The nature of our physical reality is such that things are predictable, measurable, and subject to governing forces or "laws" that we may not yet fully comprehend, but which still enforce predictable outcomes. Massless particles travels at a certain speed, matter exerts a predictable gravitational field, chemicals react in expected manners, et cetera and so on. Yet there persists a vocal minority within the therian community which insists on pushing physical shifting as a reasonable possibility, despite being clearly unreasonable and without regard for the harm such an idea can cause.

Unreasonable
From a Scientific Point of View

While many of the scientific reasons physical shifting is impossible would normally get into a great deal of background information, much of that is excluded here for brevity's sake.

First, an individual's DNA is highly regulated by the body. While acquired mutations can develop in a person later in life, these instances are localized to relatively small groups of cells, though they can metastasize and spread throughout the body. A biological p-shift would first require every cell in a person's body to flawlessly mutate from human to some other species - even though our cellular structure keeps no record of what the DNA of other species actually looks like. If it did, therianthropy could be confirmed with simple blood testing.

Second, DNA is just a blueprint - After the body is built and grown, altering the blueprint does not alter someone's physical structure. This is the same concept as altering printed blueprints after a building has been constructed; writing new things on a piece of paper does not automatically make those changes to the 20 storey building the paper describes. This means that the shape, density, and composition of bones must be altered to match the new form, and muscles, organs, and tissues must undergo the same process. In some cases, these structures may be wholly lost, or must be be fabricated out of nothingness. Moreso, matter must be either created or drawn in from some source, or lost to somewhere, as there would be a difference in weight and mass before and after such a transformation.

Third, any such process like this would either take a devastatingly long time to be completed, so much so that eating and breathing would have to cease for such a length of time, the individual would die before the transition was complete, OR, any quick or instantaneous process would generate so much pain and heat as to be equally lethal. There is, in short, no way to survive such a process, even if the first two requirements above were somehow satisfied. The life cycle of moths, butterflies, and the like already take these structural changes into account - their DNA and their cellular structure prepare for these changes from the earliest point in those creatures' lives. The same is not true for humans.

Fourth, the quantity and species of bacteria and fungi in our bodies do not match those qualities of other species - so even if the human body could somehow {1: accomplish} and {2: survive} the transformation, the microbiome of the body would have to undergo the same sort of species-transformation, mass gain/loss, and energy expenditures as the host. If it's impossible once, it's even more impossible that such an event might happen thousands of billions of times at a single, localized point in the universe.

Consider the time, effort, and calories required of someone starting a training routine to become a bodybuilder or a marathon runner. The relatively minute changes their bodies go through, when compared to something as drastic as a transition from one species to another, are incredible enough as to be impossible to instantly accomplish. How much more impossible a physical shift would be is staggering.

From a Magical Point of View

First, if it could happen, it would happen. Psychic powers, telekenesis, astral travel, remote viewing... these so-called "supernatural phenomena" have been thoroughly debunked time and time again. James Randi and his Educational Foundation is a notable skeptic who has made a career out of proving such absurd claims to be false. There are 27 active prizes and 14 defunct ones currently listed on Wikipedia - all unclaimed - for proof of the paranormal. While the abilities I list here obviously don't include physical shifting, we must admit that therianthropy and our own related group of paranormal believers are not nearly as mainstream or recognizable as ESP, astral travel, out of body experiences, or the like. Extrapolating from the lack of mainstream supernatural abilities, the notable absence of any proof of physical shifting abilities, and it becomes obvious that such metaphysical abilities are equally non-existent.

Second, historic claims or stories about shapeshifters serve the same purpose as those claims in a more modern setting - to convince the gullible of an individual's inherent powers, with the end goal of controlling, manipulating, or defrauding the audience. These claims arise primarily from ego and narcissism, and there are always reasons that proof can never be provided - the audience is required to take the claims on faith and trust alone. Either the "disbelief" of the audience is interfering with an in-person demonstration, the alignment of ethereal energies is unfavorable, or the batteries in the camera died, there is always some convenient excuse as to why claims of shapeshifting or physical transformation can never be legitimately verified. There is no legitimate reason why magic or the supernatural would have worked centuries ago, but not now. Claims of "lost knowledge" or mistranslations of ancient texts leading to the loss of the correct methods or reagents is again claimed in order to lead along a gullible audience.

Third, there is no consensus regarding which supreme being or belief system would be responsible for these sorts of abilities. Rather, the claims all tend to follow a familiar pattern back to pagan roots, but specifics are obviously unavailable, or they conflict with other descriptions provided by various claimants. Again, the goal here has always been to prey on the gullibility of an audience by exploiting the lack of certainty in claims surrounding the mysterious nature of the paranormal. It stands to reason that if one entity could facilitate a physical transformation, another could hinder it, and so again, because of differences in the pantheon of service providers, proof is predictably unattainable.


Potential Harm

As I touched on above, those who claim to have the ability or to be in possession of such secret knowledge almost always have ulterior motives. "Packs" are formed in which one or a few "elite" members claim to have the ability to physically transform, and newer members are controlled and manipulated as they seek to obtain these abilities as well. Personal gain is another motive, as funding is required for "research," but the control and manipulation of others seems to be the primary goal.

People prey on the desire for power, the desire to be in a physical form we (as therians) might find more appealing or comfortable, or simply the desire to have followers. Such paranormal abilities would allow the select few to exercise such power over others, and by stringing along those desperate enough to believe and pursue, can lead people into cult-like social structures, extreme debt, or merely the abandonment of self in service to an out of control ego.

As the hope of being able to physically transform is always just out of reach, hope is kept alive, to an obsessive degree, and the victim slides into despair over the inability to obtain this power that is touted as real. Thus, the cycle of hope, despair, and depression carries on, preventing the individual from moving on with their life into reality and a more promising future.

Entertaining "research" or "potential methods" of attaining physical transformation only serve to bolster claims of those would exploit others. For the reasons mentioned above, belief in the ability to physically transform is extremely unreasonable and for all intents and purposes, entirely impossible. Fostering these beliefs in others does them no service, and furthermore, if we ever want therianthropy to be taken seriously in the larger framework of human society, such beliefs need to be kept in check, or we all risk being taken as seriously as a late night 1-900 psycic hotline.

Sooo I have several years experience of working with wild canines, mostly higher-content wolfdogs, behaviorally almost identical to captive-raised pure wolves. I have had a close personal relationship with a wolf. I work with a public outreach program here to spread truth and good information on wolves, wolfdogs, and coyotes, specifically, and as such have had some formal education on the subject of their behavior. I feel like I can be pf some assistance here.

The first and foremost thing I can point out about *real* wolves-
They are the embodiment of anxiety.
I see a lot- and i mean a lot- of folks (less on here and more in the facebook groups ect but still) claim things like "their wolf" makes them feel brave and unstoppable.
Now, let me tell you a story. Once upon a time I was out cleaning the pen of a high content, 5yo male wolfdog. He had a DNA panel run by a company called Embark, a very reputable and accurate company, and came back as being 94% gray wolf. They have a margin of error of only 5% and he is, for the sake of the story, essentially a captive wolf.
It started to rain and got a little chilly. Great, mud!
Well, somewhere in the distance someone lit up their hearth and a stream of chimney smoke drifted over the treeline. It caught Mr. Wolfdog's eye and sent him into a PANIC. He squatted and shat himself and ran to the opposite side of the enclosure, where he paced frantically, shooting nervous glances at the smoke and occasionally stopping to pee put of fear, for FORTY-FIVE MINUTES until it stopped. There was no consoling him. He was distraught.

I have seen the same reactions out pf wolves and wolfdogs of higher content over ANYTHING new. Leashes, hats, a piece of raw chicken, a new bucket, a car starting, wind. They startle so easily. Always on their toes. The human equivalent would be something like a tin-foil-hat-wearing, ultra-jumpy, paranoid nutjob with a severe anxiety disorder. With socialization you can ease it somewhat but that constant fear of anything new is always there.

Wolves are NOT brave. That famed and often romanticized wariness we attribute to wild things presents itself as what a human could easily interpret as cowardice. Have you ever seen a majestic wolf shit itself out of fear of a dragonfly? It happens. Yes, even wild wolves like that. It is natural.

They are also extremely reactive and snappy animals (compared to the dogs we are so familiar with, anyways).
Yes, wolves are beautifully social and intelligent animals with strong bonds. But if you watch them interact, it's funny how overblown and dramatic they are. Although much of their "violence" is simply a social ritual and tends not to lead to serious harm, people who aren't familiar with wolves will often find it startling. What would be a "hey, knock it off, John, I don't like that" in a human or a tongue-lick and side-eye in a domestic dog can, for a wolf, be a full-on screaming match with fangs bared and snapping in the air, pulling out fur and seriously making noises you thought were reserved for werewolves and kaiju and horror-beasts in film. It looks like a fight to the death until suddenly they just stop and go their own ways or resume what they were doing.
They don't forget, either- wolves/wolfdogs will argue again and again over the same bullshit until its removed. In captivity this presents more of an issue because it can be triggered by resource guarding a food bowl or particular spot, while in the wild roaming minimizes that somewhat, but it does happen either way and is a natural tendency.


Neophobia and extreme anxiety are normal. So is being a loud, obnoxious, obsessive and grudging drama queen. Wolves, man.

(2018-05-13 12:01)Vyt Wrote:  So, as we all know, there are a lot of wolves. And it is often proposed or believed that many of these 'wolves' are often other species, and haven't researched enough or realized it yet. There's also a lot of caution to newbies about not letting human stereotypes and misconceptions of animals be how they determine their theriotype. And that's really easy to debunk when the misconception is "I howl at the moon as a wolf" or "I'm the gamma of my pack". But I think there are some beliefs, held by wolf therians, that are still influenced by human stereotypes of wolves, but in a much more subtle way.

Main thesis: There are certain statements by/about wolf therians that seem to be centered on wolf behavior, but are actually stemming from human stereotypes.

1. "I'm a wolf because I'm aggressive!" - Actually, predators mostly aren't.
(I talked about this somewhat here, and much of the text will be directly copied.)
Hunting takes a lot of energy. So to be as efficient as possible, predators will tend to stack up as many advantages as they can before attacking. After all, a failed hunt doesn't just mean not eating, it can mean the predator gets hurt in the process as well. So predators pick "easy" targets: the young, the old, the sick, the isolated. Some, like wolves, hunt in packs. Some use stealth tactics. In areas where humans and tigers share land, humans can prevent attack by wearing a mask on the back of their head- thinking they've been seen is enough of a deterrent for tigers, even though you'd think "but the tiger could easily win!".
In summary: predators are very conservative with their attacks, and will only pick a fight they are sure they can win. Large herbivores are actually much more aggressive. Hippos cause far more trouble for humans that lions do.
To give a wolf example- wolves (and high-content wolf dogs) actually make terrible guard dogs, because they tend to be "shy" around humans and back away rather than attack.

2. "I'm a wolf because I'm independent!" -Most wolves aren't, and you're working from the human perspective of pride.
This is an argument I've seen most when wolf therians are defending why they aren't dogs. So many of the statements will be things like "I would never be subservient to anyone". I've literally seen a wolf therian say dogs were slaves to humans.
Let's put aside how dismissive/rude it is to classify an entire species (and the therians of that species) as enslaved or weak-willed. (And that's not my relationship as a dog-therian to humanity...at all). Let's just look at wolf behavior:

• Wolves are literally pack animals. "Lone wolves" aren't nearly as much of a thing as people think.
• Wolves have much stricter dominance relationships than dogs, so 'subservience' is still a wolf trait.
• This pride in individualism is a human cultural thing (especially an American thing). Wolves do not have a concept of pride in the same way. When wolves and dogs diverged, it wasn't a conscious, ego-based decision about being "free" and not being "subservient to humans". That's an incredibly anthropomorphized narrative, it is how humans romanticize wild animals, and this prideful emphasis on it is really a human cultural value.
  

Gotta love those lone wolf quotes. In reality most wolves want a pack and usually loners don't really survive long without one. There is a reason wolves run in packs, they would most likely not of evolved to have packs if they did not need them. This may sound silly but all that stuff about lone wolves really bug me. Good job with your post, you explained stuff well.

I was unsure if my aggression was a wolf trait or human trait as you probably known by my post I made questioning the situation, because wolves are not really as aggressive as most think, but they can be when needed or if they feel threatened. My aggression I sometimes experience in not so pleasant situations I feel is a little bit of both my wolf side and my human side since in general I am pretty awkward and shy around people I don't know in real life, but I do get a more aggressive mindset if I feel threatened or am not in safe state of mind (aka not feeling safe and calm in certain situations).

@Vyt they are opportunistic carnivores, much like deer in that article you linked and cows (there have been a few instances photographed of cows eating kittens). Wouldn't that mean they could be reclassified as opportunistic onmivores rather than being labeled as herbivores? I know something like that would take many years off study and research for a dietary reclassification.

Also, sorry for derailing your thread. If you want to continue the discussion, I'd be happy to do so via a new thread or PMs!

(2018-05-13 20:54)coyote_soul Wrote:  

(2018-05-13 12:01)Vyt Wrote:  Large herbivores are actually much more aggressive. Hippos cause far more trouble for humans that lions do.

Just chiming in to say that hippos aren't has herbivorous as previously thought. They will eat meat off of carcasses, including from other hippos.

To my understanding, lots of animals labeled herbivores are opportunistic carnivores (i.e. they don't hunt, but will eat meat if its easily available). https://io9.gizmodo.com/field-cameras-catch-deer-eating-birds-wait-why-do-deer-1689440870

(2018-05-13 12:01)Vyt Wrote:  Large herbivores are actually much more aggressive. Hippos cause far more trouble for humans that lions do.

Just chiming in to say that hippos aren't has herbivorous as previously thought. They will eat meat off of carcasses, including from other hippos.

Aye. The Cinderella wolf is one of the ones I think of when people start talking about "how wolves behave" as though they were some kind of automatons.

(2018-05-13 15:13)MountainKing Wrote:  "Lone wolves" are absolutely a thing, just not how people think they are.

Hence why i said not "as much of a thing as people think." Both you and Dustwolf have pointed out natural time periods where wolves might be alone/on their own for a matter of time. But (as both of you said) the goal of that period is generally to find a mate (thereby starting a new pack). And furthermore, none of that is what people mean when they say "lone wolf", which is part of what I am trying to address here. It's become it's own mythos in human culture.

(2018-05-13 15:13)MountainKing Wrote:  I think adding a bit on how their social structure is not purely based on aggression, and more so to do with parental ties would be a good thing to add. Considering how many therians I see who still don't understand basic pack relationships, this might be something to try and dispel.

Trust me, I've been fighting the hierarchy misconception every time I see it. But if you want to, feel free to elaborate on things here. That's what this thread is for, after all.

"Lone wolves" are absolutely a thing, just not how people think they are. Usually around the age of two, some wolves will become what are called "dispersers", in which they go off to try and find a mate of their own. It's not a "look how badass I am for being alone", like some people think, but more of a "oh god I want a family" thing haha.

I think adding a bit on how their social structure is not purely based on aggression, and more so to do with parental ties would be a good thing to add. Considering how many therians I see who still don't understand basic pack relationships, this might be something to try and dispel.

Also how the terms "Alpha" (as in, fight to the death for leading role hehe) and the like only apply really to captive wolves in most situations, though Beta is sometimes used to describe a male or female who gets to mate outside the parental pair bond.

Really I could go on forever. Wolves are misunderstood in the most odd way. People want them to be aggressive, noble animals with super cool social ranks and all that, when the reality of wolves is much more interesting.

EDIT: I also think it is very very important people realize that sometimes, individual animals do break the mold. I encourage people to research into wolf #42, or "Cinderalla" from Yellowstone, and her radically different behaviour that shocked everyone at Yellowstone. In fact, her mother, and sister too behaved so differently! It's an amazing thing to read about.

All animals are individuals, and while we can paint them in generally accurate terms, not all members of a species fit the mold.

(2018-05-13 14:32)WolfVanZandt Wrote:  My impression has always been that weres tend to be more mobile than Mainstreamers. Most of the ones I know have bounced around all over the country. Some move in groups; some alone.

I meant the whole thing more in the state of mind sort of thing. What might cause a wolf to leave their home and run straight for 350 km accross country, may cause a human to leave everybody behind and go for another field of work in another part of the country.

It's always hard to say what is on my mind, but then a fellow wolf therian going trough the experience might understand.

LP,
Dusty