Slashdot Mirror
Fish Evolve Immunity To Toxic Sludge
RedEaredSlider writes "Fish in the Hudson River and the harbor in New Bedford, Mass., have evolved resistance to PCBs. In the Hudson, a species of tomcod has evolved a way for a very specific protein to simply not bind to PCBs, nearly eliminating the toxicity. In New Bedford, the Atlantic killifish has proteins that bind to the toxin (just as they do in mammals) but the fish aren't affected despite high levels of PCBs in their cells. Why the killifish survive is a mystery."
It's good for evolution!
I'm sorry, but i can't hear you over the sound of how awesome those fishes are!!
Ananda Chakrabarty developed a microorganism that actual feeds on PCBs by simple selection in his lab some 40 years ago.
We have weeds that have evolved resistance to glyphosate in the wild. That is a much more impressive adaptation because glyphosate interferes with the production of key amino acids by plants.
Life on earth has been adapting and evolving to its environment for billions of years. Why would anyone think it would stop?
That which kills other fish only makes them stronger!
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
How long until deer evolve to not walk in front of my car?
"All fish not immune to toxic sludge killed by said toxic sludge"
Because that is really what evolution in this context means. The fish didn't react to the toxic sludge and develop immunity to it; There was already a population of fish at least somewhat immune to the toxin, and due to them being the only survivors, the whole population living in the sludge now is immune.
So what happens to the animals that eat them and that aren't immune to the PCB?
And you know who is at the top of the food chain ......
N.B. this user is far too lazy to write a witty and intelligent sig.
Problem solved!
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Soon totally new organisms will crawl out of that river and demand welfare and voting rights.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Fish Evolve Immunity To Toxic Sludge
If fish can do it, then it should be no problem for humans. You left wing environmentalists lose again. We Conservatives can pollute and know there is nothing wrong with it. Again, more evidence promoting the Conservative lifestyle.
Even though a single evolutionary change can mean the difference between living and dying I would think it also effect everything else, especially when it has to do with metabolism. In this case the fishs' genes have found a local maxima, so to say, that makes them resistant to PCB; nobody knows what evolutionary possibilities they've sacrificed and what it does to them in the long run.
This is gonna make it much harder to finally wipe them out.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
Why or how? *facepalm-slashdot-editors*
This is simply a case of fish that have a certain trait mating and passing on that trait to offspring, not a case of spontaneous evolution.
But thats what evolution is. A small fraction of those traits will have come from mutations, not from the previous generation.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Not spontaneous? Obviously it's a random mutation causing a difference in biology was selected by environmental pressure. Evolution works.
This is simply a case of fish that have a certain trait mating and passing on that trait to offspring, not a case of spontaneous evolution.
That is evolution...
...only they will be healthy. I, for one, welcome our new piscine masters.
I'll wait until I hear from Al on this one. everyone knows Al Gore is the only trusted opinion when it comes to anything environmental. From global Warming, to Spotted Left Foot Owl/Squirrel Hybrids, he is the real leader in the field.
Evolution is essentially the same thing as survival of the fittest followed by passing its traits on to the offspring because it enabled the fittest to reproduce more or live long enough to reproduce... and over time, the offspring with that trait will begin outnumber other members of its species without the trait because they have a better chance of survival. Also, spontaneous evolution is an oxymoron.
It says a lot about PCB distribution and signal strength if multiple species have evolved responses over sub-century time frames.
It was convenient while it lasted for the fish who ingested our industrial waste stream to grow carbuncles and remove themselves from the human menu by simple visual inspection. But I guess we're heading back to the days where the host takes a brave first bite, and all the guests applaud if dinner proceeds. We'll all be double checking the Russian royal penumbra to ensure our host doesn't carry any midichlorians of Rasputin lineage.
Canaries in the coal mine all the way up the food chain. Tag, you're it.
These trivial problems like "pollution" have a way of fixing themselves.
Have you heard that microevolution != macroevolution? Well, now you have! It would not do to imply that an all-powerful, all-knowing being needs not play with their creation like an ADD toddler playing with their ant farm.
...you refer to selection as evolution. Selection is well understood, and pretty much everyone from the most fundamental creationist to the most outspoken evolutionist will agree on the fact that when a species is faced with an unavoidable situation in which most of them will be killed off, only those that exhibit traits allowing them to survive will persist to pass on their genes. If it can be demonstrated that not a single one of them had that trait previously, then that would be interesting, to be sure, but proving that is nigh impossible.
Misspelling the word "they" in the summary doesn't help your credibility either.
IOW, the others just died from the PCB and the ones that we have now are the survivors. As per Darwin prediction. Excellent, in a marauding way.
This guy nailed it. I went through a Catholic high school as one of the "hardcore evolutionists" and got to college and encountered a small enclave of fundamentalist creationists who irritated me to no end. Ironically, they got me to be a better scientist as I started questioning my own biases. I had no formal background or experience with biology yet I just took all the evolution stuff at face value. I'll learn more about biology soon enough I guess.
Anyway, +1 Insightful parent. -1 Douchebag me for being a coattail rider.
Basically the fish are an example of mutations and natural selection. The damage genes in the fish make it better suited to it's environment but it doesn't show it getting more complex, actually the opposite, a weaker fish. But you dont get published without towing the line of Evolution. Notice how the mutations are limited to the Hudson area. The fish are less fit than the wild fish in the oceans.
How do you think evolution produces different species? You have the same species in 2 different areas. The conditions change in one area or favor certain traits over others. Eventually, the animals in that area evolve into a different species. You cannot say that one species is weaker that the other. What you claim to be the "stronger"fish would not survive in the Hudson, while these "weaker" ones can. Each one is stronger than the other in their respective environments.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
More than a study, I think this is just an excuse to lower the standards and dump more pollution into the river.
Sorry, but every change in the environment has significant changes in many factors of life, marine or ground.
Nope. Otherwise we wouldn't be seening all the attempts such as "teach the controversy" and "teach both" in schools.
Maybe on Internet sites it is zealots vs zealots. But in the real world it is zealots vs everyone-else.
And what, exactly, is a "hardcore evolutionist"? Since current medical/biological science is 100% based on evolution.
So far, so good.
Nice. But you haven't identified anyone who is doing that.
But it is easy to find the Creationist zealots.
That is evolution...
I'm glad to see somebody was awake in Freshman biology class.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It's only a matter of time before we experience the same effects. Its kind of the like the "bird in the mine" What happens to our fellow world companions will soon happen to us. Thank You
[($)]
They're in my fridge right now!
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
If so, all they need to accept now is the fact that random gene mutations happen, and they'll accept evolution as actually happening. The starting point and the origin may be still debatable, but I dare say that it's hard for creationists to deny actual evolution happening on this planet as we speak, and in the past.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
(I define evolution as change going up hill, or as to quote a catch parse, "goo to you via zoo". I do not defined it as "things changes", as Natural Selection & Mutations cover that area already.)
Too bad your definition isn't the same one as the rest of the world's. YOU don't get to create definitions that suite your limited understanding of the world.
Go do some reading and then come back and talk at the next thread.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Now the evolutionists and the anti-environmentalists will get together. This will mean the anti-evolution people will have to adopt an environmental stance.
Quick, somebody play The World Turned Upside Down.
Actually you miss the GP's point. GP is saying the trait was already present but has now spread. Evolution requires a new trait to come into existence.
Example1: Sol increases its UV output X fold and all melatonin deprived people die from skin cancer before age 11. Only people who have a higher melatonin level survive to breed. This is not evolution.
Example2: Same situation except a novel protein causes keratin monomers to increase in density near the surface of the skin. Increased density blocks UV damage and allows people with a low melatonin content to survive past a viable breeding age thus passing on this new trait. This is evolution.
Evolution is a tricky argument for we the living.
Gently reply
GP is wrong; evolution involves the species level. You're talking about spontaneous mutation, which is only one element of natural selection.
to be made at the Little Lisa Recycling Plant.
Am I supposed to be surprised?
"life, uh... finds a way."
All genes have tons of variants, and these variants had to be introduced into the population at some time. Evolution doesn't need to for traits to be introduced due to environmental pressures in order to work; they are introduced at random by mutations. So whether the trait was introduced before or after the dumping of PCBs began really isn't that interesting as it is just a matter of chance, and doesn't prove anything about evolution. The interesting part is that it occurred at all.
These fish couldn't be selected for their immunity to PCBs if some of them hadn't already obtained the trait in some manner to begin with, and selection is an integral part of evolution. Thus arguing that this is "just" selection and not evolution is making a distinction without a difference.
Life finds a way. What I find really amusing is that we humans have convinced ourselves that we need to take care of our environment for the sake of other animals that live among us. In reality, we should be worrying about our own survival. You see, since we lack basic survival skills, we have developed large brains to create a buffer from harsh environments, thus slowing our own evolution (micro and macro). It's not the end of the world if we destroy our environment. Life will find away....without us. tl;dr? This comic sums it all up: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2011/06/what_mother_nature_thinks_of_u/sweetnature.jpeg
What exactly doesn't complexity have to do with this? And fitness is a measure within an environment. The environment in this case are these bodies of water with high levels of PCBs. Your post is so fucking muddled, as typical of Creationist bullshit, that you can't even keep the point straight. What does "weakness" have to do with complexity? What is complexity in this situation?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Kind" has no biological meaning at all. What is a "fish" kind? Is a shark a "fish" kind?
Evolution, simply put, is change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.
And as to your infantile attack on abiogenesis, well, that, I suppose is just thrown in there for good measure.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Because you abuse it you fucking pathetic asshole. In civilised countries you would be held accountable.
Oh and fuck you racist.
http://articles.cnn.com/1996-09-06/us/9609_06_fishy.name_1_mayor-george-carter-peta-animal-rights-group?_s=PM:US
pretty funny actually
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Evolution doesn't work by producing ever-more complex examples. Case in point - cats. The domestic cat brain loses 2/3 of its brain cells during it's early growth - they simply aren't needed for its' environmental niche, and a waste of resources, so the cats that pruned back on brain cells were able to survive on less food, etc.
Adders Tongue has 1200 chromosomes. Guess that makes them more complex than humans.
Or if you want to go by the number of genes, Amoebas got us beat 209 times over (670,000,000,000 for the amoeba, 3,200,000,000 for humans).
Natural selection never made any claims about producing anything other than creatures best fit for their environmental niche. Not as your "evolution as change going up hill". More complex encoding/expressing techniques allow for fewer resources, much easier disruption/mutation, and quicker evolution through natural selection for each niche. That's one reason why we saw such quick evolution in humans despite the relatively small number of genes, and one reason why amoebas are still amoebas - too much redundant stability and too many genes that only encode for one trait, or are just there as junk pairs, acting as scaffolding to stabilize the dna structure.
Don't let the Republicans know... They'll come after you with pitchforks and bibles!
In reality, there's no such thing as a "species".
It's purely a human concept that we use to make sense of things. Even Darwin already noted that the number of species drastically varies depending on who and how does the counting.
Say, does it count as species if they can interbreed if genetic material is exchanged, but:
A. Live separately? Eg, lions and tigers
B. Have incompatible courtship rituals?
C. Are interested in mating at incompatible times?
D. Consider each other too alien looking to try breeding in normal circumstances?
E. Offspring are rarely viable?
New species don't really pop into existence, we create them by deciding "this animal looks different enough that we should give it a new name".
If one were to look at how a wolf got turned into a domestic dog, there wouldn't be a fixed moment where a wolf suddenly became a dog. Rather, there'd be a population of more and more sociable wolves (some of which would be nice, and some less), until most people would agree that this wolf adopted by the more radical parts of the village is starting to look rather different from the kind we find in the wild, so we might as well name it something else.
Example 1 is evolution, and is probably far more frequent than Example 2 -- you're just missing the fact that evolution starts before Sol even increases its ouput.
In times of relative stability, a lot of mutations happen and they all survive because the species is still generally well-adapted to their environment, even if some adaptations have minor disadvantages. Then an environmental change happens, and suddenly the minor disadvantage is a major advantage and the adaptation spreads throughout the population (other pre-existing adaptations that became major disadvantages also fade away).
Evolution doesn't require that the "new" thing happen before the environmental change that makes it important.
So you see, Example1 is actually identical to Example2, except that the novel protein happened before Sol increased its UV output. And why wouldn't it evolve before? Evolution is undirected and purposeless; it's not "trying" to solve melatonin so there's no reason it would happen more often after than before.
Translation: I redefine words and create psueodscience and then prove that the bullshit that I just made up is false... color us unimpressed.
These mutations dont show evolution (things breaking dont show "Goo to you via zoo" evolution)
Who are you to say it is broken? If anything, it would be the ones who don't change that are broken, because they die without the adaptation. It is letting them survive in an area that other things can't. By definition, that would be working, not breaking. If a mutation gives rise to a new population that is identifiably different from another species, that is evolution. The classic example is the finches. Different species of finches evolved with different beak structures that best fit their environment.
And your car analogy is horrible. A broken window causing you to drive slower in a snowy area is not evolution. Now, a car that is sold with snow tires as standard in a snowy area would be. The exact same car in a warm, but wet environment may come with rain tires. Both of these models were adapted from an original model with regular tires, ie. they evolved to fit the surroundings where they will be used.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
So, loganberries (a cross between blackberries and raspberries) doesn't exist. Neither do peppermint, tangeloes (even though they've been around for thousands of years), grapefruits, triticale (wheat+rye), durum wheat (oh well, guess all that pasta is fake after all), grizzly+polar bear hybrids, sheep (54 chromosomes)+goat (60 chromosomes) hybrids, wild horse(66 chromosomes)+domestic horse(64 chromosomes) hybrids, beefalo, coydogs, coywolves, wolfdogs, mules, hinnies, zebroids, wholphins (dolphin+false killer whale), blynx, and wolves with black pelts (from breeding with dogs).
As for your contention that wolves had all the information necessary to create dogs, that's false. While all dogs today are descended from grey wolves, there were 4 different gene clade mutation events that gave rise to the domestic dog, starting with one ~40k-130k years ago. Breeding 2 wolves doesn't ever create a chihuahua.
Pics of ligon, tigon, leapon, zorse, zonkey, zony, etc
Also, Dawkins is not a hard-core atheist.
there were 4 different gene clade mutation events that gave rise to the domestic dog, starting with one ~40k-130k years ago. Breeding 2 wolves doesn't ever create a chihuahua
So breeding 2 wolves doesn't ever create a chihuahua ... unless there were 4 different gene clade mutation events, which there were, which is how we ended up with chihuahuas.
I don't think you understand the phrase "doesn't ever".
Also, spontaneous evolution is an oxymoron.
Just because you don't like a term doesn't mean the idea it represents is wrong. People becoming so scared their hair turned white is impossible, but does happen. Spontaneous evolution comes in the same. It's both impossible (as you point out), yet happens, as it did here. Further, depending on your definition of "spontaneous" it isn't impossible, but instead how *all* evolution comes about.
Learn to love Alaska
Mutations leading to evolution can be what creates the fittest. The two are not mutually exclusive terms. You could easily argue that survival of the fittest is one key attribute to evolution which is the result of (some) mutations. As for being in God's image... I don't subscribe to that particular newsletter so I won't comment on it.
Also, I'm unclear on your entire comment of how things that are impossible are true. Citations? I have never heard of someone's hair turning white as a result of being scared. As for spontaneous evolution being an oxymoron... that doesn't mean its impossible, just that the two words have opposite meanings. Spontaneous in this case is generally taken to mean quickly or instantly. Evolution on the other hand is generally defined as a slow change over time (as opposed to revolution).
HTH
You're right, I didn't have the slightest idea what "clade" meant, but that doesn't invalidate my point.
Someone who appears to know how involved the details of speciation shouldn't make generalizations such as "the 'wolf' was no longer a wolf". How do you define the point at which it was not a wolf? what is a "clade" mutation?
(Google and wikipedia don't seem to help.)
Nothing presently suggests that any of these fish will accumulate more PCB simply because they're resistant to its toxic effects, and thus predators will not learn to avoid them based on heightened PCB content. The Tomcod in particular will actually accumulate much less PCB, because the biochemical component with which it used to bind will simply let it pass.
In fact, these resistances could be one of evolution's many double-edged swords: if the predators learn anything, it may be that they should eat these fish, because PCBs are very dangerous teratogens (they fuck up embryo development), and any prey containing less of those poisons could lead to higher levels of survival in the predators' offspring.
The are intelligently rev'ed.
more cowbell
I've been reading the biblical creationist perspective on this since Feb 2011: Rapid tomcod ‘evolution by pollution’? Yeah, right and wrong.
This is not the kind of "evolution" needed to evolve lower-order organisms into higher-order ones. In fact, a better description for this particular case is "develution"
If you look close enough at any of these examples of evolution we keep hearing about, they're never the kind that molecules-to-man evolution requires.
Try again
Selah.ca. Pause, and calmly think on that.
I have never heard of someone's hair turning white as a result of being scared.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hair+suddenly+turning+white
Spontaneous in this case is generally taken to mean quickly or instantly. Evolution on the other hand is generally defined as a slow change over time (as opposed to revolution).
I've never seen "slow" being a requirement in biological evolution until you posted it. I always thought of it as a description, not a requirement. I understand the word "evolution" requires slow, but the technical term of biological evolution was named for one thing, but vernacular word definition doesn't change a technical definition. "Broadband" is defined by the FCC in a manner directly contradictory to the technical definition use by electrical engineers for years before the FCC started getting seriously involved in 1996. Most fiber is not broadband, despite the FCC's definition to the contrary. Pretty much all wireless (including screaming-fast 9.6 kbps GSM modems) is EE "broadband", despite the FCC disagreeing. The FCC adopted a definition more close to the vernacular, and no matter how many people agree what speeds make "broadband", the EE definition will not change. The fact that the dictionary definition touches on biological evolution doesn't change the fact that it has no bearing on the actual biological evolution definition. And I think that's where you are getting tripped up. Biological evolution doesn't require "slow." But the dictionary definition one would use to contrast with "revolution" does require slow.
Spontaneous evolution is simple if you just think about it. The actual evolution could have taken 1,000,000,000,000 years or more. But the sudden act that culls the non-evolved is immediate and instant, thus "evolving" the species suddenly (and in a real manner, as the genetic makeup in the species changes instantly and broadly).
Learn to love Alaska
There were certainly other mutations, same as in every species, that were not competitive even in the short run. The thing is, sometimes a mutation, such as the last one, coincides with a change in the environment, such as humans transitioning from hunter-gatherer to farmer-herder, so a mutation that allowed dogs to be less timid of humans than wolves are (if you've ever owned a wolf-dog cross you'd know what I mean), given the benefits of living with humans that are herders, would rapidly propagate.
Wolves, coyotes, and dogs are very distinct. We had a coydog when I was a kid, and one of my current dogs is part wolf, and their behaviours are markedly different from "regular dogs".
I hope I can convince you to relegate your "environmental karma" to the fiction department, where frankly all such nonsense belongs. Karma has a (very) dark side, the caste system. But that's entirely beside the point. "Environmental karma" is bogus because :
Your extinction theories are not how evolution works, except in a rudimentary absolutist pre-20th century understanding perhaps. So let's this time include theories from the 20th century (imagine that, biology did not stop evolving after Darwin ...). Here's the idea of what happens if a predator eats PCB infected fish.
A population of predators eats a population of PCB resistant fish. Some of the fish will be infected with a virus. Some of the virusses inside the fish will have copied the resistant version of the gene into the viral DNA. Happens all the time. In practice every lifeform is constantly infected with hundreds of different viruses, so this is not as unlikely as you would think.
Some of the predators will get infected with the fish. Some of the female predators will get their eggs infected, some of the males their balls (or equivalent ...). BTW: it's usually the males that get their eggs ("sperma") infected. Look up how it works, and it will be obvious why. These fish, with the "infected" genes, being ever so slightly more active (evolution massacres entire races because they're 1% worse performers in a matter of a dozen generations, sometimes faster) take over the entire population. For fish, with generation lengths of at most 1 year, mostly less than that, we're talking a decade or less.
Does that satisfy you ? We *cannot* kill any significant part of nature. No matter how hard we try to do so. Nor can Krishna relegate "evil" species to dalit status and make slaves out of them, so you can you please not scare people with such eventualities ?
That species expansion only happens if natural barriers go up. Global transport is the real cause of species extinction'. The fact that people and goods move to all regions of this planet, bringing new diseases, new rodents, cats, dogs, and sometimes even new predators to all remote regions of this planet, where they proceed to destroy the local fauna that never evolved a defense against them. We're connecting the islands, google "island species".
The parties the most responsible for species extinction are probably the British empire, the east-india trading company and the Spanish kingdom. Remember : species' diversity loss is not exactly a recent problem.
It's not oil, it's not poison, it's not heavy metals (not even the music), it's not co2, it's not rising sea level, it's none of those things. It's tourism, discoveries and transport, and it doesn't matter *at all* whether said tourism happened by unpowered sailing ships, or kerosene-spewing 747's. You want to save species and races (including the diversity in human races) ?. Destroy tourism. Destroy international trade. Destroy *every* long distance interaction you can think of, first and most important in things to destroy would probably be the internet.
You want to save species diversity ? Break the connection, restore the islands. (read up a bit on island species on google and you will understand what this means). If this is not done, expect one human race to become utterly dominant (> 90% of the population) in at least 99 human species that didn't make it. For most animal and plant species this number will be far, far higher. The vast majority of species created by evolution ... lose. Link the habitats, even for memes, and where there used to be 300 countries and, for example, languages, there will remain only one. Every Western European, from Swedish kids, to Italian infants speak English, it's only a matter of time till they decide that's the easiest way to communicate. The only languages that seem to be pushing back are French and Chinese. Please remember that there are currently 394 lan
"there are intentional mechanisms built into the DNA pathways that deliberately cause genetic mutations during stress events"
While that sounds very unorthodox I may be wrong.
Do you have any reference to support this? Or is it wishful thinking? ;)
It would really help to see some references.
Check Jonathan Falcon. His penumbra is royal, to say the least, and as such indicative of Rasputin's piercing powers.
Falsifying the Newtonian (implied) hypothesis that spacetime was flat merely added a correction term into the Newtonian laws of motion. Falsifying the theory of phlogiston was a major first step to modern chemistry. The GP is confused as to the difference. Nobody bothers to try to "disprove" Newtonian mechanics when designing a car, because they are a good enough truth for almost all terrestrial engineering. Whereas anyone who doesn't try to disprove the Phlogiston model won't get far with chemical engineering.
Evolution is very definitely in Newtonian mechanics territory; no biochemist, drugs researcher or animal breeder is ever going to fail in their goals through a blind belief in evolution, no matter how complicated the details become at the molecular and ecosystem level.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Incidentally, if you ever happen to spend time with some real theologians, rather than Bible-addled thumpers, they will be among the first to point out the infinite regress in the idea that the Universe came into being through the agency of a "God". The really big philosophical question is "why is there anything at all", and "God did it" cannot be the answer because the next question is "Why is there anything at all, including the God you just postulated?".
For some modern theologians, the other big question is "where do concepts like truth and justice come from?". (Philosophers may claim ownership of these problems too).
Do they matter? If you are concerned about the kind of society you inhabit, I think they do.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
This is an extremely old study (or rather observation). Completely outdated and not worthy of topic for discussion.
We've got Killerfish resisting all our efforts to kill them, defying scientific explanation. This is the start of the fish takeover! Take to the high ground!
The point was, and still is, that dogs are just all of the DNA that wolves had, with a few mutations specific to the domestic dog. Different breeds are inbred to different degrees. I've heard that poodles are the worst (expensive due to being sickly and having other genetic issues). It wouldn't surprise me.
And humans are just cockroaches with a few mutations specific to humans.
Those "few specific mutations" make a lot of difference, both in appearance, and in basic functions such as how often they come into heat. Wolves, once a year. Dogs ... normally twice a year, but they can come into heat pretty much any time. Wolves pair bond, dogs don't. Wolves generally don't do incest ... dogs, they're dogs, they'll screw anything, including your leg, given a chance.
This is adaptation, not evolution. Whoever wrote that headline should have paid more attention in science class.