African elephants are being born without tusks due to poaching, researchers say - Polidicks

[thumb]https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2016/11/26/13/herd-elephants-getty.jpg[/thumb] [quote]An increasing number of African elephants are now born tuskless because poachers have consistently targetted animals with the best ivory over decades, fundamentally altering the gene pool. In some areas 98 per cent of female elephants now have no tusks, researchers have said, compared to between two and six per cent born tuskless on average in the past. Almost a third of Africa’s elephants have been illegally slaughtered by poachers in the past ten years to meet demand for ivory in Asia, where there is still a booming trade in the material, particularly in China. About 144,000 elephants were killed between 2007 and 2014, leaving the species at risk of extinction in some areas. Meanwhile those African elephant populations that do survive could become virtually tuskless, like their Asian cousins, researchers have warned. Joyce Poole is head of the charity Elephant Voices and has been tracking developments in the species for more than 30 years. She told The Times she had seen a direct correlation between the intensity of poaching and the percentage of females born without tusks in some of the herds she monitored. In Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique, 90 per cent of elephants were slaughtered between 1977 and 1992, during the country's civil war. Dr Poole said that because poachers disproportianetly targetted tusked animals, almost half the females over 35 years of age have no tusks, and although poaching is now under control and the population is recovering well, they are passing the tuskless gene down to their daughters: 30 per cent of female elephants born since the end of the war also do not have tusks. “Females who are tuskless are more likely to produce tuskless offspring,” she said.[/quote] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/elephants-africa-tusks-ivory-poaching-born-without-a7440706.html[/url]

This is amazing tbh Evolution is giving them the greatest fuck you it could give [QUOTE]“Tusks are used to dig for food and water, to dig up trees and branches and move them around, for self-defence and for sexual display," the BBC reported. “Conservationists say an elephant without tusks is a crippled elephant."[/QUOTE] though at what cost?

i hope this doesnt have any adverse effect but at least they wont be targeted to be hacked apart so thats a positive. the sad part is that when the ivory runs out theyll make up shit about like their feet or something and the poaching begins anew

Isn't that extraordinary quick evolution? [editline]...[/editline] Oh okay I didn't read the article. I thought the poached elephant population miraculously started giving birth to calves without tusks.

[QUOTE=Hellsten;51432251]Isn't that extraordinary quick evolution?[/QUOTE] It's not evolution, it's eugenics.

[QUOTE=Hellsten;51432251]Isn't that extraordinary quick evolution?[/QUOTE] If I recall, there was an experiment done with releasing equal amounts brown and white arctic rabbits at some island that received much less snowfall than their usual habitat, and the white ones died out within just a couple of years.

All because some backwards non-traditional medicine toting bags of trash want their tusks to make their dicks harder or whatever. That and all the people wanting real ivory for their luxury goods.

Sucks that they're going tuskless even in the parks where poaching isn't as big an issue anymore.

I'm interested in how this will effect behavior, since elephants use their tusks as a tool in some cases. Interesting how nature responds so quickly though.

How sad. I hope being born without tusks doesn't bring them suffering

[QUOTE=Sleepy Head;51432426]I'm interested in how this will effect behavior, since elephants use their tusks as a tool in some cases. Interesting how nature responds so quickly though.[/QUOTE] Nature did not respond quickly, as in this is not due to evolution. It is just so that elephant without tusks is not targeted for poaching, therefore they can spread their genes.

[QUOTE=Mr_Plumrich;51432498] It is just so that elephant without tusks is not targeted for poaching, therefore they can spread their genes.[/QUOTE] That's what evolution is though?

[QUOTE=zakedodead;51432520]That's what evolution is though?[/QUOTE] This would rather be darwinism if I'm correct.

So, will evolution help them overcome the difficulties having no tusks brings? (However long that'll take?)

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51432273]It's not evolution, it's eugenics.[/QUOTE] eugenics would be if the elephants were purposely killing other elephants with no tusks

[QUOTE=Mr_Plumrich;51432498]Nature did not respond quickly, as in this is not due to evolution. It is just so that elephant without tusks is not targeted for poaching, therefore they can spread their genes.[/QUOTE] You are both correct. Nature is responding quickly to a purely human threat. This [i] is [/i] evolution. It's survival of the fittest- it's just that in this case the criteria for fitness is "how likely is it that a human is going to shoot the animal for it's tusks" as opposed to anything more conventional.

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51432572]eugenics would be if the elephants were purposely killing other elephants with no tusks[/QUOTE] Forced selection I guess. Or unintentional selective breeding?

the term you're all looking for is 'semantics'

[QUOTE=Lolkork;51432306]You could see it as having tusks making it much more difficult for elephants to spread their genes, so they evolved to not have tusks.[/QUOTE] that's not how evolution works lmao

It's artificial selection driven evolution, but at the end of the day all that matters is that a species is being killed by man for a less than reasonable excuse.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;51432613]You are both correct. Nature is responding quickly to a purely human threat. This [i] is [/i] evolution. It's survival of the fittest- it's just that in this case the criteria for fitness is "how likely is it that a human is going to shoot the animal for it's tusks" as opposed to anything more conventional.[/QUOTE] It's not so much survival of the fittest as it is the fittest are being slaughtered so the not so fit excel. It's natural selection in the reverse. The whole reason this is happening is not necessarily and adaptation from a natural threat, but rather an adoption of "less superior" traits due to the hunting of those with the best traits. Simply put the elephants with little or no tusks are not being hunted, so they're the ones that propagate.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51432659]that's not how evolution works lmao[/QUOTE] unfit dies, fit survives, life goes on, it's simple as that

Aren't their hoofs valuable as well?

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51432697]It's not so much survival of the fittest as it is the fittest are being slaughtered so the not so fit excel. It's natural selection in the reverse. The whole reason this is happening is not necessarily and adaptation from a natural threat, but rather an adoption of "less superior" traits due to the hunting of those with the best traits. Simply put the elephants with little or no tusks are not being hunted, so they're the ones that propagate.[/QUOTE] I mean if we want to talk semantics it's not like humans get special consideration in the process of evolution, we're a natural element like anything else The fittest is the one more likely to survive and in this case it's the elephants with no tusks

A similar example is how certain fish species are on average becoming smaller, because fishermen have to throw back fish below a certain size.

I remember reading this here last year, wonder why it's hitting the news again?

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51432697]It's not so much survival of the fittest as it is the fittest are being slaughtered so the not so fit excel. It's natural selection in the reverse. The whole reason this is happening is not necessarily and adaptation from a natural threat, but rather an adoption of "less superior" traits due to the hunting of those with the best traits. Simply put the elephants with little or no tusks are not being hunted, so they're the ones that propagate.[/QUOTE] Yeah pretty much, while having smaller tusks puts the elephants at a natural disadvantage (making them less adapted to survive) they are also less attractive to poachers (making them [i] more [/i] adapted to survive). It's pretty interesting how human interference often turns the natural order on it's head, Or at least it would be if it wasn't so fucking depressing.

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;51432777]I remember reading this here last year, wonder why it's hitting the news again?[/QUOTE] Oh, it's been news since 1998 lol [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/180301.stm[/url]

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;51432801]Oh, it's been news since 1998 lol [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/180301.stm[/url][/QUOTE] Wow now thats a time capsule

Would this affect in the normal day of an elephant? Y'know, some things being difficult without tusks