Evolution Of Tuskless Elephants?

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I find it sad too, but I am glad that the elephant population carries the variation to survive our own ignorance and greed.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Genes don't realize anything.
They just increase or decrease in frequency of
expression as a result of various reproductive pressures.
This will occur at various rates for different groups.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Humans are a selection pressure for evolution just like any other organism in the natural world.

Yes, but it would take quite some time....as this has. Especially w/ elephants reaching sexual maturity
later than most animals, at 10 to 14 y.o.

 

[Valjean]

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.

You really don't know how natural selection works. Remember the peppered moths you learned about in Bio class?

There already exists a population of tuskless elephants. If this trait is "selected for," by eliminating their tusked relatives it will increase in the population as the elephants breed.

 

[sealchan]

Rhinos should wise up, & evolve their horns away.

But what will it mean for the species survival if they are not horny?

 

[sealchan]

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.

It's not the organism, genes or the species that is smart...it is the complex, adaptive system which includes all of that. It's an example of how diversity in a species increases its survival by virtue of having differentially selectable features rather than being a static, carbon copy.

 

[Revoltingest]

But what will it mean for the species survival if they are not horny?

You're right!
We must protect them before that happens.

 

[nPeace]

You really don't know how natural selection works. Remember the peppered moths you learned about in Bio class?

There already exists a population of tuskless elephants. If this trait is "selected for," by eliminating their tusked relatives it will increase in the population as the elephants breed.

You really don't know that you started with a common false assumption. Or do you?
What does natural selection have to do with mutations not causing a degenerate, or altered trait?

Mutations in fruit flies occur, and these altered traits can be passed on in populations.
If this is the case with the elephants, then the explanation given may well be an assumption - actually it is an assumption.
I'm saying that is the case, because there is another possibility.
If it is conclusive, then I am open to anyone showing why it can't be due to mutations.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Yes, mutation are changes that are due to errors, or interferences. Therefore they are problems. The reason why those problems are not full fledged mistakes, is because they may be detected and corrected, so yes, they can carry, where you get small changes in the organism, but still, not the miracles dreamed of by those who say four footed land animals turned to whales - tail to flipper and all.

 

[nPeace]

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.

I don't change the scriptures to suit man's dogmas. Some religious people do that.
Yes of course, adaptation is no different to change, and yes, these have been observed.
Yes fact cannot be anything other than facts. That's logic - A cannot be A, and yet not A. A is A.
Denying that is unreasonable.
What are you saying?

 

[nPeace]

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

Where is your proof of what is impossible?

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.

Thanks for the info. I understand adaptation as defined here:
a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.

In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has been evolved by natural selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, mutation are changes that are due to errors, or interferences. Therefore they are problems. The reason why those problems are not full fledged mistakes, is because they may be detected and corrected, so yes, they can carry, where you get small changes in the organism, but still, not the miracles dreamed of by those who say four footed land animals turned to whales - tail to flipper and all.

Invalid assumption that is refuted by reality. Most, the vast majority, are neutral. If a mutation occurs in non-coding DNA it will almost always have no effect. A small portion are negative and an even smaller number are beneficial. And no one dreams of miracles. Why make such a dishonest claim?

 

[Valjean]

You really don't know that you started with a common false assumption. Or do you?
What does natural selection have to do with mutations not causing a degenerate, or altered trait?

And you seem to be falsely assuming the increasing tusklessness is being attributed to mutation.
Tusklessness is a result of ordinary reproductive variation, not mutation. The trait is already a normal variation in the population.
That's the function of sex -- to increase variation and adaptability.
I'm sure you've seen litters of puppies where each one is different. Which ones are the mutants?

That's not to say mutations don't occur. Some may be be adaptive, some maladaptive and most are neutral.

Yes, mutation are changes that are due to errors, or interferences. Therefore they are problems. The reason why those problems are not full fledged mistakes, is because they may be detected and corrected, so yes, they can carry, where you get small changes in the organism, but still, not the miracles dreamed of by those who say four footed land animals turned to whales - tail to flipper and all.

Why do you say all mutations are problems? I can think of lots of helpful mutations. And why do you find it so hard to believe small changes can't accumulate into large changes? Didn't Latin turn into French through a long series of small changes?

 

[nPeace]

And you seem to be falsely assuming the increasing tusklessness is being attributed to mutation.
Tusklessness is a result of ordinary reproductive variation, not mutation. The trait is already a normal variation in the population.
That's the function of sex -- to increase variation and adaptability.
I'm sure you've seen litters of puppies where each one is different. Which ones are the mutants?

That's not to say mutations don't occur. Some may be be adaptive, some maladaptive and most are neutral.

Where... have you shown me that it's not due to mutations?
Sorry Valjean, did I miss some lines?

Why do you say all mutations are problems? I can think of lots of helpful mutations. And why do you find it so hard to believe small changes can't accumulate into large changes? Didn't Latin turn into French through a long series of small changes?

When you got all your sums right, at school, and got 35/35, did the teacher see any need to correct them?
Do corrections in DNA during gene copying or interferences occur? Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where... have you shown me that it's not due to mutations?
Sorry Valjean, did I miss some lines?

He did not show it to you, it was in the OP if you read it yourself. You do seem to be having trouble understanding that a mutation that hangs around is part of the variation that we see in life.

When you got all your sums right, at school, and got 35/35, did the teacher see any need to correct them?
Do corrections in DNA during gene copying or interferences occur? Why?

You are making an assumption that you have not been able to justify and is almost certainly incorrect. There is no reason to think that the existing genome is the "right" one. Why do you assume that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, mutation are changes that are due to errors, or interferences. Therefore they are problems. The reason why those problems are not full fledged mistakes, is because they may be detected and corrected, so yes, they can carry, where you get small changes in the organism, but still, not the miracles dreamed of by those who say four footed land animals turned to whales - tail to flipper and all.

Mutations are changes, if they are not good changes they are a problem. If they are neutral, they are not a problem. If they are beneficial, then, again, not a problem.

You have roughly 100 mutations that were not present in your parents.

I don't know that the ancestors had dreams of becoming whales. There is no evidence of such silly ideas.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't change the scriptures to suit man's dogmas. Some religious people do that.
Yes of course, adaptation is no different to change, and yes, these have been observed.
Yes fact cannot be anything other than facts. That's logic - A cannot be A, and yet not A. A is A.
Denying that is unreasonable.
What are you saying?

You are dodging. Genetic adaptation is evolution. I think you get that, but are doing what you can to avoid agreeing to it because of your dogma.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Where is your proof of what is impossible?

You claimed it first. Show me evidence of carnivores becoming completely herbivorous.

To be fair, no one has seen this and the changes required for an existing individual defy physical ability for them to occur. We are talking reality here and not Marvel Comics.

Thanks for the info. I understand adaptation as defined here:
a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.

That is good. You were not writing as if you understood that adaptation is just creationist semantics to avoid agreeing with science.

In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has been evolved by natural selection.

How does this change what I wrote?

 

[nPeace]

Mutations are changes, if they are not good changes they are a problem. If they are neutral, they are not a problem. If they are beneficial, then, again, not a problem.

You have roughly 100 mutations that were not present in your parents.

Um...

I don't know that the ancestors had dreams of becoming whales. There is no evidence of such silly ideas.

Me neither. I'm not sure where you came up with that idea.

You are dodging. Genetic adaptation is evolution. I think you get that, but are doing what you can to avoid agreeing to it because of your dogma.

What am I dodging.
Sounds here like you are relating your own experience. It doesn't relate to me at all.

You claimed it first. Show me evidence of carnivores becoming completely herbivorous.

I never claimed anything was impossible. If you wanted evidence, you would ask, but you didn't. So it's clear you have just created a distraction. It is also clear you cannot provide any proof of your claim.
I can readily admit that the only way I can prove what I say is to take a time machine into the past, and there is no way I know of that will allow me to do that.
Your turn. Where is your proof of what is impossible?

To be fair, no one has seen this and the changes required for an existing individual defy physical ability for them to occur. We are talking reality here and not Marvel Comics.

That's not proof. You just basically repeated your claim.
No one has seen large scale evolution, yet you believe it. Which comic is that... Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

That is good. You were not writing as if you understood that adaptation is just creationist semantics to avoid agreeing with science.

How does this change what I wrote?

Yours was too long, complicated, and imo not necessary.
I really didn't understand why you posted it, but you seemed to have just explained. Still too long and complicated. The definitions I posted are brief, simple, and easy to understand.


@Revoltingest @Valjean why not natural selection...
No Wings

No Eyes

 

[Revoltingest]

Um...


Me neither. I'm not sure where you came up with that idea.


What am I dodging.
Sounds here like you are relating your own experience. It doesn't relate to me at all.


I never claimed anything was impossible. If you wanted evidence, you would ask, but you didn't. So it's clear you have just created a distraction. It is also clear you cannot provide any proof of your claim.
I can readily admit that the only way I can prove what I say is to take a time machine into the past, and there is no way I know of that will allow me to do that.
Your turn. Where is your proof of what is impossible?


That's not proof. You just basically repeated your claim.
No one has seen large scale evolution, yet you believe it. Which comic is that... Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?


Yours was too long, complicated, and imo not necessary.
I really didn't understand why you posted it, but you seemed to have just explained. Still too long and complicated. The definitions I posted are brief, simple, and easy to understand.


@Revoltingest @Valjean why not natural selection...
No Wings

No Eyes

I don't know why you're alerting me.