In regard to Darwin's statement that, "The origin of most of our domesticated animals will probably forever remain vague", scientific advancements in genetic mapping may well have far exceeded his expectations. Molecular comparisons on canines have been a fairly recent phenomenon that have and continue to yield the answers to the origin, at least of the canine. If indeed, as Darwin stated, that "all our races of dogs have been produced by the crossing of a few aboriginal species" why was it that he concluded that pigeons were derived from one single species? The modes of reproduction are essentially the same as is the transfer of genetic materials to offspring...random. Where is the wild poodle, if in fact Darwin is correct about crossing a few aboriginal species? Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural Selection could, in fact, account for one common ancestor which had attributes that made it strong enough to survive in a particular environment. I am not clear as to why that appeared to be lacking in his conclusion about the origin of the canine.

Unfortunately, Darwin overlooked Mendel's studies of inheritance. An example of this was when Darwin bred snap dragons for only one generation. His result was that the offspring were an average of its parents, which we well know is untrue today. People can select for specific traits in animals. If you look at the Labradoodle as an example, a Labrador and a poodle were bred. The resulting individuals were a mix of parents genetics. But if you breed them with another Labradoodle, the result will revert back to the parental type.

Dawkins looks at this from a different point of view. He states that,"a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness." Any species with altruistic qualities will eventually die out and the selfish ones will be the only ones to survive. Dawkins also states that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is the gene. You must compete to survive, and if the unit is stable then it will survive.

One possibility of domestication of the dog is that after ancient hunters had made a kill, the less fearful wolves, or aboriginal species, gathered around to scavenge the remains the humans left over. After repeated times of doing this, the wolves may have learned to follow the humans back to their homes and stick around in hopes of stealing food supplies, receiving hand outs, or even just a more sheltered area. If this happened, the hunters possibly gained companionship and potential protection from outside groups of more aggressive wolves or any other predators. If the more tame wolves began to eventually rely on humans, they possibly were more comfortable giving birth in close proximity to human living areas. And, if this were true, as the progeny grew, they would have been around humans from day one and perhaps would have been accustomed to even letting humans touch or harness them as long as they received something in return such as food or shelter.