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.

[–] Uruanna@lemmy.world 43 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Sure but the headline doesn't 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?

[–] Uruanna@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] doppelgangmember@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

"We are the cancer now"