4 ms·
It's amusing how downright hard it is to avoid teleological explanations of evolution. In this case it is important to note that this mutation presumably existe
by bigDinosaur 4y ago
It's amusing how downright hard it is to avoid teleological explanations of evolution. In this case it is important to note that this mutation presumably existed before poachers so they cannot be the cause of the actual genetics of tuskless elephants - but they are the cause of why the ratio is now changing. So I'd say your counterfactual is wrong: there would be a few tuskless elephants but having no evolutionary advantage they would not become the dominant phenotype.
If a species lacks the preexisting genetic diversity here, it dies.
- danbruc 4y agoThat is the way I wanted my sentence to be understood, »evolve« in »[...] would the elephants evolve to be tusk-less?« is intended to mean nothing more than become dominant due to evolution and I do not see how that word in that context could be understood as anything else.
- bigDinosaur 4y agoFair enough. I don't actually think you're wrong, to be clear, I think it's just easy to mix together related but distinct concepts here and the teleological angle makes that surprisingly easy to do (but it's almost impossible to actually avoid).
- danbruc 4y agoIsn't teleology a red herring here? We may use language that sound teleologically - nature wants this or that - but that does not imply that we actually have any teleologically world view behind that. If someone says that the universe wants to minimize the action, then I don't think they ascribe any desires to the universe [1], they just want to say that physical systems behave in a way that minimizes the action which we figured out by inspection and experiment. [1] At least by default, they can of course clarify that they actually think the universe has desires.
- phkahler 4y ago>> In this case it is important to note that this mutation presumably existed before poachers so they cannot be the cause of the actual genetics of tuskless elephants This sounds like an argument made by creationists to deny evolution. The genes were always there and we are just seeing a change in expression. When people of science have silly public debates like this, science loses. Stop being pedantic!
- bigDinosaur 4y agoWhen it comes to random mutations what other explanation would you use? I genuinely don't see how that sounds like an argument made by creationists. A creationist will simply state that genes never evolved or that they've only had six thousand years to evolve. Yes, obviously something caused these mutations but it wasn't the poachers, the original selection effect before the poachers here was that the mutation didn't cause a decrease in fitness otherwise (which it does, as it kills males before birth).
- phkahler 4y agoCreationist have argued that genes don't change, but can turn on and off to create variations. Some of them use this to claim actual observed cases of evolution are not improved species, just using what was already there. Of course that argument falls down in cases where the before and after genome is sequenced and shows new changes, but they will still make the argument.
- hoseja 4y agoHow did you get change in expression out of that? It's a change in population. If some killerbots started killing everyone above 4 feet tall, would you see the sudden prevalence and thriving of people with dwarfism to be an argument for creationism?
- haswell 4y agoCreationists will always find things to attach to their arguments. A discussion on HN will not change that. As a community, HN tends to be a place where such discussion is encouraged and relished. “Pedantry” here (I’m not convinced it’s pedantry) does not make “science lose”. If anything, I appreciate the tendency to discuss the more intricate aspects of things. In a world that trends ever more towards oversimplification and binary thought, it’s encouraging to find folks willing to debate the details. And details often matter.