You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
Evolution defeats poachers [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

PDA

View Full Version : Evolution defeats poachers


grandzu
09-30-2002, 08:58 AM
Speaking of evolution today on the show, it seems that now elephants are being born without tusks. About 30% of elephants are now tuskless. Poachers have done in 50 years what would take evolution thousands of years to do. Just one to grow on.

TooCute
09-30-2002, 09:07 AM
Uhh given that an
elephant's gestation period
is almost two years long
and females don't reach
sexual maturity until about
ten years old, it is a little
naive to assume that
elephants being born
without tusks is due to
selective pressure by
poachers in the past 50
years.

Think about it this way - for
elephants to evolve to not
have tusks, there doesn't
have to be a reason for
them not to have tusks, per
se, only a reason that
HAVING tusks is bad. Well
that is easy, right? If you
have big tusks, the
poachers kill you for them.
Here's the tricky bit though -
african elephants (the ones
that are being killed for
tusks, for the most part;
asiatic elephants have
much smaller tusks) don't
really get really big or grow
really large tusks until
they're around 30 - so we
asume that most of the
ones being killed for tusks
are being killed around
then, right? But elephants
are physically able to
reproduce around 10 years
old - the males just don't
because it's the big males
with the big tusks that are
getting all the females.
Even if the poachers are
killing every single big male
with big tusks and every
single big female with big
tusks, there are still
younger animals whose
tusks haven't grown big
enough to be worth
poaching but who are still
going to be able to
reproduce. There's nothing
saying that if these animals
grow larger their tusks
wouldn't grow in.

It is EXTRAORDINARILY
unlikely that poaching
pressure even if it has been
happening for the past
thousands of years would
cause elephants to lose
their tusks entirely ("be born
without them" - elephants
are born without real tusks
so I imagine you refer to the
teeth that will grow into
tusks); it is more likely that
either the tusks would
evolve to become greatly
reduced in size (this doesn't
seem likely to me) or MOST
likely that elephants would
evolve such that the growth
of the tusks was greatly
delayed. It is much easier
for adaptations to occur on
the TIMING of the growth of
structures (you don't get big
tusks until you are 50, as
opposed to getting them at
30) than it is for it to make
structures entirely
disappear.


<img src=http://members.hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/sheepyson/images/toocutesass344.jpg>

FMJeff
09-30-2002, 10:18 AM
i agree...read a book

<center><img src="http://members.aol.com/sabanj666/ass.gif">
<br>
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. </center>

Sheeplovr
09-30-2002, 10:33 AM
Did you know elephants have big feet and ears



number 333 its the way to be
http://members.hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/walrus701/images/breadsig.jpg
POWER AND CHAOS

FMJeff
09-30-2002, 10:49 AM
did you know in 50 years, through clever poaching, i can eradicate elephant's need for feet and ears? I can even make them into carnivores and Lutherans.

<center><img src="http://members.aol.com/sabanj666/ass.gif">
<br>
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. </center>

grandzu
10-01-2002, 06:08 AM
I would like to show as exhibit one, a BBC News article titled Africa Elephants 'ditch tusks' to survive. And B) They say elephants are losing their tusks as a rapid and effective evolutionary response to escape slaughter by ruthless and resourceful poachers who kill elephants for their ivory trophies. That is BBC's Science Correspondent, John Newell who says that the continuing change shows how rapidly evolution can react in response to pressures that threaten the survival of a species. This allows them to live, breed more freely and produce more offspring without tusks. So I do read, and not just books. <P>
<P>
<P>
<P>

ChrisTheCop
10-01-2002, 06:58 AM
I..have..no..elephant..ears....I have..no..elephant..tusks...Hi my name is Matthew and I'm th eonly one in my class who can read about evolution. Nyah.

<img src="http://rfcop.50megs.com/images/rfpd.gif">

FMJeff
10-01-2002, 09:13 AM
well if John newell says its so, it must be true...

<center><img src="http://members.aol.com/sabanj666/ass.gif">
<br>
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. </center>

TooCute
10-01-2002, 09:15 AM
I would like to show
as exhibit one, a BBC News
article titled Africa
Elephants 'ditch tusks' to
survive. And B) They say
elephants are losing their
tusks as a rapid and
effective evolutionary
response to escape
slaughter by ruthless and
resourceful poachers who
kill elephants for their ivory
trophies. That is BBC's
Science Correspondent,
John Newell who says that
the continuing change
shows how rapidly
evolution can react in
response to pressures that
threaten the survival of a
species. This allows them
to live, breed more freely
and produce more offspring
without tusks. So I do read,
and not just books.

Oh, clearly you read, but did
you ever consider that uhh
maybe the things you are
reading are totally clueless
and uninformed? Please.
You clearly do not
understand the basic
premise of evolution. Where
is this "BBC News article",
so that I can read it myself?
I am going to strongly
suggest that the "science
correspondant" - who btw
probably knows nothing
about science - simply has
an attractive face and can
read big words - probably
hasn't got a clue and
misinterpreted some other
report.

Did you understand /at all/
what I just posted? Did you
even read it? PLEASE
explain to me how in 50
years elephants can
"evolve" to "have no tusks".
That is fascinating, and
undoubtedly if true ought to
be all over the evolution
literature - I have yet to see
it. But of course I am only a
doctoral candidate in
evolutionary biology, so
what do I know? If a
Science Correspondant
said so, it MUST be true!

Maybe I'm starting to flame
here, and maybe you were
trolling. But seriously, I have
big issues with people who
1. believe everything they
read (remember that "Being
a vegetarian will make you
last longer thread"??) and
2. Talk about "evolution"
when they apprently don't
even have a middle school
science class level grasp of
the concept.

Please. Go read Darwin. I
think your time would
bemuch better spent thusly
than it seems to have been
reading BBC reports.


<img src=http://members.hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/sheepyson/images/toocutesass344.jpg>