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

121–130 of 133 posts

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

#121

Post by bena »

rgrmrts wrote: post #111
bena wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They do have special "elephant guns" that take large diameter ammunition for hunting large, thick hide animals like elephants.

But your point is valid. Ammunition is easier to acquire and/or make yourself.

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

#122

Post by missedthecue »

This raises the question of how vital elephants having tusks is in the first place. Presumably in a world without poachers, tusked elephants stay alive better than tuskless elephants, otherwise they would not have evolved tusks in the first place.

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

#123

Post by spfzero »

danbruc wrote: post #16
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.

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…

I don't know if I would call this an evolutionary response. It's more like the remnant effect of the one-time bottleneck the article mentions. The proportion of females with the gene for tusks was almost wiped out, while the number of females without that gene stayed the same.

There have only been a few generations gone by since then, but you would imagine the same factors that made the gene for tusks more successful in the first place, would start to again predominate, but it will probably take many generations for it to come back to where it was. That part, the recovery, could be called an evolutionary response.

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

#124

Post by Ma8ee »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #13
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.

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…

If your children are infertile, you are from an evolutionary perspective a dead end.

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

#125

Post by slowwriter »

archon1410 wrote: post #119
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.

Yeah, that’s mostly what I was going for

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

#127

Post by owaislone »

throw827474737 wrote: post #36
owaislone wrote: post #10

Earlier 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…

You are overly pedantic as well :D (Noone thinks that "getting born" involves intelligence choosing, the point you are repeating applies sometimes, but here out of context imo.)

I know people who used to think evolution is by design or somehow intelligent. Maybe it was a byproduct of the education system in my part of the world and yours did a better job but I've come across a lot of people who think like that. I feel it is an important distinction to make to avoid propagating such misconceptions about science.

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

#128

Post by tsol »

maxilevi wrote: post #120
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

What is it about chatGPT's writing that is distinct? It's artless, and a little overly wordy

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

#129

Post by renewiltord »

sdwr wrote: post #105
renewiltord wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Indeed. I suppose those a level up on us are simply wise enough to not have these discussions. I understand. It's like playing in the sandbox with children. Those smarter than me would simply not do this. Okay. Lesson learned.

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

#130

Post by Ma8ee »

tremon wrote: post #118
Ma8ee wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Uh?
Post reply on HN