Back in May, Razib Khan covered the Vonholdt et al. 2011 paper. This was one of the actually surprisingly few dog genomics papers that also covered wolves, but like all the others, it reported evidence that was fully consistent with a better ancestor for the dog than the wolf, as suggested by many for many years, especially Janice Koler-Matznick. Razib included in his blog posting at least two diagrams (his second and fourth) strongly suggesting dogs split from wolves before coyotes did, but as far as I know he was not aware at the time of anything beyond the standard dogma on dog origins.
However John Hawks was aware of it since I’d told him in 2010. John himself blogged shortly after Razib’s posting and conspicuously failed to mention the ‘800lb’ ancient Chinese dingo in the room. (That’s the most mixed metaphor I’ve ever coined :-S .)
Although John saw no reason to comment on the insight of Koler-Matznick et mult. al., he did find it suitable to comment on the insight of a plant biologist at the end of his posting:
“Theories that predict unknown facts before they can be observed are like uncut diamonds.”
Adapting for John’s conduct on this:
“Propagating dogma but not highly promising alternative theories is like smashing uncut diamonds because they don’t glitter.”
If you think the wolf theory is the best explanation after checking out the genomic and other information, you’ve got a lot to learn about genomics, palaeontology and its practice, and this also applies if you’ve heard of the Chinese dingo theory but condemned it without familiarising it.
From ж 10: …ensure the full landscape and pattern of posable theories are reasonably accounted for.