8 ms·
Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers (2021)
- missedthecue 4y agoThis 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.
- sunaurus 4y agoMaybe 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.
- afiori 4y ago`More Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers` `Elephants without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ to poachers`
- fiftycents 4y agoYou 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.
- PradeetPatel 4y agoBut 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 their genes on.
- fiftycents 4y agoYes. 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.
- fastball 4y agoThen the wrong word is "response", not "evolution". Because this is exactly what evolution through natural selection is all about.
- fiftycents 4y agoResponse would be a better wording. Yes, you are right. <<Evolution>> maybe lead you to assume that variation/response seems to move towards something. But, yeah. You are right.
- MaxikCZ 4y agoYou are not pedantic at all, the tittle sucks.
- alex_suzuki 4y agoTypo… or freudian slip?
- frozenport 4y ago>> passing on those tuskless genes aka being born without turks
- Ma8ee 4y agoUh, no. You haven't passed on any genes until you have fertil offspring. Being born is of course necessary, but far from sufficient.
- Broken_Hippo 4y agoThat'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 requirement for you to simply pass on genes.
- Ygg2 4y agoYou are being pendantic. It's literally pressure from environment influencing evolution. Or an evolutionary response.
- owaislone 4y agoTe 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 the "intelligent response" aspect of it which doesn't actually exist.
- Ygg2 4y ago> 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.
- nverno 4y agoIt is pedantic, but I see how 'response' here lends agency to evolution, and could be interpreted as implying an intelligent process, as mentioned above.
- Ygg2 4y agoSame 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.
- nverno 4y agoYea, 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.
- danbruc 4y agoWithout 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 the elephants to no longer having tusks. And the mechanism that achieves this change is that the elephants with the genetic variation making them tusk-less have a higher chance of passing on the genes because they are less likely to be killed by poachers.
- sph 4y agoThe 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.
- deafpolygon 4y agoIsn'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.
- hoseja 4y agoSurvival of the fittest is only an approximation, the true state is a tautology though: survival of those who survive.
- danbruc 4y agoIt'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 elephants to become tusk-less. 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. That is the mechanism at play under the hood, but it does not mean that the abstraction of poachers causing tusk-less elephants or even more abstractly that evolution causes tusk-less elephants under those circumstances are not also valid descriptions. Plenty of popsci journos write as if nature is intelligent and driven by some purpose. Which - to a certain extend - is fine. Countries go to war, wars cause destruction, companies go bankrupt, rivers flow to the ocean, holidays make people happy, programs produce outputs, moving the mouse with the left button down selects text, ... none of this is really true in a certain sense. But that is fine, all our words are abstractions and we understand what they really mean, they do not have to be understood literally and the meaning can be context-dependent.
- firecraker 4y agoWouldn't natural selection be more apt?
- zozbot234 4y agoArtificial selection. By poachers.
- renewiltord 4y agoI 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?
- cnity 4y agoThe upvotes are from other pedants who dislike the wording, I presume. It's entertaining, and I understand the argument, but I do wonder if such people also avoid sentences like "primates evolved opposable thumbs so that they could be more dextrous". This kind of language is clearly a proxy for an overly verbose articulation of the process of evolution over and over again. It's an approximation.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago> primates evolved opposable thumbs so that they could be more dextrous" I for sure do. It’s extremely wrong. It implies the very incorrect idea that there is a purpose to evolution.
- cnity 4y agoIt's shorthand for "primates with a genetic mutation that resulted in opposable thumbs were more dextrous. Those primates proliferated due to natural selection". I guarantee that even evolutionary scientists do not talk like that over dinner and regularly reach for such shorthands.
- WastingMyTime89 4y agoDon’t worry I know biologists do it. The field is plagued by a general lack of rigour and a strong bias towards finality.
- RugnirViking 4y agoI 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.
- Aissen 4y agoTechnically, 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.
- Rygian 4y ago"Tusked elephants breed less than tusk-less ones due to poachers" (63 chars)
- akvadrako 4y agoYou are just describing how an evolutionary response works, not being more accurate.
- Rygian 4y agoI 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.
- Rygian 4y agoA different attempt: "Tusked elephants breeding less than before due to poachers. Tusk-less ones unaffected" (85)
- piskerpan 4y ago“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.
- Aissen 4y agoYou did not mention poachers' potential impact.
- throw827474737 4y ago> Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here Not only maybe a bit.. every evolutionary response is surviving and passing on something beneficial for survival/reproduction, which includes new born with it then.. come on!
- mypalmike 4y agoI'm not an expert, but a Google search shows that the term "evolutionary response" seems to be accepted terminology for generational trends in the evolutionary process prompted by some environmental change.
- jollyllama 4y agoSo the title is true in every case of the tuskless elephants except the base case.
- GoblinSlayer 4y agoDid you mean teleology? It's not a teleological response, because teleology doesn't work, but it is an evolutionary response alright.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ravenstine 4y agoThe use of "response" seems like a misnomer. It implies that there's either an intention or mechanistic logic with a specific capability to adapt to change. At a high level, a change to a genome may be looked at as adaptive, but does a piece of metal bar stock respond to lathing if it takes a shape rather than breaking and flying off the chuck? I'm not too sure about that. Does the computer respond when given new code? More recent developments notwithstanding, it's more that the computer has a configuration and the programmer changes that configuration through the software. No `function respondToNewCode() { ... }` required. I predict that readers of this will find this to be even more pedantic than the point you made. My reasoning is that while this terminology may not matter that much to those in the know, there's harm done to the public when science is communicated in a way that implies more than is actually there.
- randyrand 4y agoDo tusk poachers usually kill? Seems stupid to kill the golden goose.
- neals 4y agoYou clearly haven't tasted some delicious golden goose.
- Ygg2 4y agoIt'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.
- Tor3 4y agoTry 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.
- nikanj 4y agoThey probably kill the tuskless elephants too, out of spite and to ”punish” the elephant for not having tusks
- SargeDebian 4y agoThey tend not to have long term wildlife conservation high on the agenda.
- liampulles 4y agoPoaching is a time sensitive crime. There are armed guards in these conservation areas who will engage poachers.
- adzm 4y ago> Seems stupid to kill the golden goose. Unlike a goose that keeps laying eggs, tusks don't grow back. They are actually teeth.
- kaon123 4y agoplays Jurassic Park music All I am saying is nature will find a way.
- racl101 4y agoturntable sudden scratch Or micro plastics.
- dschuetz 4y agoElephants 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", imho.
- IshKebab 4y agoI don't see what your issue is. You just described the mechanism by which an evolutionary response happens.
- Etheryte 4y agoBut that's exactly what evolution is? Evolution isn't an active process, it's just just the better fit thriving and carrying their genes on slightly better.
- throw827474737 4y agoThe 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?
- 1letterunixname 4y agoNit: Also taco Tuesday eve.
- effingwewt 4y agoTaco Tuesday Eve.
- 1letterunixname 4y agoSplitting hairs of "an instance of natural selection leads to a more survivable feature" vs. "the theory of evolution". Both are likely and the most likely explanations.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tediousdemise 4y agoWhat 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 chills and seems to borderline the supernatural. At what point to people throw in the towel and say, yup, God’s real? Or do we just keep saying these unexplainable things are coincidences since it somehow jives better with our worldview? I never understood why people think that spirituality and science are mutually exclusive. In 2014, even the pope himself came out and said the Big Bang and evolution are real [0]. Maybe it’s part of the whole “works in mysterious ways” tidbit, if you believe that kind of stuff? Let’s try having an open mind. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang-theory-are-real-n235696 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-francis-evolution-bi...
- tgv 4y ago> 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?
- tediousdemise 4y agoWe have free will, and the atrocities you mention are acts of men. Why would you blame God for them?
- tgv 4y agoWhy would some god come and save a few elephants by evolution after giving man free will and knowing exactly what was going to happen? Are the socio-economic conditions in Mozambique purely man-made? What's so important about free will, anyway? Just one thing in the creation. And there isn't much support for the idea that free will was given on purpose, as a high principle, is there? But your counter argument is just setting up for more of that "mysterious ways" babble that the clergy have been using for centuries to keep the plebs coming to church. And pay their tithes. So, if you ask me: what does it take to accept that a particular deity is real: at least do an open, clear, undeniable miracle, not weakly undo something you've set up yourself and have let fester for too long.
- jsnell 4y agoPrevious discussion (306 comments) from a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29016392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29016392
- postit 4y agoIt 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.
- rolobio 4y agoI don't think this will last. The poachers will respond by killing these elephants; better to kill any tusk-less elephant to avoid wasting time tracking it again in the future.
- slowwriter 4y agoThe way I see it the poachers are slowly ‘reverse breeding’ elephants with tusks out of existence.
- archon1410 4y agoIt'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.
- slowwriter 4y agoYeah, that’s mostly what I was going for
- waste_monk 4y agoJean-Baptiste Lamarck strikes again!