Comments on: Elephants Evolve Smaller Tusks Due to Poaching

By: Amanda

Amanda — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:46:30 +0000

derick, that really is just very ignorant. you can’t even label it as a genetic deletion, because no one has shown what the difference in the genotype codes for larger or smaller tusks. “degraded DNA” is non-functional and won’t code for anything. and degradation of a compound is simply completely irrelevant to the point you are failing to prove. evolution is recognized as any shift the genome and the phenotype. the elephants are ADVANCING evolutionarily because the trait of having smaller tusks is more FIT.

take a biology class before you throw absurd claims around.

By: kam

kam — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:20:47 +0000

PS.. just so you realise. degradation applies to a CHEMICAL COMPOUND. yes, elephants are totally classed as “chemical compounds”…jesus dude. know what you are talking about before you say something. u cant take terms applying to one thing and slap it into another. fool

By: kam

kam — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:18:34 +0000

derick, you just dont get it. evolution doesnt necessarly mean better. evolution is defined as the change in a gene pool over time. THIS IS STILL EVOLUTION. you are using terms in their wrong context. get over it. THIS IS EVOLUTION. plain and simple. god some people really piss me off sometimes trying to sound like they know it all.

By: Derick D.

Derick D. — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:32:59 +0000

Deletion isn't evolution, it's degradation: deg·ra·da·tion: change of a chemical compound to a less complex compound (Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary) These elephants now have a degraded DNA, not evolved DNA.

By: William

William — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:58:14 +0000

If evolution means a gain in genetic information

All evolution requires is changes in DNA (deletion, insertion, mutation, etc.) and there is no such thing as devolution so this can’t be a “step backward”.

As progressives, we totally believe everything evolution scientists say!

In general, I prefer people trusting mainstream scientists over other sources. Scientists can be wrong but science works.

By: The Mystery of the Murdered Sea Mammals : Environmental News Blog | Environment News | Environmental Graffiti

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:24:15 +0000

[...] land and almost no fear of humans. The carnivorous species is an important part of the island’s ecology, and any harm done to their population could threaten the fragile environment and animal diversity [...]

By: The Guild of Scientific Troubadours » Elephants evolve smaller tusks.

The Guild of Scientific Troubadours » Elephants evolve smaller tusks. — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:08:22 +0000

[...] findings of Iain Douglas Hamilton and his colleagues, who appear to have discovered evidence that elephants are evolving smaller tusks due to ivory poaching: In the last 150 years, the world’s elephant population has evolved much smaller [...]

By: Derick D.

Derick D. — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:07:27 +0000

This is interesting. Everyone here seems to think that an overall loss of genetic information equals an advancement (or evolution) in elephant DNA. If evolution means a gain in genetic information (for how could a pig-sized mammal with a stubby nose become an elephant without gaining entirely new genes), how does the loss of long-tusk DNA equal an evolutionary gain? If the long-tusks are completely eliminated from the gene pool, we will still have only elephants, and furthermore, we will have genetically less-complex ones. The engine of evolution is to gain new genetic material and these elephants are being pushed a step backward.

This looks to be nothing more than an unplanned breeding technique, similar to those employed by farmers or animal breeders. These techniques produce a certain sub-species, but always at the cost (loss) of genetic information, not a gain.

This article sounds like propaganda to me: “Look! Nature solved the problem of poachers with EVOLUTION! As progressives, we totally believe everything evolution scientists say! We can go back to sleep now!”

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:36:09 +0000

Some clarifications of the discussion of evolution here:
1) Not all evolution is selection, or adventageous. There’s also evolution due to “genetic drift”, which most often happens due to a sampling error in small populations. This can be explicitly counter to selection, as inferior genotypes may become more prevalent.
2) Mutation is not a form of evolution. It forms the genetic variation that is required for natural selection to take place. So, the longer- and shorter-tusked elephants have different DNA due to mutations in the past. Selection, in this case due to human activities, is making the shorter-tusked elephants more abundant in the population

By: mistere

mistere — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:33:56 +0000

Mistere, all evolution is selection of some sort. Selection promoted by the desire of poachers is not natural. The presented case of larger-tusked males intimidating smaller ones and thus successfully breeding is natural. Evolution is a change from one state to another. The state of average tusk size for the general population of elephants is decreasing rapidly, therefore evolution has been sped up by the interference of man.

Yeah I suppose you’re right. I didn’t disagree that it was evolution, just the idea that it’s “speeding up,” per se. The way you put it makes sense though.