Modern day wolf species are totally different from modern day dogs. Both have the same genetic ancestor, but dogs did not come from what we know as wolves.Evolutionarily speaking, the split didn't occur too long ago, maybe 20k years ago. They're considered a different species because of how phenotypically different they are (they look different). Genetically there's only 0.1% difference, however. So, some people argue that the dog is a subspecies of the wolf, others argue it's its own species, and really it just depends on how you want to define a species.
Modern day wolf species are totally different from modern day dogs. Both have the same genetic ancestor, but dogs did not come from what we know as wolves.
I’m not arguing. I’m telling you that there’s ways to present your point without screaming “IM WRONG YOUR RIGHT HAHAHAHAB”Actually they did. To summarize, you're wrong, and I'm right. Please don't argue about something like this with someone with (most) of a bio degree. You will lose.
To summarize that was kind of a rude thing to say, accuracy aside, but okay. Instead of that you could post links showing why you’re right.
In dogs, the domestication bottleneck involved at least a 16-fold reduction in population size, a much more severe bottleneck than estimated previously. A sharp bottleneck in wolves occurred soon after their divergence from dogs, implying that the pool of diversity from which dogs arose was substantially larger than represented by modern wolf populations. We narrow the plausible range for the date of initial dog domestication to an interval spanning 11–16 thousand years ago, predating the rise of agriculture. In light of this finding, we expand upon previous work regarding the increase in copy number of the amylase gene (AMY2B) in dogs, which is believed to have aided digestion of starch in agricultural refuse. We find standing variation for amylase copy number variation in wolves and little or no copy number increase in the Dingo and Husky lineages. In conjunction with the estimated timing of dog origins, these results provide additional support to archaeological finds, suggesting the earliest dogs arose alongside hunter-gathers rather than agriculturists. Regarding the geographic origin of dogs, we find that, surprisingly, none of the extant wolf lineages from putative domestication centers is more closely related to dogs, and, instead, the sampled wolves form a sister monophyletic clade. This result, in combination with dog-wolf admixture during the process of domestication, suggests that a re-evaluation of past hypotheses regarding dog origins is necessary
That’s what I’m saying, that most modern wolves are not the same exact breed as the ancestors that predated them both. I’d guess it’s kind of the same with cat species. Obviously housecats weren’t bred from what are now Siberian tigers, but they do share a very common ancestor.To be clear you're not entirely wrong. It's a fine nuance that sometimes gets missed. You said "totally different," but that depends on how you mean that. They're really quite similar, as far as comparing other species like foxes, dingos, etc.
You also said, "dogs aren't from what we know as wolves," which is both accurate and not. Wolves probably aren't completely the same as they were 20-30k years ago, either, but they're still very similAr. The nuances can be seen in statements like this:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs
The keyword you want to look out for there is "sister monophyleric clade." In other words, very closely related due to a common ancestor.
Clade - Wikipedia
That’s what I’m saying, that most modern wolves are not the same exact breed as the ancestors that predated them both. I’d guess it’s kind of the same with cat species. Obviously housecats weren’t bred from what are now Siberian tigers, but they do share a very common ancestor.
I know it’s not totally the same, just trying to equate it in a way that helps it make a little more sense. A step in the right direction so to speak.