Do tusk poachers usually kill? Seems stupid to kill the golden goose.
You clearly haven't tasted some delicious golden goose.
Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)
11–20 of 133 posts
Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)
#12Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here, but being born without tusks is not in itself an "evolutionary response". Surviving without tusks and passing on those tuskless genes at a higher than previously normal rate is the actual evolutionary response.
You are right. Evolution was a very poor choice of wording for variation. People then thinks evolution it has to be something good, when... it's just variation. Same different: imaginary numbers. Not less number than others. There are plenty good ideas with a poor name: zero-knowledge encryption, and so on.
But born without tusks may be deemed "good" for the survivability of the elephants in the said environment. No tusks = no ivory, therefore minimising the incentive for poachers to hunt them.
My understanding of evolution is the ability to adapt and adjust to the ever-changing environment over multiple generations, and if we treat ivory poaching as an environmental danger, it makes sense for tuskless elephants to pass their genes on.
Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> passing on those tuskless genes aka being born without turks
Uh, no. You haven't passed on any genes until you have fertil offspring. Being born is of course necessary, but far from sufficient.
That's not true. If you have offspring, they have some of your genes. They don't have to be fertile.
For a better example, take humans: If you have a child and they grow up to be infertile, you have still passed on your genes. If they choose not to have children - even if fertile - you've still passed on your genes. Your particular mix of genes just won't live on in subsequent generations. Grandchildren aren't a requirement for you to simply pass on genes.
Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)
#14plays Jurassic Park music
All I am saying is nature will find a way.
Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are being pendantic. It's literally pressure from environment influencing evolution. Or an evolutionary response.
Te point OP is making is that being born without tusks is just a random chance, not a response to anything but as a result of this random chance, this elephant has a higher chance of living longer and having more babies resulting in higher chance of the "tuskless gene" being passed on to future generations. The distinction is important to understand evolution correctly. A lot of evolution deniers have a problem with…
> Te point OP is making is that being born without tusks is just a random chance
Yes. That's how evolution works. Your genes are randomized during life/mating.
Due to selection pressure one variation is favored over the other. That's evolution.
So in evolutionary response to poachers elephants evolve no tusks.
Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)
#16Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here, but being born without tusks is not in itself an "evolutionary response". Surviving without tusks and passing on those tuskless genes at a higher than previously normal rate is the actual evolutionary response.
Without knowing anything about the general or scientific use of those terms, just by looking at the words, I think it is fine the way the title is worded.
What is the actor here that responds? It is the process of evolution, in the same way you could say the climate reacts to a change in solar activity. So the process of evolution reacts to a change in the ecological system - more poachers than before - by changing the elephants to no longer having tusks. And the mechanism that achieves this change is that the elephants with the genetic variation making them tusk-less have a higher chance of passing on the genes because they are less likely to be killed by poachers.
Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, no. You haven't passed on any genes until you have fertil offspring. Being born is of course necessary, but far from sufficient.
That's not true. If you have offspring, they have some of your genes. They don't have to be fertile. For a better example, take humans: If you have a child and they grow up to be infertile, you have still passed on your genes. If they choose not to have children - even if fertile - you've still passed on your genes. Your particular mix of genes just won't live on in subsequent generations. Grandchildren aren't a requ…
I think we all know they're talking on an evolutionary level here, not just individuals...
Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)
#18Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here, but being born without tusks is not in itself an "evolutionary response". Surviving without tusks and passing on those tuskless genes at a higher than previously normal rate is the actual evolutionary response.
>> passing on those tuskless genes aka being born without turks
Ah, Turks ... I see. clears throat and scrolls on
Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Te point OP is making is that being born without tusks is just a random chance, not a response to anything but as a result of this random chance, this elephant has a higher chance of living longer and having more babies resulting in higher chance of the "tuskless gene" being passed on to future generations. The distinction is important to understand evolution correctly. A lot of evolution deniers have a problem with…
> Te point OP is making is that being born without tusks is just a random chance Yes. That's how evolution works. Your genes are randomized during life/mating. Due to selection pressure one variation is favored over the other. That's evolution. So in evolutionary response to poachers elephants evolve no tusks.
It is pedantic, but I see how 'response' here lends agency to evolution, and could be interpreted as implying an intelligent process, as mentioned above.
Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)
#20Elephants without tusks are more likely to survive and reproduce, so while this is a "better" survival trait as part of an evolutionary process, it's not an active response. It's just a mutation that has a better chance to survive.
Like that click-baity headline from the Telegraph, it has a better chance to get clicks phrasing it that way, instead of "Elephats without tusks are more likely to survive violent poachers", imho.