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

21–30 of 133 posts

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

#21

Post by fiftycents »

PradeetPatel wrote: post #12
fiftycents wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes. It's good to evade a predator. And the process you describe is accurate. But it occurs because the first elephant without tusks happens to live a longer life and prosper and left a large number of descendants just in time when they were hunting by their tusks. It just occurs, it's not a response in the sense of the specie but in the sense of the randomizing events we call world. That's why I said OP is, in the core of his argument, right.

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

#22

Post by Ygg2 »

randyrand wrote: post #9

Do tusk poachers usually kill? Seems stupid to kill the golden goose.

It's cheaper than to try to sedate a grown elephant. I mean who where would agree to unaesthetitized tooth surgery?

And even if poachers did remove tusks humanely. Having no tusks or having infected tusk wounds would be a big disadvantage.

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

#23

Post by Tor3 »

randyrand wrote: post #9

Do tusk poachers usually kill? Seems stupid to kill the golden goose.

Try to imagine a bunch of poachers holding an elephant still while sawing off the tusks.. won't happen. It's not like they would grow new tusks next year anyway. As for killing off the part of the population carrying the "tusk" gene, they don't think in those terms.

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

#24

Post by carlmr »

bearmode wrote: post #17
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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

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

#25

Post by Ygg2 »

nverno wrote: post #19
Ygg2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Same way any inanimate system can respond. Think of it more like action/reaction than anything else. I.e. there is no agency just a set of interacting rules.

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

#26

Post by firecraker »

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.

Wouldn't natural selection be more apt?

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

#27

Post by renewiltord »

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 what the article says two paragraphs in.

But perhaps it is not that obvious to others. Will someone who found parent comment enlightening please share?

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

#28

Post by RugnirViking »

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 get what you're saying, but after actually reading the article, I see that they are not talking about random tuskless mutations, but rather that the rate of this once-rare mutation has now risen to around half of all female elephants. Unfortunately the mutation is regularly fatal to male elephant fetuses in the womb and as a result around two-thirds of all newborns are female which is causing more issues with breeding. Interesting stuff though.

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

#29

Post by IshKebab »

dschuetz wrote: post #20

Elephants 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…

I don't see what your issue is. You just described the mechanism by which an evolutionary response happens.

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

#30

Post by nverno »

Ygg2 wrote: post #25
nverno wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Same way any inanimate system can respond. Think of it more like action/reaction than anything else. I.e. there is no agency just a set of interacting rules.

Yea, I think the original wording is fine, although I'd think of it more like the elephant genes are a river that got dammed, so the river started flowing around. Saying the river responded to the dam would be similar.
Post reply on HN