61–70 of 133 posts
Do tusk poachers usually kill? Seems stupid to kill the golden goose.
Penalties for poaching are generally paid with lead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically, the offspring themselves having more chance to be born without tusks is the "evolutionary response". Now with a challenge: try writing a more accurate headline, in as many characters or less.
“Tusk-less elephants outbreed tusked ones” But that wouldn’t be as catchy and as misleading/misunderstood as the original. Anyone reading that one will assume that elephants are purposefully being born without tusk, but it’s just a ratio consequence of tusked elephants dying early.
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.
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…
> change in the ecological system - more poachers than before - by changing the elephants to no longer having tusks Change in the body - more torn hymen than before - by changing the humans to no longer having hymen. Right?
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.
`Elephants without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers`
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I rephrase: evolution of life as we know it (that's what I meant by nature) is not intelligent nor driven by any purpose, not even survival. It's randomly throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Maybe the resulting organism lives longer, maybe not. We only see the result of it. The observation that evolution helps find a better local maximum is literally survivorship bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not poachers that cause elephants to evolve not to have tusks. Cause and effect are very complex concepts, probably not even well understood ones, but I would rather avoid descending into the philosophy of cause and effect, so I will just pick a potentially naive idea of cause and effect. Assume a counterfactual world without poachers, would the elephants evolve to be tusk-less? No, so the poachers cause elephan…
> Assume a counterfactual world without poachers, would the elephants evolve to be tusk-less? Of course they would! I can't see how you can disprove that. In both that world and ours there are or have been tusk-less elephants, elephants with two heads, elephants that live 150 years. Evolution is pseudo-random. The whole of nature gives context and some variants thrive better within this context. It is illogical to ta…
The word »evolve« in that sentence means exactly what you say, »thrive and outcompete regular elephants«, or at least that is the way I wanted it to be understood. What is your definition of that word in that context that makes the sentence mean something different?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I rephrase: evolution of life as we know it (that's what I meant by nature) is not intelligent nor driven by any purpose, not even survival. It's randomly throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Maybe the resulting organism lives longer, maybe not. We only see the result of it. The observation that evolution helps find a better local maximum is literally survivorship bias.
Biological evolution is due to reproductive selection. Evolution is primarily related to reproduction: survival only matters if it affects reproduction (after all, nothing survives in the long term).
Evolution is not really defined as random change: evolution occurs due to selection pressures that amplify the genetic population of the most successful reproducers.
Genetic mutation and recombination is somewhat random, but not purely random (certain mutations are more or less likely, and the pool of successful recombinations is very biased).
It is a frustrating topic, because in biology evolution has a very particular meaning, yet biological evolution is usually misunderstood. The misunderstanding is due to the popular incorrect metaphors and alternative meanings for the word.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Disclaimer: I am not a biologist. I’m trying to be as clear as I can, while making sweeping simplifications (e.g. ignoring kin selection etcetera!) I welcome any mistakes being corrected by lurking biologists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not poachers that cause elephants to evolve not to have tusks. Cause and effect are very complex concepts, probably not even well understood ones, but I would rather avoid descending into the philosophy of cause and effect, so I will just pick a potentially naive idea of cause and effect. Assume a counterfactual world without poachers, would the elephants evolve to be tusk-less? No, so the poachers cause elephan…
It's amusing how downright hard it is to avoid teleological explanations of evolution. In this case it is important to note that this mutation presumably existed before poachers so they cannot be the cause of the actual genetics of tuskless elephants - but they are the cause of why the ratio is now changing. So I'd say your counterfactual is wrong: there would be a few tuskless elephants but having no evolutionary ad…