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

71–80 of 133 posts

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

#71

Post by justsomehnguy »

Chris2048 wrote: post #64
justsomehnguy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Not sure why you think this example is better - a torn hymen isn't as fatal to humans as a poacher is to elephants.

Because if 'evolution reacts' (q) then it would react by removing hymen. Also because women without torn hymen don't pass genes.

Did evolution reacted by removing tusks?

PS if you start to tell me how a hymen could be untorn even in the case of a complete vaginal intercourse I would slap you over TCP/IP.

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

#72

Post by piskerpan »

Aissen wrote: post #62
piskerpan wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

You did not mention poachers' potential impact.

“- due to poachers”

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

#73

Post by tgv »

tediousdemise wrote: post #52

What is the actual mechanism of action here? I assume it was an elephant coincidentally born without tusks, which then survived being poached thanks to the adaptation that was then passed on to subsequent offspring. An impeccably timed advantageous mutation for an endangered species. We rely far too often on the word “coincidence” to describe what is clearly an unknown gene expression phenomenon, which gives me chill…

> 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 evidence of a deity at work here.

Did you ever consider the possibility that God's plan is to kill the elephants, and that them loosing their tusks is actually the Devil's work?

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

#75

Post by phkahler »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #56
danbruc wrote: post #48

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…

>> 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

This sounds like an argument made by creationists to deny evolution. The genes were always there and we are just seeing a change in expression.

When people of science have silly public debates like this, science loses. Stop being pedantic!

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

#76

Post by latexr »

sph wrote: post #60
danbruc wrote: post #48

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…

> evolution occurs every time a new elephant is conceived

Mutation occurs. Evolution is when the population changes, not individuals.

In this time frame it is unlikely elephants would have evolved without tusks in a world without poachers, because in that scenario tusks are an advantage.

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

#77

Post by drewcoo »

tediousdemise wrote: post #52

What is the actual mechanism of action here? I assume it was an elephant coincidentally born without tusks, which then survived being poached thanks to the adaptation that was then passed on to subsequent offspring. An impeccably timed advantageous mutation for an endangered species. We rely far too often on the word “coincidence” to describe what is clearly an unknown gene expression phenomenon, which gives me chill…

> An impeccably timed advantageous mutation

No. An existing but uncommon mutation. Previously disadvantageous.

> At what point to people throw in the towel and say, yup, God’s real?

Well . . . Occam's razor says "not now, bub."

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

#78

Post by Rygian »

akvadrako wrote: post #45
Rygian wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Tusked elephants breed less than tusk-less ones due to poachers" (63 chars)

You are just describing how an evolutionary response works, not being more accurate.

I would specifically argue that the word "response" is itself contextually inaccurate, in the sense that it triggers ambiguity as to whether the change in reproductive rates is _intentional_ or not. My headline removes that ambiguity.

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

#79

Post by Rygian »

Rygian wrote: post #41
Aissen wrote: post #32

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.

"Tusked elephants breed less than tusk-less ones due to poachers" (63 chars)

A different attempt: "Tusked elephants breeding less than before due to poachers. Tusk-less ones unaffected" (85)

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

#80

Post by Chris2048 »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #71
Chris2048 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you think this example is better - a torn hymen isn't as fatal to humans as a poacher is to elephants.

Because if 'evolution reacts' (q) then it would react by removing hymen. Also because women without torn hymen don't pass genes. Did evolution reacted by removing tusks? PS if you start to tell me how a hymen could be untorn even in the case of a complete vaginal intercourse I would slap you over TCP/IP.

Why would it? Women without torn hymen don't pass genes because they didn't have sex, not because they possessed a hymen. As soon as they have sex, the hymen tears - so it poses no barrier to passing on genes.
Post reply on HN