Global Warming Effect and Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter

March 12, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

New research shows that in the span of just fifty years songbirds have become slightly smaller, probably as a consequence of global warming. This is no big surprise as it has long been understood that size is inversely correlated with temperature. The Darwin contemporary Christian Bergmann first observed this trend, in terms of a correlation with latitude, and the trend became known as Bergmann’s Rule. But how did the change come about? Read more

Comments

Opps, I meant David. It's hard to keep up among the shrill of complete communication breakdown. Blame Clive. Blame Dembski, O'Leary, and Behe too. There is no telling how often they've used the word "better" to incite their minions and confuse the opposition.Upright BiPed_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

Yes Mark, lawyers have used that line of reasoning to great effect. Such an impetus, so well placed, can only lead to a calamity among the reasoned. Clive "set off people" by the divisive word "better". It has a colorful and distinct history of dividing people against themselves; creating havoc among otherwise thoughtful people. The "people" had no choice. They must react to such a blatantly unreliable and incendiary word. Who could resist such a taunting? If this were a rape case, then there could be little doubt among anyone of marginal reasoning ability. She wore that top to be noticed, she wanted it. Thanks Clive. You instigator of chaos you!Upright BiPed_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

UB, thank you for posting Mayr's definition of adaptation. It's quite correct, and it shows why Clive's question "Do you think they [our evolutionary descendants] will be better or worse than humans?" is meaningless. For Mayr's definition is relativistic: things do not become "better" in the sense of improving absolutely but only better in the context of an environment. Since Clive knows that, the meaningless question "Do you think they will be better or worse than humans?" was probably offered merely to set people off in a pedantic direction. And it worked. Congratulations Clive!David Kellogg_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

This exercise over the word "better" may rank as the most pedantic display ever imposed upon the readers of UD. Thank goodness the remaining world can communicate without the need to force this kind of opportunistic lecturing onto each other. - - - - - - - “Adaptation is one of the basic phenomena of biology, and is the process whereby an organism becomes better suited to its habitat" –Ernst MayrUpright BiPed_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Allen,
Leave the value judgments to the ethicists, or (if you can) keep the two rigorously separated in your mind, lest you commit the “naturalistic fallacy” and fall into error…
Thank you, I agree with you on this.Clive Hayden_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

In evolutionary terms, the concept of "better" is difficult to measure and can easily lead to the temptation to commit naturalistic fallacies. Furthermore, in the sense you are using, "better" depends completely on context. For example, if you ask me if a particular pair of pants fits "better", I would immediately have to ask "when"? Pants that I wore twenty years ago don't fit me "better" now at all, and pants that I wear now wouldn't have fit me "better" twenty years ago. Furthermore, certain pants fit me "better" for, say, fencing class or a ballet performance, but wouldn't fit me "better" than other pants that I might wear to go fishing in Fall Creek or to a formal art reception. These distinctions would even apply to things like bullets. I recently inherited a WW I vintage Krag/Springfield 30/40 bolt action rifle from my father. A 30/30 cartridge will fit into the chamber of this rifle, with a little bit of "wobble". In a pinch, even a 30/06 cartridge will chamber in my dad's rifle, although trying to load a handful of them into the magazine would almost certainly result in a jam. So, which is "better" as ammunition for my dad's rifle: 30/40 cartridges. 303/30 cartridges, or 30/06 cartridges? That depends: if 30/40 cartridges are available, they are less likely to jam in the magazine than either 30/30 or 30/06 cartridges, but one only has 30/06 cartridges, one can load them one at a time and still get by. Indeed, being slightly lighter, the bullets of a typical 30/06 cartridge will carry farther (and with a flatter trajectory) than the bullets of a typical 30/40 cartridge, and therefore might actually be "better" if one's goal were greater accuracy at longer ranges. However, if one wanted a higher rate of fire over shorter ranges, 30/40 Krags would be "better". Taking this line of reasoning further, my dad also had a Savage .222 rifle. None of the cartridges listed earlier will chamber in the Savage, nor will the .222 cartridges for the Savage chamber in the Krag. And, of course, if one has no loaded cartridges, then size is irrelevant. The point? In evolutionary biology, "fitness" is an inherently relative and quantitative concept, neither of which are particularly well-captured by the adjective "better". Better than what? when? under what conditions? for how long? Even more important, not all of the characteristics of living organisms contribute to their fitness. Indeed, according to Kimura's neutral theory, the vast majority of the genetic (and therefore phenotypic) characteristics of living organisms have no "fitness" at all, either "better" or "worse". It is a common failing of many evolutionary biologists and virtually all ID supporters to think that the only characteristics of organisms that "matter" are those that are "better" or "worse". This view – "pan-adaptationism" – is a holdover from the early 20th century, and still distorts the interpretations of a great many research results in evolutionary biology. I believe that it is long past time that we abandon any concept of "better" or "worse" (in the valuational sense) in evolutionary biology, and simply get on with the fascinating business of observing the patterns we can detect in the world around us. Leave the value judgments to the ethicists, or (if you can) keep the two rigorously separated in your mind, lest you commit the "naturalistic fallacy" and fall into error...Allen_MacNeill_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Allen, I did not mean moral or valuable, I mean better in respect to any evolutionary arbiter you would like to impose, differential reproduction or the like; it was a purely natural question, and my analogies should show that "better" can most certainly mean "better fitted" or "more fit" or "reproductively successful". In English we use "better" to mean things other than in a strict moral sense, and with no regard to any value, did you not know that? Some pants I have fit me "better" than others, does this mean I am saying that some of my pants are more moral than others? Of course not.Clive Hayden_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

In comment #52 Clive asked:
"You have no concept of anything like “This bullet fits this gun better” of a .45 round actually going into a .45 gun instead of a shotgun, or “This round peg goes into a round hole ‘better’ than this square peg”?
That is correct. The concept of "better" doesn't apply to evolutionary fitness, which is essentially a mathematical concept, not a value-based assessment. How would one measure or count "betterness" (i.e. in what units would one quantify "being better")?
Would you just claim that they are equally fitted in their own way, just different?"
In current evolutionary theory (i.e. evolutionary biology as it has been practiced for the past eighty years or so), fitness is defined very precisely: in most cases it consists of differential reproduction. Individuals that have more surviving offspring have a higher fitness than individuals that have fewer offspring. Fitness so defined can be either "absolute" (measured in raw numbers) or "relative" (measured in frequency/percentage/per capita). In general, evolutionary biologists use relative fitness for comparison purposes (i.e. comparing between individuals in a population), rather than absolute fitness. Under some circumstances, fitness is defined with reference to alleles, rather than to individuals. That is, a particular allele can be said to have a higher relative fitness in a population if it is present in that population at a higher relative frequency than alternative alleles. For example, the allele for sickle cell anemia has a higher relative fitness than the allele for normal hemoglobin, but only in populations that are chronically exposed to malaria (e.g. equatorial Africa). Personally, I tend not to equate fitness with relatively high allele frequencies, as I think that selection happens at the level of whole individuals, rather than at the level of genes. This is part of the debate over "multi-level selection" in which many evolutionary biologists are currently engaged. The reason that fitness is defined in reference to differential reproduction or relative allele frequencies is that these can be objectively measured, recorded, analyzed, and mathematically compared, and those numbers and comparisons can be plugged into mathematical equations which can statistically tested. Asking whether a particular phenotype is "better" fitted to its environment would require that one be able to count or measure units of "betterness". As I pointed out in my earlier comment, terms like "good", "bad", "better", "worse", etc. entail value judgments, which cannot be counted or measured using scientific methods. Indeed, to attempt to do so is to commit what is known as the "naturalistic fallacy". Social darwinism and eugenics are both examples of the commission of the naturalistic fallacy, and most evolutionary biologists for the past fifty years have tried to avoid committing them.Allen_MacNeill_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill, You have no concept of anything like "This bullet fits this gun better" of a .45 round actually going into a .45 gun instead of a shotgun, or "This round peg goes into a round hole 'better' than this square peg"? Would you just claim that they are equally fitted in their own way, just different? If so, that's perfectly fine, I was just wondering. 8) Seems a bit off to me, but that's just me. Clive Hayden_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill,
Clive, you seem utterly unable to understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements. The word “better” is inherently a value judgment, in the same way that a moral/ethical prescription is. Nowhere in my speculations about the possible future direction(s) of human evolution did I either state nor imply that our evolutionary descendants would be either “better” or “worse” than us, nor did I state or imply that they would be more or less “fit” than we are. On the contrary, what is likely (although not necessarily guaranteed) is that they will be different from us, and that their overall phenotypes will represent a blend of adaptive and non-adaptive characteristics.
"Just different" is your mantra, nothing is ever better than anything else in the respect of being "better" suited to an environment than anything else, do I understand you right? So all animals are "just different" with respect to their environment, even animals in the same environment, and you have no concept of any animal being better or worse suited by comparison to other animals and their environment, do I understand you right? So, if you were to say anything in the way of comparison between animals and their (either same or different) environments, all you could say is that they are different or the same, which seems pretty obvious, and wouldn't be giving much information now would it? not especially anything useful. Clive Hayden_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

No Heinrich, developmental changes can occur with or without selection acting on them. I gave examples, and so does West-Ebberhard.
I'm not disputing that. But if there is differential survival, there is selection. If the changes are adaptive - your first way of interpreting the data - then there is differential survival (by definition). Hence there would be selection. It doesn't matter if variation is genetic or not: selection can still act. For evolution, there has to be a response to selection too, which means an inherited response.Heinrich_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Mr. MacNeill, I don't think any ID supporter will dispute variation being preserved by NS. But variation is not novelty. Back to the drawing board, I guess. So how to find the source of novelty from a design perspective? Here's a hypothesis for searching out the foundation of biological development/novelty: I hypothesize (as did Behe probably in jest, but unwittingly getting closer to home) that God did in fact design a mother cell. The Mother(think Bragg's organic apple cider vinegar 'with the mother'), which activated (the colloquial term used in a stawmanish way in many blog posts is intervened)several times, when optimum conditions reached a critical threshold for each phase of biological development - bacteria, plants, animal life, Man. I propose that The Mother's signature is somewhere in our genome. But like all good riddles, it is hiding in plain sight. Now that would make a nice scientific research project, no? I'm serious. As a research/educational professional, could you suggest a way to formulate a research program geared to searching out some sort of ancient, root interactive library or something like that?
As I have suggested many times in the past, if ID supporters are genuinely interested in the origin of biological novelty, the place to look is in the 50+ “engines of variation”. If there is any empirical evidence of the intervention into nature of an “intelligent designer”, it will be found here, and not in the preservation of variations already produced by these mechanisms.
Oramus_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

If I may articulate the objection of my pro-ID peers, the issue is not that there are no sources of variation, it is looking for sources that mediate and coordinate variation. Most certainly there are ways to mechanically alter written English language text and as well as computer software.
Like in "cdesign proponentsists"?osteonectin_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

Allen, If I may add, here is the middle ground between many creationists, ID propoents, and some non-ID biologists: the work of James Shapiro. Shapiro co-authored works with Richard Sternberg. Here is an example on non-Darwinian evolution employing various mechanisms of change. See: Who are the Multiple Designers?. Shapiro offers mechanisms for coordianted change that I find reasonable and correct. These are mechanisms which ID proponents and EBers can stand behind. The disgareement would be the origin of such mechanisms, however as proximal causes, I would expect broad agreement. The disagreement would come regarding ultimate causes, all the way back to the OOL issue. I emphasize, a lot of creationists would feel comfortable agreeing with Shapiro even though they are at sharp odds with Darwin.scordova_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

Allen, Thank you for the list. If I may articulate the objection of my pro-ID peers, the issue is not that there are no sources of variation, it is looking for sources that mediate and coordinate variation. Most certainly there are ways to mechanically alter written English language text and as well as computer software. The software engineers among us, who are quick to acknowlege the existence of variation mechanisms, are reluctant to accept that COORDINATED variation can take place without some mediation. For sure we use lots of cut-and-paste in writing software. Things that are not too far removed in concept from the mechanism you list....these are par for various engineering disciplines. At issue is whether natural selection can provide coordination to a host of variational changes. Some segment of creationsts have argued the homologous recombination is an imporant mechanism of variation. Many creationists believe in adaptive mutations and that the mechanisms you describe could be some of the mechanisms which enable adaptation. Personally, I think it is too difficult a question to determine if a mutation was adaptive (as in had foresight, and response to the environment) versus random. Arguments could go both ways regarding that question whether a mutation is random or "premeditated". Lynn Helena Caporale argues for some premeditation, but she says selection was the engine via which premeditation was infused in the genome. Needless to say, I agree the mutations could show "premeditation" but I'm skeptical natural selection synthesized mutational premeditation in the first place. Caporale wrote a layman's book:Darwin in the Genome where she articulates her views.scordova_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Natural selection doesn't create complexity; indeed, it doesn't "create" anything. It preserves those characteristics that arise as the result of the "engines of variation", about fifty of which I have listed here: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html These mechanisms create all kinds of things, from new codons to entirely new multicellular organisms. Natural selection (defined as unequal, non-random survival and reproduction) simply preserves some of the new variants produced by these mechanisms. This "natural preservation" (Darwin's preferred term for what he originally called "natural selection") acts as a "funnel" for new variations, limited the number of new combinations of traits to a generally small subset of all of the possible combinations of variable traits. In so doing, natural preservation/selection continuously changes the probability of production of new variations, increasing the probability of some and decreasing the probability of others. As I have suggested many times in the past, if ID supporters are genuinely interested in the origin of biological novelty, the place to look is in the 50+ "engines of variation". If there is any empirical evidence of the intervention into nature of an "intelligent designer", it will be found here, and not in the preservation of variations already produced by these mechanisms.Allen_MacNeill_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

Heinrich: No, Sal. In the first case selection is acting, but there is no genetic response to selection.
No Heinrich, developmental changes can occur with or without selection acting on them. I gave examples, and so does West-Ebberhard. Furthermore the fact selection acts does not imply it is a good explanation. Gravity acts on all biological systems, we don't use gravity as universal explanation for the complexity in biology. The proven existence of selection does not guarantee it creates complexity any more than the proven existence of gravity guarantees the emergence of complexity. You seem to be continuing with oft repeated non-sequiturs.scordova_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Clive, you seem utterly unable to understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements. The word "better" is inherently a value judgment, in the same way that a moral/ethical prescription is. Nowhere in my speculations about the possible future direction(s) of human evolution did I either state nor imply that our evolutionary descendants would be either "better" or "worse" than us, nor did I state or imply that they would be more or less "fit" than we are. On the contrary, what is likely (although not necessarily guaranteed) is that they will be different from us, and that their overall phenotypes will represent a blend of adaptive and non-adaptive characteristics. This is not the first time (nor will it probably be the last) that Clive has demonstrated his inability to distinguish between descriptive (i.e. "is") statements and evaluative (i.e. "ought") statements. This is a distinction that is made in the very first lecture of any elementary course in ethical philosophy. Ergo, most reasonable people would conclude either that 1) Clive has no understanding of the basic principles of philosophical ethics, or 2) Clive does have such an understanding, but deliberately misrepresents this fundamental distinction for covert reasons of his own.Allen_MacNeill_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

Clive, one hopes our descendants will be better in some sense, but evolution only says that successful creatures will be well adapted to the conditions in which they find themselves. There is no absolute or objective "better" in evolution. And. You. Know. This. Or should.David Kellogg_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

David Kellog, Allen's response was full of "better" in what he expects to see as far as better fitted in various ways in his evolved children. Some things are better suited to an environment in the mythology of evolution than others, that was my point, and that was (partly) the point of my question. So Allen believes we'll retain basically the same features (taller, bigger heads, etc.) as we have currently. What do you think? I happen to think that on this mythology our children will be a sort of brilliant wombat/sea-lion given enough time. Or we might evolve directly into fig trees, you never know. ;)Clive Hayden_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

No, Sal. In the first case selection is acting, but there is no genetic response to selection.Heinrich_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

One way to interpret the data: 1. if the changes due to developmental plasticity were adaptive (such as with the birds and temperature), then that is an example of adaptation independent of natural selection. 2. if the changes due to developmental plasticity were maladaptive, then that shows the ineffectiveness of natural selection Thus in either case selection is mostly irrelevant to these biological features.scordova_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Clive, Let me put it another way: evolution does not say that species become objectively "better" over time. It just doesn't. It's not my fault that you're wrong. What if I made a equivalent blunder about ID -- let's say I said that ID says that all biological design is optimal design? If I made such a claim, you would rightly accuse me of gross misunderstanding. And yet you continue to justify your error.David Kellogg_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

One other science fiction recommendation: M. A. Foster's "Ler trilogy" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._A._Foster] is an extended look at a possible human future in which a genetically engineered "post-human" species – the Ler – set in motion a series of events that eventually result in the "forced evolution" of several subspecies of humans, collectively referred to as the Klesh. The three books of the Ler trilogy (in chronological, but not publication order) are: The Gameplayers of Zan (1977) The Warriors of Dawn (1975) The Day of the Klesh (1979) Foster also has a website in which he and others expand on the language and culture of the Ler: http://www.ai-institute.org/Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

All this assumes relatively little alteration of the human genome via genetic engineering. If this is thrown into the mix, all bets are off. See Dougal Dixon's Man After Man: An Anthopology of the Future [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_After_Man:_An_Anthropology_of_the_Future] for one person's speculations as to the future of genetically engineered (dare one call it "intelligently designed"?) humanity. Another science fiction look into possible human futures is Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_and_First_Men]. Stapledon's work had a profound effect on other writers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_and_First_Men#Influences_on_other_writers], including C. S. Lewis, who wrote his "space trilogy" partly in response to Stapledon.Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

In comment #30, Clive Hayden asked:
"Can you speculate, just for fun, on what new features your lineage will have? Maybe webbed toes, wings, maybe horns, or be hairless? Or do you think your children’s evolution won’t be that severe no matter how much longer the lineage has to evolve?"
Speculation is fun (as long as one keeps in mind that it is merely speculation), so here goes: One of the evolutionary trends that has characterized the hominid phylogeny over the past ten million years is neoteny: the retention of juvenile features into physical (and especially sexual) maturity. This is why other primate babies strike many people as more "human-like" than adult non-human primates. The juvenile forms of all primates (including humans) are more similar to each other than the adult forms. This is most noticeable in the gross morphology of the human skull, which looks extraordinarily "juvenile" when compared with the skulls of other adult primates. Juvenile primates are also less "hairy" than adults (as Clive hinted at), and have less distinct gender differences (both morphological and behavioral). There is also a trend toward increasing dominance of females (and a corresponding decrease in intra-group male-male conflict in the context of hierarchical maintenance) among the hominids, especially in those clades most closely related to humans. These same trends are noticeable in cultural evolution as well. As the decades-long ethological research into the behavior of macaques in the Koshima archipelago in Japan has shown, much of the cultural innovation among the various macaque groups has been initiated by juveniles, especially juvenile females. Adults seem much less flexible in their behavior, a pattern also exhibited in the acquisition and evolution of human language. Finally, there has been a gradual trend toward increasing body size and increasing longevity among the hominids, coupled with delayed sexual maturation (again, a neotenous trait). Ergo, I would expect that further evolution among the hominid line (which may or may not include my own phylogenetic descendants) would reflect these trends: 1) increasingly delayed maturation, coupled with retention of juvenile characteristics later into adulthood, especially in the morphology of the skull (including the eventual loss of "wisdom teeth" molars), hands, and (to a lesser extent) feet; 2) increasing importance of female behavior among social groups, up to and including positions of dominance in somewhat less rigidly defined dominance hierarchies; 3) delayed behavioral maturation, including delayed language acquisition, followed by increasingly elaborated behavioral and linguistic adaptation; and 4) increasing overall body size and longevity. In other words, if these trends continue, our distant evolutionary descendants would appear to us to be very tall (but not necessarily very fat), highly verbal, somewhat oddly proportioned (big-headed") children among whom females and males are difficult to tell apart and whose social behavior is much more verbally complex and significantly less gender delineated than ours, and who live to surprisingly old ages (easily into their hundreds). Not the usual picture one finds in most science fiction, but quite consistent with past trends in hominid evolution. That was fun! I really do wish time travel were possible, so that we could see if these trends continue, or if unforeseen environmental changes (such as the ice ages or changes in solar luminosity) alter the trends in unexpected ways.Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

You should all read Niven's "Ringworld Engineers." (ACtually it sucks, don't read it). In that book people inhabited a world with no other animal life (only plant). humans quickly evolve into various ecological niches. There are cow-like people with flat teeth, vampire-like people, seal-type people etc. I think it's creative but kind of ridiculous too.Collin_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Aww, does nobody want to play my game? What view of evolution is above all "the conception that in certain cases rapid evolution can occur" , according to the author? I promise that the answer is interesting and poignant.anonym_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

I too am very interested in the predictions (because afterall science makes predictions) of how we humans will "look like" in the distant future. Hollywood seems to have figured it out already, one movie that comes to mind is "The Time Machine". According to this Darwinian fantasy, (if I can accurately recall) the humans who survived underground devolved into evolved apes while the humans who survived above ground remained unchanged.computerist_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Seversky, The creationist's answer, not surprisingly, is theological. The mutations are a result of the fall of man and when Jesus comes again, he will overcome the effects of that fall and human bodies will be perfected. I once heard that when purebred dogs become ferral they generally become more "wolf-like." Has anyone else heard that and if so can you give me a source?Collin_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply