Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021) • Hacker News Board

Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)

#101

Post by tgv » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

tediousdemise wrote: post #93

tgv wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At what point to people throw in the towel and say, yup, God’s real? When He stops acting in mysterious and cruel ways. He could, and this is just an example, have changed the poachers' socio-economic conditions so they wouldn't kill elephants anymore. Or he could have greatly devalued the price of ivory 100 years ago. But no, God's miracle is something that evolution can explain without a hitch. There's really no…

We have free will, and the atrocities you mention are acts of men. Why would you blame God for them?

Why would some god come and save a few elephants by evolution after giving man free will and knowing exactly what was going to happen? Are the socio-economic conditions in Mozambique purely man-made? What's so important about free will, anyway? Just one thing in the creation. And there isn't much support for the idea that free will was given on purpose, as a high principle, is there?

But your counter argument is just setting up for more of that "mysterious ways" babble that the clergy have been using for centuries to keep the plebs coming to church. And pay their tithes.

So, if you ask me: what does it take to accept that a particular deity is real: at least do an open, clear, undeniable miracle, not weakly undo something you've set up yourself and have let fester for too long.

Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)

#102

Post by Konohamaru » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 4:58 PM UTC

sph wrote: post #34

danbruc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

The issue OP has is that the article conflates cause with effect. It's not poachers that cause elephants to evolve not to have tusks. It's that some elephant got a rare mutation, and those mutated elephants aren't as targeted by poachers, thus are able to survive more easily. Plenty of popsci journos write as if nature is intelligent and driven by some purpose.

If the poaching activity is acting as an amplifier for that rare mutation's frequency, then yes, the poachers are in fact causing those elephants to evolve not to have tusks.

Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)

#103

Post by jollyllama » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

sunaurus wrote: post #2

Maybe 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.

So the title is true in every case of the tuskless elephants except the base case.

Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)

#104

Post by GoblinSlayer » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 5:02 PM UTC

sunaurus wrote: post #2

Maybe 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.

Did you mean teleology? It's not a teleological response, because teleology doesn't work, but it is an evolutionary response alright.

Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)

#105

Post by sdwr » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 5:02 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #27

sunaurus wrote: post #2

Maybe 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.

I am curious about the people who upvote this comment (which is currently the top comment). Do they believe that it is adding useful information, is insightful, or is otherwise helpful to someone or themselves? It's quite obvious that article is claiming that the process of artificial selection that involves leaving tuskless elephants alive is resulting in generations with more elephants that are tuskless. That is wh…

This is one of those bell curve memes.

Left side: Evolution took their tusks away.

Middle: Acktually it's selection pressure acting on the population combined with random mutations that...

Right side: Evolution took their tusks away.

More charitably, pedantry is a stage of learning. Practicing until the concepts get reinforced enough that you can substitute the rule of thumb again.

It's the same pattern as the hero's journey. Start at home (the naive view), do righteous battle with the concepts, return home (to the naive view) but changed.

I was into all this stuff when I was 13, reading Dawkins and Hitchens. Blind watchmaker, selfish gene. What's interesting is that the fuel for that kind of learning is part intellectual exercise, part making sense of the world, and part superiority (other people are wrong and I'm right). And now we're doing the same thing one level up.

Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)

#106

Post by bena » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 5:09 PM UTC

1letterunixname wrote: post #89

once_inc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poaching is illegal. All practical issues with sedation and humane tusk removal aside: these guys need to work fast. They shoot the animal, race over to it, hack the tusks off at breakneck speed, then disappear. Penalties for poaching are generally paid with lead.

I'm surprised that poachers use firearms rather than poisons or sedatives, risking announcing their position. A very powerful (and loud) cartridge is necessary to kill an elephant. Also, I thought most African elephants in managed wildlife areas have their tusks cut by wildlife officials to deter poaching and save animal lives. If this were the case, perhaps attraction in mating also no longer includes tusks as a des…

It also takes massive quantities of powerful poisons and sedatives to drop an elephant. And either of those options can take time. And cost.

As to potentially giving your position away due to gunfire, the savannah is a big place and relatively flat. You can be hours away from the next human being. You can see them coming from miles away. And it makes it difficult to tell where sounds are coming from. So while you may hear the shot, you're not going to be able to tell exactly which direction it came from.

Also, you only need to be far enough away to not be caught.

Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)

#107

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

rrgok wrote: post #53

sph wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue OP has is that the article conflates cause with effect. It's not poachers that cause elephants to evolve not to have tusks. It's that some elephant got a rare mutation, and those mutated elephants aren't as targeted by poachers, thus are able to survive more easily. Plenty of popsci journos write as if nature is intelligent and driven by some purpose.

Dumb question: I'm always amused by this phrase "...as if nature is intelligent and driven by some purpose..". Are you not, as human being, part of nature? How is possible from an unintelligent being emerge something intelligent? Either the seed was already there or otherwise I don't know how it would be possible. Would you consider human beings not intelligent and not driven by purpose?

[deleted]

Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)

#108

Post by WastingMyTime89 » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 5:22 PM UTC

cnity wrote: post #59

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> primates evolved opposable thumbs so that they could be more dextrous" I for sure do. It’s extremely wrong. It implies the very incorrect idea that there is a purpose to evolution.

It's shorthand for "primates with a genetic mutation that resulted in opposable thumbs were more dextrous. Those primates proliferated due to natural selection". I guarantee that even evolutionary scientists do not talk like that over dinner and regularly reach for such shorthands.

Don’t worry I know biologists do it. The field is plagued by a general lack of rigour and a strong bias towards finality.

Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)

#109

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 5:26 PM UTC

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #104

sunaurus wrote: post #2

Maybe 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.

Did you mean teleology? It's not a teleological response, because teleology doesn't work, but it is an evolutionary response alright.

[deleted]

Re: Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)

#110

Post by Ma8ee » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

carlmr wrote: post #24

bearmode wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we all know they're talking on an evolutionary level here, not just individuals...

You shouldn't "Uh, no" people if you're just 50% correct some of the time.

The “Uh no” was to someone who tried to correct someone who was right while being 100% wrong themselves. And in the context, I was 100% right.