Evolution Of Tuskless Elephants?

[Dan From Smithville]

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...

Similar evolution is occurring in pathogens, weeds and pest insect species all the time, due to the pressure we put on those organisms in trying to control them. We do have an impact on our environment.

 

[nPeace]

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.

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.

Why couldn't the digestive system of the lion not have adapted.
They apply evolution to everything, why not that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

One thing that needs to be emphasized is that evolution occurs in populations. Variation is constantly being added to a genome. Animals do not need to "want" to evolve. When a change comes to the environment the necessary changes to survive will already often be there. It is when environments change to quickly that species go extinct. Life is constantly evolving through a combination of natural selection and variation. One "adds information" and the other "reduces information". Big changes to the environment causes large scale change. Both by selection going on overdrive and many species going extinct allowing for new specie to arise to fill those gaps.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why couldn't the digestive system of the lion not have adapted.
They apply evolution to everything, why not that?

It needs something to work on. Evolution is not magic it has to work with what it has. Given enough time it could be done. But that is going to take millions of years. Not the sort of evolution that envisage.

 

[nPeace]

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.

You don't seem to know much about the truth, do you?
What you are calling evolution is adaptation. Changing the name doesn't change the facts.
In order for evolution to occur, millions of mutations would have to be million of miracles, because the errors don't add up to corrections, and even if you got some corrections, they still would not add up to a different feature - no matter how many millions of years are given it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't seem to know much about the truth, do you?
What you are calling evolution is adaptation. Changing the name doesn't change the facts.
In order for evolution to occur, millions of mutations would have to be million of miracles, because the errors don't add up to corrections, and even if you got some corrections, they still would not add up to a different feature - no matter how many millions of years are given it.

You can't call mutations "errors". That is an unwarranted assumption. You are assuming that there is a "right genome" and that puts a burden of proof upon you that you will not support. And mathematically there is no problem with enough mutations accumulating. Since we are talking about sexual reproduction evolution is not linear. There is an entire population to draw from. A typical population of a species will number in the millions. With on the order of 100 mutations per birth that is on the order of 100 new mutations with every generation adding new information to the genome. Most of those mutations will be neutral. Some will be harmful. Fewer yet will be beneficial, but those are the ones that stick around. Harmful mutations tend to be quickly removed.. They do not accumulate. The few times that creationists have given reasonable numbers for how many changes have to occur it has been no problem to demonstrate that those numbers can and do occur.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Why couldn't the digestive system of the lion not have adapted.
They apply evolution to everything, why not that?

Evolution doesn't work like pokemon where everything is different from one generation to the next. There are no felines which can survive on a vegetarian diet because a number of systems would need to change first. Their gut is too short and lacks the proper enzymes to break down cellulose. They produce a surplus of powerful enzymes which break down meat and energy cycles which utilize protein as its primary source. Their jaw is unable to slide side to side which is needed for grinding down plants, on grinding teeth they don't have. Their ears and eyes are geared for tracking fast objects at night and claws for gripping while their jaws are for bite force and smothering wind pipes. Nothing helpful for tracking down and collecting plant matter and digesting it.

Is it impossible that something could descend from lions that would be a vegetarian? Sure, but it wouldnt be a lion anymore.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't seem to know much about the truth, do you?
What you are calling evolution is adaptation. Changing the name doesn't change the facts.
In order for evolution to occur, millions of mutations would have to be million of miracles, because the errors don't add up to corrections, and even if you got some corrections, they still would not add up to a different feature - no matter how many millions of years are given it.

I do know the truth. Apparently, rather than confront that truth, you want to redefine or deny it.

Adaptation is evolution.

I do not know what you mean by "errors don't add up to corrections". Changes in living organisms--evolution--that is heritable adaptations have been observed many times.

The facts are the facts. Denial or false narratives will not change that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why couldn't the digestive system of the lion not have adapted.
They apply evolution to everything, why not that?

A lion successfully changing its diet from predation to herbivory would not be evolution as described by the theory and is not possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution doesn't work like pokemon where everything is different from one generation to the next. There are no felines which can survive on a vegetarian diet because a number of systems would need to change first. Their gut is too short and lacks the proper enzymes to break down cellulose. They produce a surplus of powerful enzymes which break down meat and energy cycles which utilize protein as its primary source. Their jaw is unable to slide side to side which is needed for grinding down plants, on grinding teeth they don't have. Their ears and eyes are geared for tracking fast objects at night and claws for gripping while their jaws are for bite force and smothering wind pipes. Nothing helpful for tracking down and collecting plant matter and digesting it.

Is it impossible that something could descend from lions that would be a vegetarian? Sure, but it wouldnt be a lion anymore.

It would take a longgggGGGGGG time. But cladistically it would still be a "lion". But for such an event to happen first there would be a need to arise for supplemental consumption of vegetation first, perhaps for nutrients that meat did not offer and then a slow increase in amount consumed over the ages.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can't call mutations "errors". That is an unwarranted assumption. You are assuming that there is a "right genome" and that puts a burden of proof upon you that you will not support. And mathematically there is no problem with enough mutations accumulating. Since we are talking about sexual reproduction evolution is not linear. There is an entire population to draw from. A typical population of a species will number in the millions. With on the order of 100 mutations per birth that is on the order of 100 new mutations with every generation adding new information to the genome. Most of those mutations will be neutral. Some will be harmful. Fewer yet will be beneficial, but those are the ones that stick around. Harmful mutations tend to be quickly removed.. They do not accumulate. The few times that creationists have given reasonable numbers for how many changes have to occur it has been no problem to demonstrate that those numbers can and do occur.

Thanks for clarifying the comment about "errors". I was not sure what was meant.

With those mutations being per individual and seven billion individuals, the entire human genome is potentially shuffled through over 200 times per generation. That is a lot of variation for selection to act on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution doesn't work like pokemon where everything is different from one generation to the next. There are no felines which can survive on a vegetarian diet because a number of systems would need to change first. Their gut is too short and lacks the proper enzymes to break down cellulose. They produce a surplus of powerful enzymes which break down meat and energy cycles which utilize protein as its primary source. Their jaw is unable to slide side to side which is needed for grinding down plants, on grinding teeth they don't have. Their ears and eyes are geared for tracking fast objects at night and claws for gripping while their jaws are for bite force and smothering wind pipes. Nothing helpful for tracking down and collecting plant matter and digesting it.

Is it impossible that something could descend from lions that would be a vegetarian? Sure, but it wouldnt be a lion anymore.

Considering the interconnections of living things and how selection operates, some organism would fill the role of predator in the system where the lion was no longer acting in that capacity. A study of marsupials illustrates how adaptive radiation resulted in the evolution of predators and herbivores in that lineage.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It would take a longgggGGGGGG time. But cladistically it would still be a "lion". But for such an event to happen first there would be a need to arise for supplemental consumption of vegetation first, perhaps for nutrients that meat did not offer and then a slow increase in amount consumed over the ages.

Lion isn't really a taxonomic classification. It would be considered a feline under felidae through Panthers genus but not a 'leo.' But who knows what cladistics will look like in the time it takes to get there.

 

[Valjean]

Interesting...morphology influenced by man’s activity.

Just ordinary, everyday natural selection.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't seem to know much about the truth, do you?
What you are calling evolution is adaptation. Changing the name doesn't change the facts.
In order for evolution to occur, millions of mutations would have to be million of miracles, because the errors don't add up to corrections, and even if you got some corrections, they still would not add up to a different feature - no matter how many millions of years are given it.

There are several conditions that are labelled adaptation, but only one of them is genetic adaptation that is also evolution. Some conditions that are called adaptation are physiological versatility and developmental flexibility. Physiological versatility is what is happening when a flatfish or squid changes color to match its background. Tolerance to toxins also falls within that category. Developmental flexibility are changes that result from the environment, but are not heritable. Calluses and the thickening of the skin on the palms due to extensive manual labor is an example.

John Maynard Smith provided an excellent definition for genetic adaptation--the term you seem to mean in your attempts to redefine evolution when you mean the previous conditions. An organism is genetically adapted to particular conditions if it possesses traits suiting it for life in those conditions and if it develops those traits in all or most environments in which it is able to develop in at all. These would be heritable traits.

 

[SomeRandom]

Am I the only one a little saddened that humans who place a random arbitrary monetary value on ivory have more or less "bred" out a part of their natural defence tools?
Granted if it means less poaching then I suppose it's a good thing overall. But to lose something that iconic. Still feels.....wrong somehow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Am I the only one a little saddened that humans who place a random arbitrary monetary value on ivory have more or less "bred" out a part of their natural defence tools?
Granted if it means less poaching then I suppose it's a good thing overall. But to lose something that iconic. Still feels.....wrong somehow.

Yes, the bad news is that females with tusks are apt to disappear, at least for a while. But if ivory poaching ends it will probably come back.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, the bad news is that females with tusks are apt to disappear, at least for a while. But if ivory poaching ends it will probably come back.

Cool. But if they come back won't the poaching start again?
Omg tusk endless loop

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cool. But if they come back won't the poaching start again?
Omg tusk endless loop

Not if we cure the root problem of poaching, Which is an economic one. If elephants are made valuable to countries that they live in. They do make fantastic tourist attractions. The people that live there will protect them out of self interest. If the demand for ivory goes down, or poachers can find another livelihood that could solve the problem too.

 

[SomeRandom]

Not if we cure the root problem of poaching, Which is an economic one. If elephants are made valuable to countries that they live in. They do make fantastic tourist attractions. The people that live there will protect them out of self interest. If the demand for ivory goes down, or poachers can find another livelihood that could solve the problem too.

True.