NationStates

https://www.inverse.com/article/24539-a ... -selection
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/african-el ... -poaching/
https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/22735 ... on-hunting


Thanks to poaching, some (mostly female) elephants are evading them by becoming tuskless, as the poachers are effectively weeding out the members of the population who have the genes for tusks. Since they need tusks for defense and to dig, it goes without saying that this can cause problems.

It's sad that this is happening, but I cannot say I'm surprised, with the exception of how quickly this occurred. It just shows that the impact of poaching may significantly alter the traits of the surviving populations that may not be undone. It also shows how fast evolution can occur.

Anyway, I wanted to post about this because it is sad and interesting, but didn't think it would fit in any of the other threads.

Checkmate, evolution deniers.

Yes i heard this one time.
Sad to see this,humans are changing nature.
Elephants are not the only that lost somethin,other animals lost.
On future we can think what?
Rhinos without Horn?

This is sad,humans only destroy nature even more.
Not Impressive that 99% of all Earth species have been extinct.

Neo Mida Gals wrote:This is sad,humans only destroy nature even more.
Not Impressive that 99% of all Earth species have been extinct.

What's sad, is that even if various populations do not go extinct, we have changed them irreparably, all because of the desire for ivory.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Neo Mida Gals wrote:This is sad,humans only destroy nature even more.
Not Impressive that 99% of all Earth species have been extinct.

What's sad, is that even if various populations do not go extinct, we have changed them irreparably, all because of the desire for ivory.

Ivory are only an example,theres many other animals hunt For Idiot things.

gen-e va++riant+ +killls males+ +in womb, poac hig may be killing elephant+s-- f+-as-t-er due to- selection -pf-essures

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-59008037

He noted that because the tuskless trait was fatal to male offspring, it was possible that fewer elephants would be born overall. This could slow the recovery of the species, which now stands at just over 700 in the park.

"Tusklessness might be advantageous during a war," Professor Pringle said. "But that comes at a cost."

Another potential knock-on is changes to the broader landscape, as the study has revealed that tusked and tuskless animals eat different plants.

Neo Mida Gals wrote:Yes i heard this one time.
Sad to see this,humans are changing nature.
Elephants are not the only that lost somethin,other animals lost.
On future we can think what?
Rhinos without Horn?

More like horns without rhinos.

It's sad that poaching is enough of a problem to cause this, but it's also interesting and kinda cool that the elephants have adapted.

I mean, ‘becoming tuskless’ is an odd way of saying that Elephants who have tusks are being culled by poachers, leaving tuskless ones as survivors because they’re not selected by poachers.

So, it’s not really an ‘adaptation’. It’s just that the genes that promote tuskless ness are surviving and the tusked ones aren’t.

Other animal that are changing are bears,now they look very Skninny,this only happened for a specie on Alaska.
But how many time this will last long?

USS Monitor wrote:It's sad that poaching is enough of a problem to cause this, but it's also interesting and kinda cool that the elephants have adapted.

If this could contribute to the stopping of poaching, then it's an evolutional necessity. Being tuskless means they need to adapt their lifestyles, but it's also interesting to see that over time, newer generations in the future will have tusks once again.

Outer Sparta wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:It's sad that poaching is enough of a problem to cause this, but it's also interesting and kinda cool that the elephants have adapted.

If this could contribute to the stopping of poaching, then it's an evolutional necessity. Being tuskless means they need to adapt their lifestyles, but it's also interesting to see that over time, newer generations in the future will have tusks once again.

The Elephants born without tusks was a rare mutation.
So,on future Elephants with tusks will be a rare mutation too?

Neo Mida Gals wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:If this could contribute to the stopping of poaching, then it's an evolutional necessity. Being tuskless means they need to adapt their lifestyles, but it's also interesting to see that over time, newer generations in the future will have tusks once again.

The Elephants born without tusks was a rare mutation.
So,on future Elephants with tusks will be a rare mutation too?

And The elephants that borned without tusks will be common?

Salus Maior wrote:I mean, ‘becoming tuskless’ is an odd way of saying that Elephants who have tusks are being culled by poachers, leaving tuskless ones as survivors because they’re not selected by poachers.

So, it’s not really an ‘adaptation’. It’s just that the genes that promote tuskless ness are surviving and the tusked ones aren’t.

Just because someone doesn't have a stick up their butt in exactly the same position as you does not mean they are ignorant of how natural selection works. I am an old boat, but this is 19th century science here. We've all had plenty of time to learn it.

The internet would be a nicer place and discussions of current events would be a lot more productive if people would stop taking basic concepts that we all learned in high school, and pontificating about them as if they think they are the only one in the thread that has ever spent 5 minutes in a classroom.

Referring to surviving traits as evolutionary adaptations is common parlance, and it does not indicate that anyone is ignorant of how natural selection works.

USS Monitor wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:I mean, ‘becoming tuskless’ is an odd way of saying that Elephants who have tusks are being culled by poachers, leaving tuskless ones as survivors because they’re not selected by poachers.

So, it’s not really an ‘adaptation’. It’s just that the genes that promote tuskless ness are surviving and the tusked ones aren’t.

Just because someone doesn't have a stick up their butt in exactly the same position as you does not mean they are ignorant of how natural selection works. I am an old boat, but this is 19th century science here. We've all had plenty of time to learn it.

The internet would be a nicer place and discussions of current events would be a lot more productive if people would stop taking basic concepts that we all learned in high school, and pontificating about them as if they think they are the only one in the thread that has ever spent 5 minutes in a classroom.

Referring to surviving traits as evolutionary adaptations is common parlance, and it does not indicate that anyone is ignorant of how natural selection works.

Did you have your coffee this morning?

Salus Maior wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:
Just because someone doesn't have a stick up their butt in exactly the same position as you does not mean they are ignorant of how natural selection works. I am an old boat, but this is 19th century science here. We've all had plenty of time to learn it.

The internet would be a nicer place and discussions of current events would be a lot more productive if people would stop taking basic concepts that we all learned in high school, and pontificating about them as if they think they are the only one in the thread that has ever spent 5 minutes in a classroom.

Referring to surviving traits as evolutionary adaptations is common parlance, and it does not indicate that anyone is ignorant of how natural selection works.

Did you have your coffee this morning?

I think this is more valid to Crazy Girl

Literally a fucking Anthropocene just-so story. “How Man Took The Elephant’s Tusks” what a cheerful thought

Senkaku wrote:Literally a fucking Anthropocene just-so story. “How Man Took The Elephant’s Tusks” what a cheerful thought

Except it's not. This mutation's spread would render elephants extinct:

Forsher wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-59008037

He noted that because the tuskless trait was fatal to male offspring, it was possible that fewer elephants would be born overall. This could slow the recovery of the species, which now stands at just over 700 in the park.

"Tusklessness might be advantageous during a war," Professor Pringle said. "But that comes at a cost."

Another potential knock-on is changes to the broader landscape, as the study has revealed that tusked and tuskless animals eat different plants.

Outer Sparta wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:It's sad that poaching is enough of a problem to cause this, but it's also interesting and kinda cool that the elephants have adapted.

If this could contribute to the stopping of poaching, then it's an evolutional necessity. Being tuskless means they need to adapt their lifestyles, but it's also interesting to see that over time, newer generations in the future will have tusks once again.

Yeah, hopefully the poaching of elephants stops. This is honestly just... very sad and shows how problematic poaching elephants is.

Apatosaurus wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:If this could contribute to the stopping of poaching, then it's an evolutional necessity. Being tuskless means they need to adapt their lifestyles, but it's also interesting to see that over time, newer generations in the future will have tusks once again.

Yeah, hopefully the poaching of elephants stops. This is honestly just... very sad and shows how problematic poaching elephants is.

Not only for Elephants, hunt must be banned.

Salus Maior wrote:I mean, ‘becoming tuskless’ is an odd way of saying that Elephants who have tusks are being culled by poachers, leaving tuskless ones as survivors because they’re not selected by poachers.

So, it’s not really an ‘adaptation’. It’s just that the genes that promote tuskless ness are surviving and the tusked ones aren’t.

Survival of the fittest...

Neo Mida Gals wrote:

Apatosaurus wrote:Yeah, hopefully the poaching of elephants stops. This is honestly just... very sad and shows how problematic poaching elephants is.

Not only for Elephants,

ALL

hunt must be banned.

Good luck with that.
In many places we've destroyed natural predators so that we can take advantage of their prey -- which now breeds out of control, starves because there is not food enough, and communicate diseases to each other and other species because there is -- bar man -- no check on the population.

Katganistan wrote:

Neo Mida Gals wrote:Not only for Elephants,

ALL

hunt must be banned.

Good luck with that.
In many places we've destroyed natural predators so that we can take advantage of their prey -- which now breeds out of control, starves because there is not food enough, and communicate diseases to each other and other species because there is -- bar man -- no check on the population.

Humans only exist to make species become extinct.

Neo Mida Gals wrote:

Katganistan wrote:Good luck with that.
In many places we've destroyed natural predators so that we can take advantage of their prey -- which now breeds out of control, starves because there is not food enough, and communicate diseases to each other and other species because there is -- bar man -- no check on the population.

Humans only exist to make species become extinct.

Gaia Theory's real. But Gaia's an arsehole that likes mass extinctions.