• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution Of Tuskless Elephants?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In the news....
Elephants are evolving to lose tusks following decades of ivory poaching
African elephants are losing their tusks in an astonishing example of evolution by natural selection which protects them against ivory poachers.

Until the 1990s, around 2,500 elephants lived in Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique, but 90 per cent were killed during the 15-year civil war which raged from 1977 to 1992 - with their ivory used to finance weapons.

Now scientists have noticed that nearly one third of the female elephants born since the war have lost their tusks.

Normally fewer than four per cent of a population are born without tusks, but because tuskless animals were ignored by poachers, they gained a biological advantage and...
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Deer are another example of this. They are active mostly at dusk and dawn and tend to hide during the day due to hunting pressure over the years. Back in the early days you could hunt these delicious beasties without getting up at 4 am and trying to get to a blind without falling over a cliff....
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The genes for these features wouldn't go away.
Just be suppressed / recessive.
They could become dominant some day when mankind reveres them more.

Or they could be "turned off" and then mutated to the point where they do not work any longer or even develop a new function. But even a so called loss of information is still evolution.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
In the news....
Elephants are evolving to lose tusks following decades of ivory poaching
African elephants are losing their tusks in an astonishing example of evolution by natural selection which protects them against ivory poachers.

Until the 1990s, around 2,500 elephants lived in Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique, but 90 per cent were killed during the 15-year civil war which raged from 1977 to 1992 - with their ivory used to finance weapons.

Now scientists have noticed that nearly one third of the female elephants born since the war have lost their tusks.

Normally fewer than four per cent of a population are born without tusks, but because tuskless animals were ignored by poachers, they gained a biological advantage and...
Interesting...morphology influenced by man’s activity.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Or they could be "turned off" and then mutated to the point where they do not work any longer or even develop a new function. But even a so called loss of information is still evolution.
If they developed into a telekinetic organ, that would be cool.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
In the news....
Elephants are evolving to lose tusks following decades of ivory poaching
African elephants are losing their tusks in an astonishing example of evolution by natural selection which protects them against ivory poachers.

Until the 1990s, around 2,500 elephants lived in Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique, but 90 per cent were killed during the 15-year civil war which raged from 1977 to 1992 - with their ivory used to finance weapons.

Now scientists have noticed that nearly one third of the female elephants born since the war have lost their tusks.

Normally fewer than four per cent of a population are born without tusks, but because tuskless animals were ignored by poachers, they gained a biological advantage and...
I'm going to make a wild assumption here.
Why is it not a case of accumulated genetic mutations finally showing up in some species? Why is it assumed that somehow the genes realized that it's the tusks the poachers are after?
In that case, perhaps soon, the green monkey will be tailless, since there is a bounty on for green monkey's tails.
The pigs should have all had a mass extinction, since pork chops have been in high demand for centuries...
but then again natural selection is supposed to preserve, not kill the poor organism. :facepalm:
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm going to make a wild assumption here.
Why is it not a case of accumulated genetic mutations finally showing up in some species? Why is it assumed that somehow the genes realized that it's the tusks the poachers are after?
In that case, perhaps soon, the green monkey will be tailless, since there is a bounty on for green monkey's tails.
The pigs should have all had a mass extinction, since pork chops have been in high demand for centuries...
but then again natural selection is supposed to preserve, not kill the poor organism. :facepalm:
Oh my! You need to have your face palm rights taken away.

Let's start with pigs. They are bred for their meat producing abilities. That guarantees the production of pork chops. Pigs that make more meat are used to breed more pigs.

What is happening with elephants is a form of artificial selection. It is similar to natural selection but works much faster. And much cruder. Look at what we have done to some dog breeds. Using a facepalm when you made a self refuting post is worse than self defeating. But it does save us time.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Why is it assumed that somehow the genes realized that it's the tusks the poachers are after?
It's not that the genes 'realized' anything. The mutation for tuskless already existed in elephants prior to poaching. But before where it was a slight detriment because it was their natural defense is now a slight asset because they're less likely to be poached.

This is like when a storm blew debris that contained a small species of python onto Guam, which didnt used to have bird eating snakes. There used to be far more brightly colored and highly feathered species of birds on Guam but now there are more muted, conservatively feathered birds. This isn't because the birds or their Gene's 'decided' to be more camouflaged to avoid snakes, but because snakes were successfully eating the more colorful birds.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
It's not that the genes 'realized' anything. The mutation for tuskless already existed in elephants prior to poaching. But before where it was a slight detriment because it was their natural defense is now a slight asset because they're less likely to be poached.

This is like when a storm blew debris that contained a small species of python onto Guam, which didnt used to have bird eating snakes. There used to be far more brightly colored and highly feathered species of birds on Guam but now there are more muted, conservatively feathered birds. This isn't because the birds or their Gene's 'decided' to be more camouflaged to avoid snakes, but because snakes were successfully eating the more colorful birds.
It makes sense to me that an organism that adapted a defensive system, can adapt again to remove that system, if there is no longer a need for it.
So if the elephants feels secure in a man made park, designed to protect them, I think that's a reasonable explanation for their losing their tusk.
I assume the same would be the case for lion's teeth, when they go back to eating straw just like the bull.
The cow and the bear will feed together, And their young will lie down together. The lion will eat straw like the bull. Isaiah 11:7
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It makes sense to me that an organism that adapted a defensive system, can adapt again to remove that system, if there is no longer a need for it.
So if the elephants feels secure in a man made park, designed to protect them, I think that's a reasonable explanation for their losing their tusk.
I assume the same would be the case for lion's teeth, when they go back to eating straw just like the bull.
The cow and the bear will feed together, And their young will lie down together. The lion will eat straw like the bull. Isaiah 11:7
And that never happened. Why believe fairy tales when an investigation of the biology of the animals shows why they cannot digest cellulose.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It makes sense to me that an organism that adapted a defensive system, can adapt again to remove that system, if there is no longer a need for it.
So if the elephants feels secure in a man made park, designed to protect them, I think that's a reasonable explanation for their losing their tusk.
I assume the same would be the case for lion's teeth, when they go back to eating straw just like the bull.
The cow and the bear will feed together, And their young will lie down together. The lion will eat straw like the bull. Isaiah 11:7
What you're describing (other than that last bit) is Lamarkism which is identified by a giraffe stretching its neck out to reach the leaves of a tree. That's not how adaptation works. Mutations don't come in responses to need. Rather the mutation comes whether there is a need or not. If trees vanished from giraffe's native habitat, long necked giraffe would die out, but their short necked okapi cousins would be fine.
Saint-Aignan_%28Loir-et-Cher%29._Okapi.jpg

But if the grasslands went away and there were just forests, giraffe would be fine and okapi in a pickle.

I can't think of any scientifically fathomable reason why a lion would ever eat straw as much more than its teeth are unequipped to handle the job. Everything about its digestive system screams obligate carnivore. And everything about its physiology is adapted for predatory behavior.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm going to make a wild assumption here.
Why is it not a case of accumulated genetic mutations finally showing up in some species? Why is it assumed that somehow the genes realized that it's the tusks the poachers are after?
In that case, perhaps soon, the green monkey will be tailless, since there is a bounty on for green monkey's tails.
The pigs should have all had a mass extinction, since pork chops have been in high demand for centuries...
but then again natural selection is supposed to preserve, not kill the poor organism. :facepalm:
The genes realize nothing. On average, due to hunting pressure, more individuals with the trait for tusks are removed from the population. Having tusks has a fitness cost under the environmental circumstances and those without tusks have a fitness benefit.

Cut the tails off of millions of mice and each and every one of their offspring will still have tails. Those sorts of acquired traits are not heritable.

Natural selection is preserving the individuals without tusks, but in order for that to happen, those with tusks are eliminated. You have much confusion over these concepts.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
It makes sense to me that an organism that adapted a defensive system, can adapt again to remove that system, if there is no longer a need for it.
So if the elephants feels secure in a man made park, designed to protect them, I think that's a reasonable explanation for their losing their tusk.
I assume the same would be the case for lion's teeth, when they go back to eating straw just like the bull.
The cow and the bear will feed together, And their young will lie down together. The lion will eat straw like the bull. Isaiah 11:7
Wow! You do not know much about how all this works do you.

How the elephant feels is not a known factor in changes in their genetics that lead to different phenotypes. What you are calling adaptation is evolution. Changing the name does not change the facts.

In order for a lion to become a herbivore, there would have to be a multitude of changes that would occur over generations and they would not merely be isolated to changes in the teeth.

Isaiah is a using that as a metaphor.
 
Top