Interesting (there was a discussion on a recent thread about this - maybe the BLM mustangs one?)
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-humans-couldnt-domesticate-zebras-2016-9
Thanks for sharing that, Bearcat.
Thx for the link.
Very interesting
This reminds me of a story that a guy I work related after a trip in Africa. He began to appreciate warnings about the aggressiveness of all wildlife when the most beautiful butterfly he ever saw landed on his wife, and then proceeded to bite the crap out of her.
I was falling for it until I got to the link that said humans originated in Africa. I remember when this theory started to appear online. Not buying it. My history teaches that we originated in the Middle East, in or around what is modern-day Iraq.
Then the bit about zebras being untameable partly because of their “wild, mulish nature” makes no sense because, first, mules have been domestic animals “serving” humans for thousands of years so obviously fit the criteria of “tameable” as earlier mentioned in the article; and, two, mules were never wild but were “created” by humans crossing donkeys with horses. So that mules are not wild in the sense that zebras are. Mules were developed from tamed animals.
[QUOTE=RPM;8852989]
I was falling for it until I got to the link that said humans originated in Africa. I remember when this theory started to appear online. Not buying it. My history teaches that we originated in the Middle East, in or around what is modern-day Iraq.
Then the bit about zebras being untameable partly because of their “wild, mulish nature” makes no sense because, first, mules have been domestic animals “serving” humans for thousands of years so obviously fit the criteria of “tameable” as earlier mentioned in the article; and, two, mules were never wild but were “created” by humans crossing donkeys with horses. So that mules are not wild in the sense that zebras are. Mules were developed from tamed animals.[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what you mean by “your history” but Africa is the prevailing scientific theory.
Humans did originate in Africa according to science and zebras are well known for being dangerous to their keepers in zoos. It isnt unknown for zebras to kill the humans taking care of them. Read that on Nat Geo once.
The flaw in the reasoning is the time line.
Demand domestication in one generation and failure is guaranteed.
Demand it in one human lifetime and failure is probable.
Demand it in multiple human lifetimes and success is probable.
How much time did it take Og and Mog to move the present domestic horse from wild creature to saddle horse? We don’t know. So the article is flawed in that sense.
But it is also a valid, cautionary tale about making assumptions.
G.
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8853107]
The flaw in the reasoning is the time line.
Demand domestication in one generation and failure is guaranteed.
Demand it in one human lifetime and failure is probable.
Demand it in multiple human lifetimes and success is probable.
How much time did it take Og and Mog to move the present domestic horse from wild creature to saddle horse? We don’t know. So the article is flawed in that sense.
But it is also a valid, cautionary tale about making assumptions.
G.[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, you have the example of the long-ongoing Russian fox experiment where the researchers reported “domesticated” behavior in foxes by the 6th generation when they selectively bred those that were friendliest towards humans.
One could theoretically try this with zebras, but it would take a heck of a lot of time and a heck of a lot of zebras! The advantage to trying this with a canine species is that foxes have multiple pups in one litter so you get a much larger sample to choose from.
[QUOTE=Sunsets;8854292]
On the other hand, you have the example of the long-ongoing Russian fox experiment where the researchers reported “domesticated” behavior in foxes by the 6th generation when they selectively bred those that were friendliest towards humans.
One could theoretically try this with zebras, but it would take a heck of a lot of time and a heck of a lot of zebras! The advantage to trying this with a canine species is that foxes have multiple pups in one litter so you get a much larger sample to choose from.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure that is one part of why lab rats are so popular as well. Easier to contain and keep. Lifespan to grow is quicker to turnover.
I think it is not so much that we can’t domesticate them, but that why would we? They would be a novelty at best.
I actually know someone who trained a zebra to be ridden, jump some little jumps and I think she even took it to a schooling show once… but it was not very athletic, and saddle fitting was a PITA.
[QUOTE=Sunsets;8854292]
On the other hand, you have the example of the long-ongoing Russian fox experiment where the researchers reported “domesticated” behavior in foxes by the 6th generation when they selectively bred those that were friendliest towards humans.
One could theoretically try this with zebras, but it would take a heck of a lot of time and a heck of a lot of zebras! The advantage to trying this with a canine species is that foxes have multiple pups in one litter so you get a much larger sample to choose from.[/QUOTE]
Is that the experiment where the foxes ended up being black and white?
I thought foxes had cubs or kits.
Sub-Saharan Africa–the zebra’s modern range–domesticated very, very few animals. The only one in this list is the guinea fowl.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals
If there is no good reason to try domestication, why bother.
[QUOTE=Sunsets;8854292]
On the other hand, you have the example of the long-ongoing Russian fox experiment where the researchers reported “domesticated” behavior in foxes by the 6th generation when they selectively bred those that were friendliest towards humans.
One could theoretically try this with zebras, but it would take a heck of a lot of time and a heck of a lot of zebras! The advantage to trying this with a canine species is that foxes have multiple pups in one litter so you get a much larger sample to choose from.[/QUOTE]
If zebras are like horses then a “generation” would be about four years. So you might actually have “domesticated behavior” in 24 years but would you have “domestication?” Put another way, would behaviors that make the animal useful be passed on to offspring reliably in that period of time?
Also, foxes are predators; zebras are prey. The survival instincts discussed in the article were noted a century ago by Captain Hayes.
G.
[QUOTE=Highflyer;8853044]
I’m not sure what you mean by “your history” but Africa is the prevailing scientific theory.[/QUOTE]
It has been a scientific theory but as we all know, many scientific theories come and go. Just because a theory prevails for a time doesn’t mean it is anything but a theory. It is that word “scientific” that makes some people slurp it up like Kool-Aid.
By “my history” I meant that which the Bible teaches about the origins of human life, in what became known as the Fertile Crescent. That teaching hasn’t been disproved. This is an interesting article:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/humans_out_of_africa.html
Here is a rather excellent video that goes a bit more in depth about domestication, equine and otherwise.
(It is actually a follow up to this video about how plagues develop and spread, but you don’t need to watch both to understand the domestication one. I recommend it though, all of this channel’s videos are funny and extremely informative)
One of the funniest things I saw on the topic was a newscast years ago, where a reporter was assigned a story about a farm promoting zebras and zebra crosses. No doubt this was to show how they had them trained They were supposed to lead front of the camera and something spooked them. They started jumping straight up into the air out of rear and then kicking straight up and out.
Funny since no one got hurt. Riding segment was skipped. Up until then I had no idea just how athletic they could be. Leave the poor zebras alone and get a pony.
[QUOTE=skyon;8854335]
Pretty sure that is one part of why lab rats are so popular as well. Easier to contain and keep. Lifespan to grow is quicker to turnover.[/QUOTE]
You are exactly right. And rats are EXPENSIVE in comparison to mice. And mice are expensive in comparison to Zebrafish.
And that is a very good point: animal models of human disease are very, very often influenced by how easy they are to maintain in the lab.
[QUOTE=RPM;8854547]
It has been a scientific theory but as we all know, many scientific theories come and go. Just because a theory prevails for a time doesn’t mean it is anything but a theory. It is that word “scientific” that makes some people slurp it up like Kool-Aid.
By “my history” I meant that which the Bible teaches about the origins of human life, in what became known as the Fertile Crescent. That teaching hasn’t been disproved. This is an interesting article:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/humans_out_of_africa.html[/QUOTE]
I do appreciate your point of view. But I’m a scientist. It’s my job. And thus I feel the need to point out that the phrase “that teaching hasn’t been disproved” is a really disingenuous statement.
“Zebras are made of purple crayons” is also a teaching that has not been disproved.
