In his excellent and informative article, Do Wolves Kill for Sport?, Brian Palmer ends with this:

Dogs are the only animal that definitely kills for sport, but that's only because humans taught them to do so. When a farmer finds a few dead chickens killed during the daylight hours with no missing body parts, the neighbor's dog is almost always the culprit.

So this (my italics) is short for: we bred them this way, right? That is, we can teach them all we want, but absent parent teaching offspring, that goes to the grave with them, right? We selected the sport killers for breeding, we used the rest for dog food (or something like that). Just wondering (rhetorically, as always) if I'm being picky (or wrong).

-----

One thing that fascinates me, evolution wise, is most recent common ancestor of stuff.

A: A few years ago my wife, a very infrequent and nervous boat driver, got off course in some early morning mist, hit some rocks and busted up the propeller. In her accounting of what happened, when she initially hit the rocks she hesitated, then sped up and ground her way into the clear.

B: My dog is essentially blind. (Schad may exit at this point.) What's tough on him is when there is some type of unexpected low-to-the-ground debris in an area that is normally clear for walking. Like, say, under an apple tree (but in the house too). He can't see the apples, but as I observe him, when he feels these odd things under and about his feet, he hesitates for a split second, then speeds up until he feels himself clear.

A and B connected?

By the way, proper procedure for A is to cut the engine immediately, tilt the engine up, grab your pole or paddle and push your way clear. But this is not how we're programmed, I guess I'm contending (and in her defense).