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

91–100 of 133 posts

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

#91

Post by hoseja »

phkahler wrote: post #75
bigDinosaur wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

How did you get change in expression out of that? It's a change in population.

If some killerbots started killing everyone above 4 feet tall, would you see the sudden prevalence and thriving of people with dwarfism to be an argument for creationism?

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

#92

Post by hoseja »

deafpolygon wrote: post #63
sph wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't that the very mechanism under which evolution operates? Survival of the 'fittest' doesn't mean strongest/fastest. Clearly, due to poaching activities, tuskless elephants are being 'selected' for survival.

Survival of the fittest is only an approximation, the true state is a tautology though: survival of those who survive.

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

#93

Post by tediousdemise »

tgv wrote: post #73
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…

We have free will, and the atrocities you mention are acts of men. Why would you blame God for them?

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

#94

Post by effingwewt »

1letterunixname wrote: post #87
throw827474737 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title said "evolutionary response" not active response, which is a fine term in that regard, but others said enough to that. However, I don't get how this is anything clickbaity here over your title, please explain! Its almost Godwins-law-like now that every article mentioning evolution will have this nitpicking.. Is it pedantic monday already again?

Nit: Also taco Tuesday eve.

Taco Tuesday Eve.

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

#95

Post by postit »

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 an example of natural selection, where individuals with traits that are advantageous for survival are more likely to reproduce and pass on those traits to their offspring. Over time, this can lead to changes in the population, such as an increase in the number of elephants born without tusks.

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

#97

Post by haswell »

phkahler wrote: post #75
bigDinosaur wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Creationists will always find things to attach to their arguments. A discussion on HN will not change that.

As a community, HN tends to be a place where such discussion is encouraged and relished.

“Pedantry” here (I’m not convinced it’s pedantry) does not make “science lose”.

If anything, I appreciate the tendency to discuss the more intricate aspects of things. In a world that trends ever more towards oversimplification and binary thought, it’s encouraging to find folks willing to debate the details.

And details often matter.

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

#98

Post by johannes1234321 »

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…

> maybe the resulting animal lives longer.

Living longer is secondary to evolution. Producing more offspring, which can produce offspring itself is what matters.

If an animal becomes old and endangers the herd it is harm for selection. If it can't produce offspring anymore, but protects the youngers it can be useful for survival rate.

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

#99

Post by johannes1234321 »

Aissen wrote: post #32
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.

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.

"Poachers cause evolutionary benefit for tusk-less elephants"

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

#100

Post by hombre_fatal »

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.

> Plenty of popsci journos write as if nature is intelligent and driven by some purpose.

This has become the midwit anthem, as pg put it, whenever we use causal language to describe evolutionary pressure.

Post reply on HN