• smooth_tea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s quite absurd to suggest this is the reason as if the scientists involved in the study would completely overlook the most basic of ideas. It’s a bit of a Dunning Kruger and hubris love child.

    Not to mention that the—very short—article even explains the mechanism which refutes your idea.

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      There is nothing in the article that refutes this, what are you talking about? They explain how they track them, that they get too much radiation and that genetic study shows they have genes to resist damage from this radiation - exactly what would be expected with evolution and of course the process by which this happens is that the non cancer resistant wolves got cancer and died young, it’s not even slightly controversial (unless you’re a creationist)

    • grayman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      But that’s what did happen.

      Dr Love found the wolves have altered immune systems similar to cancer patients undergoing radiation treatment, but more significantly she also identified specific parts of the animals’ genetic information that seemed resilient to increased cancer risk.

      The wolves with the trait are the ones that live on to procreate. The ones without the trait died off.