Thank you for the informative and thoughtful response. My comment and question was certainly not intended to be combative. I was genuinely curious for a perspective quite like the one you provided above, because it seemed odd that a claim so strong would not have a counter view given the active area of research. I think the original article would benefit from some perspective like the one you provided. While you're aware of the relevant threads of research that balance out the view in the original article, for someone not familiar with that even things that one would consider "well known" will not be so.
The view you provided helps understand the counter argument of why competing factors (e.g. losing mass) result in more sophisticated outcomes than "we would expect lighter galaxies orbiting heavier ones to be slowed down by dark matter particle". I still don't know enough about the subject to understand if the original authors claim and expectation is still likely. But your context helps me understand other factors that are in play.
The view you provided helps understand the counter argument of why competing factors (e.g. losing mass) result in more sophisticated outcomes than "we would expect lighter galaxies orbiting heavier ones to be slowed down by dark matter particle". I still don't know enough about the subject to understand if the original authors claim and expectation is still likely. But your context helps me understand other factors that are in play.