101–110 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution is an umbrella term, but in the most general form, evolution means a change in genetics in a population over time. So yes, the genetic 'option' was there before, but it is advantageous now.
Evolution has two main components. The random variation was already there. The natural selection is doing its part now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure 'beautiful' or 'lucky' are words i'd use to describe it. Did you catch that the males of tuskless mothers generally don't survive, decimating the male population? It's a tragic and desperate response, though quite incredible that such a dramatic evolutionary trait can occur. It makes me wonder what we could become, if only...
> if only... If only humans were harvested for bony growths?
While sad as a whole, the responsiveness of evolution is beautiful in this case. It also demonstrates that human efforts to stop poaching have not been successful (otherwise this evolution wouldn’t happen), but luckily, nature responds.
Not sure 'beautiful' or 'lucky' are words i'd use to describe it. Did you catch that the males of tuskless mothers generally don't survive, decimating the male population? It's a tragic and desperate response, though quite incredible that such a dramatic evolutionary trait can occur. It makes me wonder what we could become, if only...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution is an umbrella term, but in the most general form, evolution means a change in genetics in a population over time. So yes, the genetic 'option' was there before, but it is advantageous now.
Evolution has two main components. The random variation was already there. The natural selection is doing its part now.
What if unicorns at one point existed, but were hunted for the superstitious power of their horns, leaving only the hornless to reproduce and eventually eliminate the gene? How would we know?
> There are wild elephants in the country, and numerous unicorns, which are very nearly as big. They have hair like that of a buffalo, feet like those of an elephant, and a horn in the middle of the forehead, which is black and very thick. They do no mischief, however, with the horn, but with the tongue alone; for this is covered all over with long and strong prickles and when savage with any one they crush him under their knees and then rasp him with their tongue. The head resembles that of a wild boar, and they carry it ever bent towards the ground. They delight much to abide in mire and mud. 'Tis a passing ugly beast to look upon, and is not in the least like that which our stories tell of as being caught in the lap of a virgin; in fact, 'tis altogether different from what we fancied
- Macro Polo
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Travels_of_Marco_Polo/Boo...
They're hunted for their horns too...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros#Ways_to_prevent_poa...
Evolution is in general very slow when it comes to animals. I have my doubts if poaching is the true cause or if there is some environmental reason.
Those with large tusks are shot dead and thus only tuskless remain. Not much different with breeding dogs for specific traits which is way faster process than evolution to adapt a species to the environment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are cows an endangered species?
What is your point? That it's acceptable to kill or otherwise maim creatures which are not endangered, like, say, humans?
> Researchers found the number of tuskless female elephants in Mozambique increased by almost double over 30 years. This overlaps with a period of civil conflict, where armed forces slaughtered 90% of the elephant population to produce ivory. This ivory went on to finance the conflict. People suck.
nice generalisation. i for once never thought even remotely about slaughtering a freaking elephant in order to get the tusks. yes lots of people are bad and do bad things , but that does not mean that all people suck.