for people to mistakenly think of dog breeds as different species, though all dog breeds are in fact the same subspecies—Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog. Researchers recognize that most of today’s more than 400 breeds of domestic dogs have only arisen in the past 200 years or so as the products of artificial selection.¹ With the sequencing of the entire domestic dog genome,² researchers are increasingly aware that the genome contains enormous built-in potential³ for the astounding variety observed among the different breeds.⁴ Researchers are hopeful that understanding the mechanisms that cause such variety in domestic dogs will assist in better understanding variation in other species.⁵ Evolutionary and creationist scientists are in agreement that domestic dogs originated via domestication of a wolf-like creature (see figure 1).⁶ In fact, domestic dogs and wolves belong to the same biological family (Canidae) as foxes, coyotes, jackals, dingoes,⁷ and other dog-like mammals,⁸ and it is widely agreed that at least the domestic dog and the wolf are the same species.

Evolutionary model for domestic dog origins

Evolutionary researchers believe that the lineage leading to the order Carnivora (carnivores) of the class Mammalia (mammals) would have originated about 83.1–96.2 million years (Ma) ago.⁹ According to the supposed evolutionary history of the Canidae family, the order Carnivora diverged to form the suborders Caniformia, or Canoidea, and Feliformia, or Feloidea, about 62.3–67.5 Ma ago.⁹ The suborder Caniformia then gave rise to the Canidae family about 57.0–65.4 Ma ago.⁹ While this modern classification scheme—the proposed dating notwithstanding—can be useful in some ways, it is important to keep in mind that it is man-made and largely reflects the assumption of evolutionary relatedness of all life.

As previously mentioned, the canids consist of domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals, dingoes, and other dog-like mammals, all of which are agreed by evolutionists and creationists to share a common wolf-like ancestor.¹⁰ This is demonstrated by DNA comparisons¹¹ and the ability of the canids to hybridize (e.g. dog-wolf,¹² dog-coyote,¹³ dog-jackal,¹⁴ dog-dingo,¹⁵ dog-fox,¹⁶ coyote-fox,¹⁷ coyote-wolf¹⁸),¹⁹ oftentimes producing fertile offspring—perhaps, one might suggest, rendering their Canis lupus subspecies classifications trivial. (See figures 2–4 for hybrid examples.) It is entirely possible that following the initial domestication, domestic dogs freely hybridized not only with wild wolves but also with other canids.²⁰ Creationists do not contest this scenario.

Timing of initial domestication

As to when the initial domestication of wolves into dogs took place, different studies have yielded different results. Research involving mtDNA sequencing has led researchers to suggest dates ranging as early as 100,000 years ago²¹ to as late as 5,400 years ago,²² while dog-like fossils have been dated to as early as 31,700 years ago.²³ Recent evolutionary research indicates that initial dog-wolf divergence in particular occurred somewhere within 27,000–40,000 years ago, though domestication may only have taken place thousands of years later, probably at numerous independent times and geographical locations.²⁴ It is widely accepted that domestication had occurred by the time of the Agricultural Revolution around 10,000 years ago by evolutionary estimates.²⁵ Most archaeologists and palaeontologists believe that relatively tame scavenger wolves around human hunting camps were first domesticated as camp guards and later as hunters sometime around the end of the Pleistocene epoch— the time period spanning the world’s most recent ice age according to uniformitarian geology—which ended around 11,700 years ago.²⁶ As one group of researchers describes:

“First, a founder group of less-fearful wolves would have been pulled toward nomadic encampments to scavenge kills or perhaps salvage wounded escapees from the hunt. Thereafter, these wolves may have found utility as barking sentinels, warning of human and animal invaders approaching at night. Gradually, natural selection and genetic drift resulting from human activities began to differentiate these wolves from the larger autonomous population. Once people had direct interaction with wolves, a subsequent, ‘cultural process’ would have begun. Suitable ‘preselected’ wolf pups taken as pets would have been socialized to humans and unconsciously and unintentionally selected for decreased flight behaviour and increased sociality, two trademarks of tameness. Eventually, people established control over proto-dog mating. From this point forward the wolf in effect became a dog, under constant observation and subject to strong artificial selection for desired traits.”²⁷

While this story is speculative, it is also entirely plausible. In fact, such a scenario—with the additional note that animals were designed with domestication potential—would fit very well within any one of the possible creationist models (see below) for initial post-Flood domestication. Even the idea of increasingly tame scavenger wolves that would approach villages to feed on human prey parallels the predatory behaviour attributed to dogs in the Bible (see 1 Kings 14:11, 16:4, 21:19, 23–24, 22:38; 2 Kings 9:10, 36).

Geographical region of initial domestication

The geographical region in which wolves were first domesticated into dogs has been the subject of much study and disagreement among evolutionists. Until recently, there have usually been two suggested candidates for the point of origin for the domestication of wolves into man’s best friend: Europe²⁸ and East Asia.²⁹ Now, however, in light of recent advancements in mtDNA sequencing, many evolutionary scientists are beginning to think that perhaps the answer to the question of the origin of domestic dogs is not either Europe or East Asia, but both Europe and East Asia. That is, that dogs were domesticated from two separate wolf populations—one in Europe and one in East Asia.³⁰ However, contrary to earlier mtDNA sequencing data, newer research results give the impression that domestication of wolves first occurred somewhere in the Middle East.³¹ In short, an increasing number of researchers are coming to think that initial domestication took place in several independent geographical regions at different times. As will be discussed later, the proposed geographical regions are no issue for creationist modelling.

Critique of the evolutionary model

Theories in the evolutionary literature concerning the relatedness and variation within the Canidae family, the geographical region(s) for initial domestication of wolves, and the reason(s) why humans sought to domesticate wolves in the first place fit well within the creationist model (explained later). However, there are several major problems with the broader evolutionary model concerning the use of domestic dog variation as evidence for the general theory of evolution (the common ancestry of all living things),³² the alleged common ancestry of the canids with other family groups within the Carnivora suborder, and the timing of initial domestication of wolves into dogs.

Intra-kind variation, not evolution

Evolutionists like to present the rapid diversification of domestic dogs as a supposed observation of evolution in action.³³ However, this is a clear case of equivocation, for the variation observed in dogs is not the same kind of change necessary for molecules-to-man (or, more appropriately here, molecules-to-dog) evolution. Functional and phenotypic differences which distinguish the various breeds of domestic dogs are not the products of evolution—which requires the creation of new genetic information³⁴—but the selection, manipulation, and mutation of pre-existing genetic information. Artificial selection actually depletes the genetic potential in the gene pool, rendering each generation of offspring less adaptable than the previous ones to future environmental changes.³⁵ While these data are in no way evidence for evolution, they do fit well within the young-earth model, wherein the basic created canid kind or type has a pool of genetic potential for intra-kind variation, but not inter-kind variation.³⁶

The transitional forms are missing

A major problem with the evolutionary story of the origins of domestic dogs lies in the lack of transitional forms in the supposed phylogenetic history of the Canidae family linking it with other families.³⁷ For example, transitional forms are missing to account for the alleged divergence of the Canidae family from the Mephitidae family, which is also classified under the suborder Caniformia. Furthermore, there are no transitional forms suggesting common ancestry between the suborders Caniformia and Feliformia. The revealing words of zoologist Austin H. Clark, written nearly a century ago, still ring true today:

“ … gaps are found in all these evolutionary lines, and many of these gaps appear to be real—that is, they were never, so far as we have been able to learn, bridged by so-called missing links. To take a concrete example, it is quite obvious that the gap between cats and dogs is broad, and it remains broad throughout the fossil record. Cats never became dogs, nor dogs cats; but both are carnivorous mammals.”³⁸

Much of the data interpreted as evidence for evolutionary common ancestry come from studies of physiological and genetic homologies in the animal kingdom, though these are much better interpreted as evidence of common design rather than common descent.³⁹ The evidence used by evolutionists for proposing hierarchies of common descent is similar to what creationists use for placing different species within the same created kind, but the evolutionists need changes of one type of feature (e.g. an arm) into another type of feature (e.g. a wing) resulting from the naturalistic introduction of novel genetic potential into the organism’s genome, which is a type of change far beyond anything known of how organisms actually change. In the end, multiple lines of evidence suggest that the canids are their own separately created kind with vast potential for intra-kind variation.⁴⁰

Determining initial domestication time

One problem with evolutionary estimates for the time of initial domestication is that the methods used rely on numerous, unfounded assumptions. For example, the estimates from mtDNA analysis—the most common tool used for reconstructing historical patterns of biogeographical distribution and speciation—are questionable due to the unknown extent of the effects of direct and indirect selection on mtDNA.⁴¹ Furthermore, mtDNA analyses assume a uniform mutation rate throughout the genetic ancestry of the species, though it is known that mutation rates can either speed up or slow down due to outside influences,⁴² including environmental factors.⁴³ It has also been shown that certain animals, including dogs,⁴⁴ experience significant changes in their mtDNA patterns as a result of domestication over a short timescale.⁴⁵

The reliability of other methods used for dating the initial domestication is also questionable. One example is osteometry, the measurement of skeletal remains, which has been a favourite tool in the study of early dog domestication. There are a number of interpretive issues that need to be accounted for.⁴⁶ One of the predominant issues with this method is that the reported results of such research in the literature are inconsistent due to a lack of standardization in the methodologies being used. One research group made a revealing discovery:

“As the field [of forensic anthropology] has continued to develop more quantifiable methodologies for analysis, it has also come to more consistently rely upon the use of osteometrics; a method which has long been assumed to have been standardized. In order for osteometrics to be truly classified as being ‘standardized’, it must be standardized in practice as well as in the literature. In other words, one would expect that at least 80% of practitioners take the same measurement consistently, yielding physical measurements which differ only slightly. However, for the measurements tested, this study has demonstrated that, at best, 63% of practitioners consistently take a given measurement, with every other measurement yielding lower levels of consensus. It has also been demonstrated that there are many plausible factors to the current lack of standardization in osteometrics including the presence of several vague and discrepant measurement descriptions in the authorized texts which then results in a lack of standardized osteometric training. As some of the lowest consistency rates were found in the more experienced groups, it could also be inferred that any interobserver disparities in measurement style could be passed on through education to future generations of anthropologists, thereby perpetuating the problem.”⁴⁷

The researchers go on to suggest that in order to improve the current level of standardization, all published osteometric data ought to be re-examined, all methodologies ought to be re-assessed, and a comprehensive guide to osteometry ought to be re-issued. Similar issues regarding interpretation and inconsistent datasets, as well as frequent sample contamination, also arise in ancient DNA (aDNA) studies.⁴⁸

Furthermore, as has been pointed out numerous times in the creationist literature, there are also issues with radiometric dating, the most commonly used dating method by evolutionists, which is based on several unprovable assumptions. One commonly used in the analysis of canid remains is radiocarbon (¹⁴C) dating. However, like all radiometric dating methods, radiocarbon dating relies on three unprovable assumptions: (1) the initial number of parent and daughter isotopes is known; (2) there has been no contamination (i.e. the system is closed); and (3) the rate of decay has been constant. There are, in fact, many good scientific reasons to doubt and even reject each of these assumptions.⁴⁹ However, if one had a reliable historical record providing data on any of these factors, this would then provide a starting point for making an accurate assessment of a sample’s decay history. For example, many do not realize that when considered through the lens of biblical history, radiocarbon dating actually supports the young-earth creationist model. Nuclear physicist Jim Mason argues that a number of factors (pre-Flood conditions, burial processes during the Flood, etc.) would account for the inflated dates derived from decay measurements:

“These factors would act to make the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C in the pre-Flood world much smaller than it is today (less ¹⁴C, more ¹²C). Also, the intense volcanism associated with the Flood (there is a huge amount of volcanic material in the rocks that would have been formed during the Flood) would have dumped billions of tons of non-radioactive carbon into the atmosphere, further diluting any ¹⁴C that may have been present. Thus, after the Flood, the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C would have to increase to reach today’s levels, meaning anything alive in the years immediately after the Flood would have a radiocarbon age much older than reality. Accounting for this could easily put the calculated time since burial at 4,500 years for even the ‘oldest’ samples.”⁵⁰

The timescale intrinsic to this model will be further developed and will highlight the place of initial post-Flood dog domestication in the model in the next section.

The problems with all of the dating methods discussed have led numerous evolutionary scientists to question many, if not most, conclusions of previous research into the history of domestic dogs and to seek a major reassessment through new and improved techniques, especially through newly developing DNA sequencing technology.⁵¹ The best possible data, however, for dating and determining the geographical location(s) of the initial domestication of wolves would be a reliable written historical record. As will be shown, some very helpful historical insights can be gleaned from the biblical record concerning domestic dogs.

Biblical time window for initial domestication

Biblically, depending on certain textual and interpretive assumptions, the year of creation can be placed between 5,665 and 3,822 BC,⁵² although a strong case can be made for a creation date of 4,178 ± 50 BC.⁵³ God did not create all species that have ever existed but instead created basic kinds (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; basic types which have diversified into what are today recognized as families or even higher taxonomic categories).⁵⁴ He endowed each kind with the ability to produce all the intra-kind variation observed today.⁵⁵ Then, in c. 2522 BC (assuming the creation date of 4,178 ± 50 BC),⁵⁶ God sent a global Flood (which lasted about one year) that killed “everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life” (Gen. 7:22) that was not sheltered in Noah’s Ark (Gen. 15).

No domestic dogs on the Ark

Noah did not take every single species which existed at the time into the Ark, but rather representatives of each of the created kinds (Gen. 6:20; 7:14).⁵⁷ While there may have been some domestic dogs before the Flood, the current data yields no certainty. The search for pre-Flood domesticated dogs would need to be limited to strata produced during or prior to the Flood, though the geological boundaries bookending the start and end of the Flood are heavily debated among creationists.⁵⁸ Even if some of the dog-like creatures in the fossil record were identified with certainty as being pre-Flood, it is difficult to determine based solely on fossil remains whether any were domesticated. Since the ancestry of domestic dogs is traceable to something like a grey wolf, there would not have been any members of Canis lupus familiaris on the Ark. Instead, there would have been a pair of wolf-like creatures with all the genetic information necessary for the variations observed within the canid kind post-Flood. As Jonathan D. Sarfati notes: “Creationists have often pointed out that Noah didn’t need to take wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingoes, chihuahuas, great danes, spaniels, dachshunds, etc. on the Ark, because it was sufficient to take a pair of wolf-like creatures with all the potential for diversifying into different varieties.”⁵⁹ He adds: “evolutionists now concede that domestic dogs came from wolves only a few thousand years ago, and are not really very different, although they insist on calling this ‘evolution’.”⁶⁰

Early biblical-historical reference to domestic dogs

There are numerous references throughout Scripture to dogs, but the two which provide the clearest references to literal, domesticated dogs are given in Matthew 15:27 ⁶¹ and Job 30:1.⁶² Job is possibly the oldest book of the Bible, recording events that took place sometime after the Flood (Job 22:16) in the Middle-Eastern land of Uz (Job 1:1)⁶³—which was likely the land that would later become Edom (cf. Lam. 4:21)—and around the time of the Jewish patriarchs.⁶⁴ Job’s contemporaneity with the patriarchs is evident from a number of characteristics of his time, including but not limited to the facts that his wealth was measured in livestock (Job 1:3, 42:12); he offered up sacrifices on his own behalf and for his family (Job 1:5, cf. 42:8), just like the Jewish patriarchs (Gen. 8:20, 12:7–8, 31:54), with no hint of the existence of the Levitical priesthood or temple; he gave his daughters “an inheritance among their brothers” (Job 42:15), unlike the Israelite law in which daughters only received an inheritance in the absence of sons (Num. 27:1– 11, 36:1–13); and the longevity of his life—implied by the vastness of his pre-suffering accomplishments (Job 1:3–18), his post-suffering accomplishments (Job 42:10–13), and the fact that he only died 140 years after his sufferings (Job 42:16–17)⁶⁵—is more comparable to those of the patriarchs who lived c. 2200 BC. All of this indicates that the first domestic dogs originated not long after the Flood and at least as early as c. 2200 BC, providing an approximately 300-year window between c. 2521 BC (the end of the Flood) and c. 2200 BC for initial post-Flood domestication of wolves into dogs to occur.

Further insights and biblical modelling

Speciation and specialization would have occurred at much faster rates during the period of the post-Flood Ice Age⁶⁶ in which animals and humans alike would be subjected to a harsh environment, nutrient limitations, migratory isolation, and small inbreeding populations.⁶⁷ The specializing effects of even a single mutation are well-documented in the diversification of domestic dogs, so it is no stretch to posit that mutations coupled with the isolation of small, inbreeding migratory groups in the harsh post-Flood environment would have provided all the tools necessary for post-Flood humans to domesticate dogs through artificial selection. What is more, modern experiments on the domestication of wolves show that if constant human interaction begins when the wolves are newborn pups, the pups quickly begin to demonstrate some behavioural traits characteristic of domestic dogs, including dependency on a human caregiver, though they are still prone to the aggressive behaviour and avoidance common among wolves.⁶⁸ Nonetheless, this would seem to indicate that consistent domestication practices could produce tame and eventually fully domesticated canids within relatively short amounts of time.⁶⁹

Combined with the fact that most of today’s more than 400 dog breeds are known to have arisen in the past 200 years or so, it is reasonable to suggest that domestication of wolves into dogs could have taken place within the approximately 300 years between c. 2521 BC (the end of the Flood) and c. 2200 BC (the estimated time of Job). This would place the time of initial post-Flood domestication right in the first half of the 700-year-long Ice Age during which ice accumulation took place in the first 500 years following the Flood, followed by 200 years of relatively rapid deglaciation.⁷⁰ Biblical dating therefore indicates that domestication took place within the first 300 years or so of ice accumulation, which rendered the post-Flood environment increasingly harsh for survival. Though the Scandinavian ice sheet and mountain ice caps were farther north than the geographical locations discussed in Genesis, it is evident that people in the Middle East were still experiencing abnormally cold periods at the time (Job 38:29–30). If humans initially domesticated wolves for hunting purposes as researchers suggest, this would make perfect sense within the biblical framework as only after the Flood did God give permission to mankind to kill animals for food (Gen. 9:2–3)⁷¹ and, in the increasingly challenging post-Flood environment, man could have used a hunting partner.

Timing of post-Flood dispersion from Babel

As for the geographical location(s) of initial post-Flood domestication, there are two possibilities depending on which assumptions are made. These assumptions are based around the timing of the Babel event which would in turn inform the timing of initial domestication. In light of God’s post-Flood permission for man to hunt, it is interesting that the Bible refers to Nimrod, Noah’s great-grandson through the line of Ham (Gen. 10:6–8), as “a mighty hunter before the LORD” (Gen. 10:9), as it may be possible that he used tame canids or even fully domesticated dogs in his hunting. He is described as being “the first on Earth to be a mighty man” (Gen. 10:8)⁷² and is revealed as the instigator of the building of the Tower of Babel in the land of Shinar (Gen. 10:10).⁷³ Scripture does not tell when Nimrod led the building of Babel, nor even how long he lived. However, the timing of the Babel event seems to be indicated in Genesis 10:25, where one of Eber’s two sons is named “Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided”. Contrary to the modern interpretation of this verse as referencing continental drift,⁷⁴ the context appears to reference the linguistic division and population dispersion at Babel:

“In context, only eight verses after 10:25, the Bible states, ‘Now the whole earth (erets) had one language and one speech’ (Genesis 11:1), and as a result of their disobedience, ‘the LORD confused the language of all the earth (erets)’ (Genesis 11:9). This conclusively proves that the ‘earth’ (erets) that was divided was the same earth that spoke only one language, i.e. ‘earth’ (erets) refers in this context to the people of the earth, not Planet Earth. [There is] one meaning of erets as people of the land, and the context means this is what Genesis 10:25 must refer to.”⁷⁵

There are two ways to interpret the meaning behind Peleg’s name. On the one hand, this may be a reference to him being born the same year as the dispersion at Babel occurred. Since Peleg was born about 101 years after the Flood (Gen. 11:10–16), this would place the Babel event at c. 2420 BC. On the other hand, the name given to Peleg may have been prophetic, predicting the coming Babel event.⁷⁶ If this is the case, then the dispersion could have taken place any time during his lifetime (Gen. 11:18–19), yielding a date range for the Babel event of c. 2420–2181 BC. However, Job lived in the land of Uz c. 2200 BC, narrowing this date range for Babel to c. 2420~2200 BC.⁷⁷

Given that Job had time to accumulate much material wealth (Job 1:3), have 10 children (Job 1:2), and become established as some sort of high local official (Job 29:25, cf. vv. 21–24), it is likely that the Babel event occurred either before or early in his lifetime, but since Job’s lineage and date of birth are unknown, a more precise date range for Babel cannot be provided from the biblical data alone.⁷⁸

Possible models for domestication

Based on the date ranges available, there are three possible models for the timing and geographical location of initial post-Flood domestication of wolves into dogs either pre- or post-Babel (see table 1 for summary).

If initial domestication occurred prior to the dispersion at Babel, then it would have occurred in a single general geographical region somewhere in the Middle East, particularly the area between ‘the mountains of Ararat’ (where the Ark landed; see Gen. 8:4) and the site of the Tower of Babel. This would fit well with scientific data indicating initial domestication occurred in the Middle East. Then, following the dispersion from Babel, domestic dogs would have migrated with their respective human masters to new geographical locations,⁷⁹ such as Europe and East Asia. It is also possible that the early domestication seen in Europe and East Asia (and perhaps other locales) were independent events occurring in post-Babel human colonies. Either scenario would account for early domestication of canids in those areas and others where post-Babel populations settled.

If initial post-Flood domestication took place pre-Babel, then it would have occurred either c. 2521–2420 BC or c. 2521–2200 BC. As previously mentioned, current research experiments into canid domestication indicate that the former date range of about a century could be more than enough time to produce domestic dogs from wolves under normal conditions, possibly taking place within only a few dog generations.⁸⁰ The combination of selective pressures from the post-Flood environment and human breeders, however, may have incited domestication to occur at much faster rates than it normally would today.

Alternatively, if initial post-Flood domestication took place post-Babel, then it could have occurred through several independent major domestication events across multiple geographical locations. As previously mentioned, there are high biogeographical concentrations indicating early domestication in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East, which would have been major areas of post-Babel human migration.⁸¹ If initial post-Flood domestication took place post-Babel, then it would have occurred c. 2420–2200 BC.

Weighing the models

The scientific data discussed concerning the biogeographical distribution of early canids can be interpreted to fit well within any one of the three possible creationist models for the initial post-Flood domestication of wolves into dogs. A pre-Babel domestication model seems the most likely due to man’s pressing need to hunt for food in order to survive the harsh post-Flood environment (cf. Gen. 9:2–3, 10:9). As previously mentioned, similar to the standard story in the mainstream scientific literature, we might imagine less-fearful wolves—descendants of the pair of wolf-like representatives of the canid kind that was on the Ark—scavenging for food from the post-Flood human population. Over time, these canids became tamer and some were eventually selected, likely as pups, by humans for domestication for utility in hunting, protection, and even shepherding.⁸² From the perspective of these animals, this would be a good reciprocal trade-off: while they would assist their human masters in hunting for food and protecting the resources, they would in turn get to share in the rewards of the hunt and have a relatively safe, comfortable home in the midst of the harsh post-Flood environment. This is, of course, only hypothetical and, though reasonable, ought to be treated as speculation.

Concluding remarks

The hope for this paper is to incite more research into developing a creationist model for the origins of domestic dogs as well as models for the origins of other species. Further research ought to be done in post-Flood canid migration patterns in order to shed more light on the timing and geographical locale(s) of initial domestication. New insights into the timing of Babel and the events of Job may also allow us to draw more precise and even narrower date ranges for domestication. However, the preliminary biblical and scientific insights discussed in this paper should provide a good starting point for better understanding the paleontological data and for further developing a creationist speciation model for the canid kind.

Related Media

Pain in Pedigree Pups

Small Dogs are Mutants

Speciation and the biblical kinds – What’s the connection?

The Kennel Club - A 'parade of mutants'