4 ms·

>> 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 ele

>> 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 ago
When 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 ago
  Creationist 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 ago
How 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 ago
Creationists 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.

bigDinosaur 4y ago

When 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 ago
Creationist 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 ago

How 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 ago

Creationists 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.