201–210 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The civil war and conflict was created by white colonizers and CIA (America): https://www.africanexponent.com/post/4981-civil-war-in-mozam...
Whilst I agree that this was a proxy in the cold war and that Colonial history messed up Africa big time, I don't understand what you are trying to say here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is evolution, and that's generally how evolution works. There is some diversity in a population, and natural selection promotes some traits over others.
Looking at definitions in dictionaries I don’t see this. What am I missing? Honest question. There are no new species and there is no change to genetic code
It's like market share. More users can simply download your software and you can gain market share without releasing an update.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it's only advantageous to female elephants, according to the article: "They identified two likely genes AMELX and MEP1a, which are passed from mothers to the offspring on the X chromosome. But if a disrupted gene is passed in a male elephant, the elephant dies; the female elephant would instead evolve to be born without tusks. " What would be the effect of this on male elephant population when taken to the lim…
Maybe not as much as you would think. Naturally, not all males mate and the mating ratio is not always 1:1. Take humans for example, it's been shown our ancestors comprise mostly of females in a ratio roughly 3:2 to males. That is, some male ancestor probably mated with more than one female ancestor somewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution has two main components. The random variation was already there. The natural selection is doing its part now.
This is selective breeding / artificial selection, not natural selection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is your point? That it's acceptable to kill or otherwise maim creatures which are not endangered, like, say, humans?
Yes, killing a non-endangered animal for sustenance is more acceptable than killing an endangered animal for a necklace pendant (or any other reason). Any other questions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do the males die of exactly? Not clear to me.
Seems like the mutation kills male embryos. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe7389 > Survey data revealed tusk-inheritance patterns consistent with an X chromosome–linked dominant, male-lethal trait. Whole-genome scans implicated two candidate genes with known roles in mammalian tooth development (AMELX and MEP1a), including the formation of enamel, dentin, cementum, and the periodontium. One of these lo…
Why haven't mothers that only give birth to girls taken over the world? Do unpaired girls really die that quickly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but "natural selection" generally doesn't include human influence, but that's semantics. Would you also say that fruits that are selectively bred to be bigger and juicier are also under the influence of "natural selection"?
Humans aren't some supernatural force. We're very much a part of nature as well.
At the risk of being downvoted to oblivion, is there such thing as ethicially sourced ivory? If not, I imagine the only reasonable thing to do would be to educate and raise awareness on the catastrophic impact poaching has on the elephant species as a whole.
The biggest issue is that elephants cannot be profitably raised in captivity - they require too much food, too much space, and take too long to produce tusks.
...and if you allow them to roam in reserves, then poachers shoot them. I do wonder if it might work in another part of the world that could offer better security for large elephant reserves, without them impacting the native habitat.
It has also been tried with tusks obtained by elephants that naturally died, and that program failed due to smugglers bribing officials to insert poached ivory into the auctions [0].
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
I think the underlying issue is that demand is so high that there wouldn't be anywhere on Earth that could produce enough to stop cheap poaching in Africa, so it's easier to simply ban the trade entirely.
Maybe there's an opportunity for lab-grown ivory? [1]
[1] https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i4/synthetic-horns-tusks-off...
Honest question from someone who knows virtually nothing about chemistry or material science: is there a difference in quality between synthetic and natural ivory? If not, why is poaching even still a viable market?
I imagine people view it similarly to leathers made from animal hides to synthetic materials. Synthetics may be better in some ways but people are in-part attracted by the character or feel that the imperfections of a natural material provide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is anyone else surprised at how quick species can seem to evolve in these kinds of ways? Asian and African elephants are supposed to have separated millions of years ago, yet still strongly resemble one another. Yet in a few decades, something as fundamental as the presence of their tusks can shift dramatically. And that in a species with very long gaps between generations. It makes me suspect there's something else…
Nah, looks like natural selection. The article mentions that "The phenomenon of elephants going tuskless is not new. 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.". That is a LOT of selection pressure. Also, the African Eleph…