<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Speaking Of Dogs</title>
	<link>http://rightwingnation.com/2007/09/17/speaking-of-dogs/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:31:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: ricki</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnation.com/2007/09/17/speaking-of-dogs/#comment-85833</link>
		<dc:creator>ricki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:04:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://rightwingnation.com/2007/09/17/speaking-of-dogs/#comment-85833</guid>
		<description>Except they're not "ancestors" of wolves; if anything, they're "descendants." 

For some reason lots of news stories get the ancestor-descendant thing wrong when they talk about evolutionary change, and it always ticks me off. 

That said, I'm not too surprised about the findings. I suspect dogs that are more "socialized" (interact with families) would score as "smarter" than the chain-em-up-in-the-back-yard-and-just-throw-kibble-their-way kind of dog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Except they&#8217;re not &#8220;ancestors&#8221; of wolves; if anything, they&#8217;re &#8220;descendants.&#8221; </p>
<p>For some reason lots of news stories get the ancestor-descendant thing wrong when they talk about evolutionary change, and it always ticks me off. </p>
<p>That said, I&#8217;m not too surprised about the findings. I suspect dogs that are more &#8220;socialized&#8221; (interact with families) would score as &#8220;smarter&#8221; than the chain-em-up-in-the-back-yard-and-just-throw-kibble-their-way kind of dog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
