Right, it's taken a while to figure out how to explain what I...

Right, it's taken a while to figure out how to explain what I think.

The following posts don't prove anything, but I play the probabilities game. My opinion and treat everything as though Pickem's lost a screw ... full proof is not in and might never arrive.

To keep the size manageable, I'll show ideas as absolutes and ignore subtleties/exceptions ... but note, there are subtleties and exceptions.
I've taken the sword to'em but it'll still take a series of posts.

Cancer is always a cost, more to some animals than others. The species scatter diagram poses questions but it also makes a statement. Nature never incurs a cost for nothing. Because mammals bear a greater cancer cost than others, that cost MUST be linked (inseparably linked) to greater survival benefits elsewhere. To look at it another way ... mammalian cancer will be cheating, somehow taking advantage of the unique cellular changes in mammals, the very same changes that will be driving greater survival gains elsewhere.

So for the best chance of making a difference and money, it would be nice to know what those cellular changes are about. More to come...