this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32287 readers
687 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Alternatively put, the wolves that don't have cancer resistance do not survive Chernobyl. I feel like this should be closer to the default way we talk about evolution.
That's what natural selection is. We focus on those that survived because they developed resistance to something, but it has always meant that everybody else died and the species as a whole has moved forward.
Sure but the headline does say 'natural selection caused . . .' it straight up say 'Mutant wolves developed resistance to cancer' did they though? Or was that mutation already present and sudden environment changes cause the other ones to die off?
Cancer-causing radiations don't cause wolves to develop cancer resistance, they cause wolves to develop cancer. Those that were more resistant survived, those that weren't didn't, now we have wolves that are different from those that we had before. They are mutant wolves, but the radiations didn't make them mutants. The mutation happened before in some wolves, and their descendants survived better than those that didn't have it. Evolution has always been like that.
So we don't have wolves that are different from those we had before. We have the same wolves we had before and also we don't have other wolves we also had before.
"We are the cancer now"