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.
Previous discussion (306 comments) from a year ago: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29016392" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29016392</a>
What is the actual mechanism of action here?<p>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.<p>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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang-theory-are-real-n235696" rel="nofollow">https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-francis-evolution-bi...</a>
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.
This 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.
I 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.
Elephants 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.<p>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.