• agitatedpotato
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    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
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        8 months ago
        edit-2
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        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
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          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.

          • freagleEnglish
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            8 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            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.