Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 133 posts

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

#111

Post by rgrmrts »

bena wrote: post #106
1letterunixname wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I also would not be surprised if bullets are easier to acquire than poisons and sedatives. Along with the delivery mechanisms.

AK-47s and their ammunition are abundant in many parts of the world. I don't think the same is true for dart guns for large sedative darts.

EDIT: I don't know what weapons poachers are using, so AK-47 is just the first thing that came to mind. They maybe use higher calibre weapons?

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

#112

Post by tremon »

Ma8ee wrote: post #5
frozenport wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

You being born is the ultimate proof of genes having been passed on. In what way is that not sufficient?

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

#113

Post by chiefalchemist »

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.

It's not that it conflates per se, it's that it gets the text book defintion of evolution completely wrong. Full stop.

You're correct. This happens often, too often.

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

#115

Post by Ma8ee »

tremon wrote: post #112
Ma8ee wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

You being born is the ultimate proof of genes having been passed on. In what way is that not sufficient?

But you haven't passed on any genes. You have only been passed genes.

That is, if the choice of language confuses people: You have only been given those genes. You haven't given any genes to anyone else who can give those genes further, which is what matters in an evolutionary perspective.

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

#117

Post by ravenstine »

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.

The use of "response" seems like a misnomer. It implies that there's either an intention or mechanistic logic with a specific capability to adapt to change. At a high level, a change to a genome may be looked at as adaptive, but does a piece of metal bar stock respond to lathing if it takes a shape rather than breaking and flying off the chuck? I'm not too sure about that. Does the computer respond when given new code? More recent developments notwithstanding, it's more that the computer has a configuration and the programmer changes that configuration through the software. No `function respondToNewCode() { ... }` required.

I predict that readers of this will find this to be even more pedantic than the point you made. My reasoning is that while this terminology may not matter that much to those in the know, there's harm done to the public when science is communicated in a way that implies more than is actually there.

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

#118

Post by tremon »

Ma8ee wrote: post #115
tremon wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You being born is the ultimate proof of genes having been passed on. In what way is that not sufficient?

But you haven't passed on any genes. You have only been passed genes. That is, if the choice of language confuses people: You have only been given those genes. You haven't given any genes to anyone else who can give those genes further, which is what matters in an evolutionary perspective.

And your parents passing on their genes to you doesn't matter, from an evolutionary perspective? You have only "been given" those genes, as if by magic?

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

#119

Post by archon1410 »

slowwriter wrote: post #114

The way I see it the poachers are slowly ‘reverse breeding’ elephants with tusks out of existence.

It's called killing. They're wiping elephants with tusks out of existence. Reverse breeding sounds like an ironic euphemism for murder straight out of a comedy sketch.

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

#120

Post by maxilevi »

postit wrote: post #95

It is not uncommon for elephants to be born without tusks, and this can be due to various factors, including genetics and environmental conditions. However, there have been reports of an increasing number of elephants being born without tusks in areas where poaching is common. Some experts believe that this may be an evolutionary response, as elephants without tusks are less likely to be targeted by poachers. This is…

I am pretty sure this comment was written by ChatGPT
Post reply on HN