Survival of the fittest? More like survival of the unwanted, which again IMO is hardly the same.
It's exactly the same. Fitness is directly relative to the environment. Fitness means nothing without an environmental backdrop to weigh it against.
If you're an insect and a mutation causes your exoskeleton to be purple/green polka dots, and in your environment nearly all the predators dislike purple/green polka dots, then you have high fitness vs. your cousins, because you're unwanted.
Make no mistake, this is an example of environmental selection in action.
@story: Literal Creationists believe in "microevolution" (evolutionary changes within a species). This story doesn't hurt them one bit.
This story has been told a lot. Its artificial evolution, mind you, but evolution all the same. There is a certain crab (i dont know what its called or where its from... maybe someone can help if they've heard this story) that has been harvested for centuries in Japan. However, the villagers take care only to eat certain crabs, as some are supposedly the spirits of Samurai. Their markings on their back make strange shapes, and some do really look like Samurai faces. As a result, most of the crabs in the lake have Samurai on their backs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
G U A M
This is Bat Country
PROUD OWNER OF TFE'S RESPECT
:bunnycake:
I OWN FEYD_RUIN'S AND CYAN'S SOUL YOURS MAY BE NEXT
Why is it "artificial", because humans are doing it?
We're just as much a part of the system of predator and prey as any other animal.
Because the desire for ivory (the driving variable in the environmental selection) is an "artifact" of an abstract social system.
I agree with you that "artificial" and "natural" are not a dichotomy, which is what I think you're pointing out. But social artifacts are certainly artificial.
I think a better term to use is "environmental selection."
Not to the elephants, they aren't. Once again, evolution is not something employed from a human perspective. If all the tusked elephants are killed, then the tuskless ones will dominate, regardless of whether they survived because the others were wanted for meat, ivory, or the shiny gold coins which supposedly exist in the stomachs of tusked elephants.
They are when it relates to our "hunting" of them. If we were hunting them for our basic human survival, then it would be safe to assume that our hunting of them would remain steady, if not increase. Since our hunting of them is dependant on our demand for Ivory(which has decreased since the 7s, if I'm not mistaken), it is not safe to assume that our hunting of them will remain steady, or increase.
1) I don't know the scientific definition of an Asian elephant, so I can't answer for sure one way or another. But whether a new species is being created or not, it's still evolution, which is the point I was making. Evolution is not only a new species emerging.
They are defined by their trunk, size and even...the females, lack of tusks, when compared to the African Elephant.
2) Hair colour is not a defining characteristic of a human being, so no, a surge or decrease in a particular hair colour would not be evolution.
So if hair color is not a defining characteristic, and lack of tusks is not a defining characteristic, would both, not be examples of evolution?
Simple inherited characteristics. Say the first Asian elephants had tusks. Due to their sheer size, not many elephants are hunted by non-human predators, so most of the population survive to breed. These elephants pass on their genes, which include tusks.
Fair Enough.
If there was a halt to all poaching of tusked elephants, then tusked elephants will remain the higher percentage. There are more tusked elephants (the rate is still only 5% for tuskless, I believe). But if poaching continues, tuskless elephants will continue to make up an ever-increasing percentage of the population until they are in the majority.
Well, poaching is not at the same pace that it was 30 years ago, and for the moment doesnt show any signs of making a dramatic comeback. Isnt it possible that, if poaching continues to drop(even ever so slightly), that tuskless elephants chance for reaching the majority is slight?
Puh-leeze. The Nebraska man theory was something created by one individual (and even he didn't agree with the artist's impression of the ape), never accepted by the palaeontological community, heavily criticized by most of them, and was retracted within 5 years.
Using the Nebraska man theory to damn all of palaeontology is like saying all Christians are evil and wrong because of Fred Phelps.
You asked for an example, and while it certainly is not one I would consider to damn palaeontology, it certainly falls within the paramaters I stated.
No, it's the context to which you're referring. The fittest animals are those which survive their environment. The 'fittest' refers to their particular characteristics which allow them to survive, not the characteristics from our point of view. Evolution is not something which was invented to be applied strictly from a human point of view.
In this context its human influenced. Even with their propensity for survival due to their lack of tusks, they have managed to remain the extreme minority. And dont give me that its only been 30 years bit. With the percentages we're talking about...its out of 250 elephants. Even one or 2 elephants can mark a signifigant change...percentage wise, but not realistically.
But it's not the humans that are changing, it's the elephants. To any given species, a predator is something which preys upon that species. We hunt and kill elephants, thus we are a predator.
Its the humans that are inducing the change, but like senori said, its a battle over semantics, that I appologize for starting.
Would you also say that domestic cats don't prey upon birds, because they aren't necessary for their basic survival as they get food from elsewhere?
I would say they dont. I think they kill them, often times out of their dormant wild instinct, but they dont eat them, or they rarely do. If birds fall under their prey, in that context, wouldnt humans be prey to bears, lions, sharks, etc, because they have killed us whether it be out of fear, confusion or instinct?
Bigger animals tend to stand a better chance of fighting off predators, have more dominant roles within the group, obtain more access to food sources due to their dominance, and are more likely to attract mates.
Wouldnt tusks also be considered a manner in fighting off predators? Havent they, numbers wise, shown their dominance, and are still the primary target for mates?
Quote from senori »
Not for evolution. The important factor is not that the elephants are being eaten or being made into pianos, but the fact that they are dying- that their tusked genes are being removed from the bloodline. Since more tusked elephants are dying than non-tusked ones simply because of their demand, a non-tusked elephant is more likely to survive the rigours of humanity and pass on its tusk-less genome to other elephants. That is classic natural selection- what is causing it makes no difference to the theory.
But, the demand for animals that are necessary for our survival, and ones used to satisfy our indulgences do not parallel.
It's gone from 2% to 10%? How is that not a surge?
Firstly its from 5% to 10%, and secondly...Its out of 250 elephants!! 5% is very small with that reference number.
I hate to bring a dictionary in here.
pred·a·tor
n.
1. An organism that lives by preying on other organisms.
2. One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one's own gain.
As you can see, according to Webster's, this is predatory behavior. But either way this is arguing over semantics.
Firstly, I was going by what wikipedia's definition was, and secondly, like I said earlier, I'm going to avoind this battle, and concede that we're predators. I reserve the opinion, that our predation and reason for it greatly differ from the normal sense and its effect on such "changes".
No change is immense and sudden unless there is some catastrophic reason for it to be so. Right now, a tusked elephant has more environmental pressure on it than an untusked elephant. An untusked elephant is more likely to go without being hunted and pass on its tuskless seed to other elephants (tusked or not, it doesn't matter because there's a chance some of the offspring of even a tusked one will lack tusks). Tusked elephants, however, are being killed rapidly. Assuming a steady decline in the number of tusked elephants due to poaching and other predatorial factors, it will not only become increasingly 'desirable' to have the tusk-less genes, but more common, as those carrying the tusk-gene grow less common and sexual pressure on the tusk-less ones decreases.
Regardles of the current "pressure" on their survival, dont you think that 90% has a better chance of furthering their species than 10%?
Also, how can you assume a steady poaching rate for tusked elephants? Like I mentioned earlier, poaching of tusked elephants is ENTIRELY dependant on demand, which is not guaranteed, or extremely likely to continue at the rate it once was. Therefore its rather presumptuous to think that the tusked elephants will maintain their steady decline in numbers due to such reasons.
The ancient tradition of the hunt of the Rhino is considerably less common in this enlightened age, and either way was never as prominent nor as wide-reaching as the slaughter of the elephants, as the ivory of the average rhino is considerably less prominent, and the rhino itself is harder to take down in many ways.
Regardless, that means nothing, as the elephant and the rhino are completely different species with different genetic makeups. Perhaps the rhino horn-less gene is recessive to the point it's been eliminated from the genepool? Or perhaps there has been a rise in the number of hornless rhinos, and it simply hasn't been studied? Neither of us can say accurately what's what.
If you will refer to the context of my post, he asked for another species hunted for one specific genetic characteristic, the rhinocerous and its horn being such an example. Certainly a smaller scale, but none the less valid.
Assuming that the tusk-less group grows large enough, and the tusked group grows small enough, you could gradually see one of two things;
-the elephants interbreed to the extent that there is no discernable difference between the two groups.
or;
-the two groups become segregated somehow, preventing them from interbreeding and causing, over millions of years, their evolutionary paths to diverge.
Because of the small time-scale inherent in this research (since we can hardly comprehend the scale of evolution, much the less observe it) of course they are not different species yet. But in the future, there is a good chance that they could be.
1) What reason do you have to believe that human demand for ivory will continue to the point to where the amounts of both varieties will be almost equal?
2) Tuskless elephants are not a new breed. It is already a known trait of Asian elephants (primarily females) to not posees tusks. Being tuskless is merely a trait, not the dawn of a new species of elephant.
3) How is the presence or lack thereof of tusks not discernable?
You have to assume two things;
-that elephants will continue to be hunted in years to come, which is a reasonably safe bet considering the demand for ivory, even today.
and;
-that it will not effect the breeding of the tuskless elephants (since tusks are seen as indicators of dominance in elephant 'society', this could concievably hurt their chances of breeding). However, since we've seen that the tuskless aberration has been growing, we can safely assume that there is a possibility for further growth and will not adversely affect the growth of the tuskless.
Again, what makes you believe that current demand for ivory is even close to that of 30 years ago? What leads you to believe that it wont drop?
Assuming these two things, both of which are reasonably safe bets, there is no evidence to suggest that a tusked variety will come back into resurgance unless poaching stops entirely.
I guess my problem is I fail to see how these are safe bets. Perhaps if you could show me a trend or current evidence that suggests ivory demand will be steady for the next XX years, then perhaps my view will change. Until then, I find this position to be a rather unsafe bet, as mans desire is one of the most fickle things I know of.
The question is whether the evolutionary pressures upon the elephants with tusks outweigh the evolutionary advantages. Since the main advantage is they are more desirable to mates, and since their chances are exponentially higher of being hunted down and killed before maturity, I don't see the gains as outweighing the new drawbacks brought on by humankind.
Well, there are obviously sufficient advantages to having tusks for them to have maintained a 90% majority despite 30 years of being the soley hunted target.
What Tanthalas said. =P
You can like or dislike my examples, but regardless, the nebraska man theory fit into the criteria he asked for.
Yes, it qualifies. It doesn't matter if the poacher eats the heart or the biceps of the elephant or not. What matters is that the elephant is dead, and that it is thusly unable to pass on its genetic material.
And don't even start with something about the carcass being left there to eat by others, because it doesn't matter. Principally, the elephant is being killed. Though hunting for its meat is the common reason for predation, we are hunting for its tusks, which are no less valuable to us.
Again, I'm conceding this point.
Don't be dense. You don't have to be hunting for 'basic survival' to be a predator any more than you have to cut down trees purely for fire and shelter to be a woodcutter. The important factor is not whether the humans are well-fed, but whether the elephants are dead- and we can all agree that they are.
Dont be general. Is someone who cust off a branch for some widdling wood, and someone who clear cuts for lumber on the same scale? Do they have the same effect on tree consumption in an area? Both are cutting wood, both are not, however, the same.
We're talking about a small number of elephants, and an even smaller number that are emerging due to a human activity that is hardly one that can be considered steady, or has the promise of continuing at its pace or even growing.
Harder to take down by non-human predators?
More so than those with built in defense mechanisms?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. " - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Merely because the cause is humans doesn't make it any less of an example of natural selection. If there was a type of lion that only attacked tusked elephants, it would still be the same idea. Even if the cause is temporary, it can cause a pronounced change in the species that persists with the species. It doesn't matter either that this cause may be superficial-we aren't doing it for our survival. But we are knowingly and increasingly eliminating a particular type of elephant in these regions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I never allowed my schooling to interfere with my education" -Mark Twain
Quote from hybrid life »
The war is for oil..its one of the ways to make this huge operation worthwhile. People care more about lower gas prices than iraqis anyway.
What others say about me:
Quote from JayC »
You're obviously an ignorant conservative. I blame your hill-billy Mom and Dad.
They are when it relates to our "hunting" of them. If we were hunting them for our basic human survival, then it would be safe to assume that our hunting of them would remain steady, if not increase. Since our hunting of them is dependant on our demand for Ivory(which has decreased since the 7s, if I'm not mistaken), it is not safe to assume that our hunting of them will remain steady, or increase.
Must we therefore assume that it will drop off? You're right, demand could decrease. But it could also remain the same. If it does, this evolutionary pressure will continue and numbers of tuskless elephants will increase.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
So if hair color is not a defining characteristic, and lack of tusks is not a defining characteristic, would both, not be examples of evolution?
Important point about evolution: "Species" is a largely arbitrary label*. A new "species" appears when a population of creatures has accumulated enough changes that to call it a member of the old species wouldn't do it justice. Elephants minus tusks may not be a new species in most biologists' minds, but if they, due to other evolutionary pressures, turn black, develop a prominent fatty hump, and lose 300 pounds of average muscle mass, then things might be different.
Evolution is an accumulation of minor features. There is no point in Darwin's theory where Nature goes "Ta da! New species!"
*Two individuals are sometimes defined as being of different species if they can't interbreed with each other, but there are several objections to this definition, the most flippant of which is "What if they're both male?"
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Well, poaching is not at the same pace that it was 30 years ago, and for the moment doesnt show any signs of making a dramatic comeback. Isnt it possible that, if poaching continues to drop(even ever so slightly), that tuskless elephants chance for reaching the majority is slight?
So? It may be in this particular case that as evolutionary pressure decreases, the disadvantages of tusklessness again outweigh the advantages, and so populations return to normal. What do you say about the other examples of evolution in action on this thread, like the Manchester moths or resistant strains of microbe?
Quote from menolikeygurus »
In this context its human influenced. Even with their propensity for survival due to their lack of tusks, they have managed to remain the extreme minority. And dont give me that its only been 30 years bit. With the percentages we're talking about...its out of 250 elephants. Even one or 2 elephants can mark a signifigant change...percentage wise, but not realistically.
In such a small population, such changes spread faster. Twelve more male elephants without tusks could impregnate just about every female in the population (unless they're monogamous; not an expert on elephant mating habits).
Quote from menolikeygurus »
I would say they dont. I think they kill them, often times out of their dormant wild instinct, but they dont eat them, or they rarely do. If birds fall under their prey, in that context, wouldnt humans be prey to bears, lions, sharks, etc, because they have killed us whether it be out of fear, confusion or instinct?
It doesn't matter whether or not they're predators in any definition of the term. What matters is they're applying selection pressure. Man-eating sharks apply a very subtle evolutionary pressure for faster-swimming humans; one probably lost in the noise of random variation, but still present.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Wouldnt tusks also be considered a manner in fighting off predators? Havent they, numbers wise, shown their dominance, and are still the primary target for mates?
Again, these are evolutionary advantages of tusks; no one's denying that. The statistics show that they are currently outweighed by the evolutionary disadvantages of tusks, namely poaching.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
But, the demand for animals that are necessary for our survival, and ones used to satisfy our indulgences do not parallel.
So?
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Firstly its from 5% to 10%, and secondly...Its out of 250 elephants!! 5% is very small with that reference number.
5% is 5%.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Firstly, I was going by what wikipedia's definition was, and secondly, like I said earlier, I'm going to avoind this battle, and concede that we're predators. I reserve the opinion, that our predation and reason for it greatly differ from the normal sense and its effect on such "changes".
How do our intentions affect the survival rate of tusked elephants, i.e. the evolutionary pressure on them? Evolutionary pressure can change very fast. If a volcano erupts nearby, there's suddenly a host of new advantages and disadvantages to certain traits. Same if a natural dam breaks and a large area is covered in water, if a nasty forest fire clears out all the old growth in a forest, or a fluke of meteorology results in it being overcast for several weeks during a normally sunny time of year. Duration, or potential duration, of evolutionary pressure is not a measure of whether or not it is a pressure.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Regardles of the current "pressure" on their survival, dont you think that 90% has a better chance of furthering their species than 10%?
Do you understand the principle here at all? Once there was 5%. Now there is 10%. Extrapolate the future from these numbers. Obviously the 90% are less fit to survive in a given environment, as they are being outbred.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Also, how can you assume a steady poaching rate for tusked elephants? Like I mentioned earlier, poaching of tusked elephants is ENTIRELY dependant on demand, which is not guaranteed, or extremely likely to continue at the rate it once was. Therefore its rather presumptuous to think that the tusked elephants will maintain their steady decline in numbers due to such reasons.
So what? See above.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
If you will refer to the context of my post, he asked for another species hunted for one specific genetic characteristic, the rhinocerous and its horn being such an example. Certainly a smaller scale, but none the less valid.
Yes, there was and continues to be some evolutionary pressure on the rhino for it to become hornless. But there could be other factors that make it a continued disadvantage overall, and therefore the rhino remains hornless. For that matter, less poaching means less chance of any given rhino being poached, so even if the other circumstances were exactly the same as with the elephant, the pressure of poaching would still be easier to outweigh.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
1) What reason do you have to believe that human demand for ivory will continue to the point to where the amounts of both varieties will be almost equal?
No reason at all. It doesn't matter. Why does whether the trend will continue in the future define whether or not this phenomenon in the past and present is evolution?
Quote from menolikeygurus »
2) Tuskless elephants are not a new breed. It is already a known trait of Asian elephants (primarily females) to not posees tusks. Being tuskless is merely a trait, not the dawn of a new species of elephant.
As before: "Species" is arbitrary.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
3) How is the presence or lack thereof of tusks not discernable?
What?
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Again, what makes you believe that current demand for ivory is even close to that of 30 years ago? What leads you to believe that it wont drop?
You seem to have fixated on this particular objection as your vindication of your views. I have already conceded that, if poaching continues to decrease (which, just like its increase, is not guaranteed), the elephant population will probably return to its pre-human appearance. Thus, the trait accumulation in this particular case might not be permanent. So what? (a) They're still accumulating the trait now. (b) There are numerous other examples of observable evolution not so easily reversed.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
I guess my problem is I fail to see how these are safe bets. Perhaps if you could show me a trend or current evidence that suggests ivory demand will be steady for the next XX years, then perhaps my view will change. Until then, I find this position to be a rather unsafe bet, as mans desire is one of the most fickle things I know of.
See above.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Well, there are obviously sufficient advantages to having tusks for them to have maintained a 90% majority despite 30 years of being the soley hunted target.
They lost their 95% majority, remember? These things take time.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Dont be general. Is someone who cust off a branch for some widdling wood, and someone who clear cuts for lumber on the same scale? Do they have the same effect on tree consumption in an area? Both are cutting wood, both are not, however, the same.
What are you trying to say here? This is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. They apply the same evolutionary pressure in different magnitudes, just like varying degrees of poaching. Now, as I said while discussing the rhino, a lesser magnitude is easier to outweigh by other pressures (e.g. the fending-off-lions pressure), but it is still present.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
We're talking about a small number of elephants, and an even smaller number that are emerging due to a human activity that is hardly one that can be considered steady, or has the promise of continuing at its pace or even growing.
They are when it relates to our "hunting" of them. If we were hunting them for our basic human survival, then it would be safe to assume that our hunting of them would remain steady, if not increase. Since our hunting of them is dependant on our demand for Ivory(which has decreased since the 7s, if I'm not mistaken), it is not safe to assume that our hunting of them will remain steady, or increase.
Let's say, for the sake of simplification, that we kill ten elephants per year. Now, if we start killing nine elephants per year, or even eight, that's still a significant portion of the population, no?
Quote from menolikeygurus »
They are defined by their trunk, size and even...the females, lack of tusks, when compared to the African Elephant.
Your point being?
Quote from menolikeygurus »
So if hair color is not a defining characteristic, and lack of tusks is not a defining characteristic, would both, not be examples of evolution?
Evolution is not a game of arbitrary defining characteristics. What seperates two species is not what they look like, but whether their offspring can be born and simultaneously be fertile. For this reason, we can tell that horses and donkeys are two species- if relatively closely related ones, because their offspring- a mule; is not fertile.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Well, poaching is not at the same pace that it was 30 years ago, and for the moment doesnt show any signs of making a dramatic comeback. Isnt it possible that, if poaching continues to drop(even ever so slightly), that tuskless elephants chance for reaching the majority is slight?
I can't access the exact figures right now because this is a relative's computer and it's rather poor (loading most web pages causes it to crash) but even if poaching is not at 17th century levels, it still exists and is still very prominent. Assuming that there is still some poaching, no matter how small, it means that there is more environmental pressure on tusked elephants than tuskless elephants.
Either way, it's entirely irrelevant how it turns out in the end. What matters here is the fact that the natural selection process has begun- in the wild, the environmental pressure would likely not go down as it might in poaching.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
You asked for an example, and while it certainly is not one I would consider to damn palaeontology, it certainly falls within the paramaters I stated.
Hardly. Since the opinion was never accepted by a majority of evolutionary biologists and was indeed dismissed by most of them, it is no more indicative of a "fault" in evolutionary theory than me claiming to be the long-lost relative of Neanderthal man would be.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
In this context its human influenced. Even with their propensity for survival due to their lack of tusks, they have managed to remain the extreme minority. And dont give me that its only been 30 years bit. With the percentages we're talking about...its out of 250 elephants. Even one or 2 elephants can mark a signifigant change...percentage wise, but not realistically.
But you have to realize this started out as extremely aberrant- one or two percent, as was stated in the article. To jump from two percent to five or even ten percent- no matter the numbers, is impressive.
That said, there are so few of these animals that breeding is inherently difficult.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
I would say they dont. I think they kill them, often times out of their dormant wild instinct, but they dont eat them, or they rarely do. If birds fall under their prey, in that context, wouldnt humans be prey to bears, lions, sharks, etc, because they have killed us whether it be out of fear, confusion or instinct?
Yes, we would.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Wouldnt tusks also be considered a manner in fighting off predators? Havent they, numbers wise, shown their dominance, and are still the primary target for mates?
Relatively rarely. Though yes, there are probably some cases where tusks will help in battle, but at the moment these pressures are not as great as those of human hunting.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
But, the demand for animals that are necessary for our survival, and ones used to satisfy our indulgences do not parallel.
Why not?
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Firstly its from 5% to 10%, and secondly...Its out of 250 elephants!! 5% is very small with that reference number.
The number doesn't matter, for reasons I mentioned earlier. What matters is that the number of these has doubled for no apparent reason other than natural selection.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Firstly, I was going by what wikipedia's definition was, and secondly, like I said earlier, I'm going to avoind this battle, and concede that we're predators. I reserve the opinion, that our predation and reason for it greatly differ from the normal sense and its effect on such "changes".
Okay.
By the way, do you think a virus that targets a certain variation of, say, dogs is an element of natural selection?
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Regardles of the current "pressure" on their survival, dont you think that 90% has a better chance of furthering their species than 10%?
Not if the tusked ones are constantly being killed off and the tuskless ones are not, no.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Also, how can you assume a steady poaching rate for tusked elephants? Like I mentioned earlier, poaching of tusked elephants is ENTIRELY dependant on demand, which is not guaranteed, or extremely likely to continue at the rate it once was. Therefore its rather presumptuous to think that the tusked elephants will maintain their steady decline in numbers due to such reasons.
Even if demand for ivory decreases by, say, 50%, the environmental pressure on these animals is still higher- more of these tusked elephants will be killed off than otherwise would be, and more importantly, their competitors- in this case, the tuskless elephants- are not being killed off with any similar frequency.
And I bet you there are some new-age Asian medicines that call for elephant ivory. :winky:
Quote from menolikeygurus »
If you will refer to the context of my post, he asked for another species hunted for one specific genetic characteristic, the rhinocerous and its horn being such an example. Certainly a smaller scale, but none the less valid.[/font]
Three key things make this less than perfect;
-we don't know if the rate of hornless rhinos has indeed decreased
-we don't know how likely it is to create a tuskless rhino (obviously in elephants it involves a few genes at most, but in rhinos it could take a great many?)
-the principal use of the rhino's horn is defense, rather than dominance as with an elephant; elephants have better speed and eyesight, as well as a larger bulk, whereas rhinos have poor eyesight and depend largely on their horn for defense
[quote=menolikeygurus]1) What reason do you have to believe that human demand for ivory will continue to the point to where the amounts of both varieties will be almost equal?
Because we can always assume there is some demand for ivory, regardless of how small it may be, and that it will always necessitate the killing of elephants. Regardless of the scale, this statistically makes a tusked elephant less likely to survive than a tuskless one.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
]2) Tuskless elephants are not a new breed. It is already a known trait of Asian elephants (primarily females) to not posees tusks. Being tuskless is merely a trait, not the dawn of a new species of elephant.
Of course not. The point is that evolutionary changes build up over time. A mutated genome there, a strand there, and eventually the species become incapable of mating with each other- at which point they are different species. This is a natural consequence of environmental barriers dividing populations of animals; it has been demonstrated, in Darwin's famous example, on the Galapagos among birds.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
3) How is the presence or lack thereof of tusks not discernable?
If they interbreed, one variety would die out eventually. In this sense, there would be no discernable difference between the minor variations of the species; they would both have the same uniform characteristics to the extent that you would not be able to tell the descendant of one group apart from another.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Again, what makes you believe that current demand for ivory is even close to that of 30 years ago? What leads you to believe that it wont drop?
Even if the demand for ivory drops, elephants will still be hunted, because there will still be some demand no matter what. Regardless of whether there is less poaching than there was thirty years ago, there is still significant poaching, and even assuming a dramatic drop in demand there will still be significant poaching, because demand will still exist for some ivory.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
I guess my problem is I fail to see how these are safe bets. Perhaps if you could show me a trend or current evidence that suggests ivory demand will be steady for the next XX years, then perhaps my view will change. Until then, I find this position to be a rather unsafe bet, as mans desire is one of the most fickle things I know of.
As I have said throughout this post, ivory demand does not need to be steady for there to be some demand for ivory.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Well, there are obviously sufficient advantages to having tusks for them to have maintained a 90% majority despite 30 years of being the soley hunted target.
Not when you consider the fact that there were virtually no tuskless elephants before the poaching began.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
You can like or dislike my examples, but regardless, the nebraska man theory fit into the criteria he asked for.
As I demonstrated above, not really.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Again, I'm conceding this point.
When you concede a point once, you don't need to say it over and over again in the same post. :tongue2:
Quote from menolikeygurus »
]Dont be general. Is someone who cust off a branch for some widdling wood, and someone who clear cuts for lumber on the same scale?
No, because one of them is not a woodcutter. If someone cuts down a hundred trees for paper, they are still indisputably a woodcutter, even though they do not need paper for basic survival.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
Do they have the same effect on tree consumption in an area? Both are cutting wood, both are not, however, the same.
No, because you don't consider a herbivore who accidently kills a carnivore once per year or decade a predator. I suppose the discerning factor to me would be the desire to kill the being for something that is seen as a need, be it a need or not.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
We're talking about a small number of elephants, and an even smaller number that are emerging due to a human activity that is hardly one that can be considered steady, or has the promise of continuing at its pace or even growing.
Here's the great thing, though; it doesn't matter whether tuskless elephants survive or not. It is the fact that they are appearing because of an environmental influence that demonstrates natural selection. Natural selection is not always steady, nor does it have to be to be called natural selection. The important factor is the fact that they are demonstrating a change through environmental stimuli- the basic sort of stimuli that would, in nature, be relatively consistent.
Quote from menolikeygurus »
More so than those with built in defense mechanisms?
That depends upon whether you consider the tusks a built-in defense mechanism.[/font]
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Because the desire for ivory (the driving variable in the environmental selection) is an "artifact" of an abstract social system.
I agree with you that "artificial" and "natural" are not a dichotomy, which is what I think you're pointing out. But social artifacts are certainly artificial.
I think a better term to use is "environmental selection."
Artificial selection has a specific meaning. Dog breeds are an example of artificial selection. Humans have bred various dogs for different traits and purposes. The humans doing this did this because they wanted these traits in the dogs. They ignored dogs that did not have the traits they wanted. Poachers hunting elephants are not doing so with the intent of altering the elephant population to favour tuskless elephants. They are not artificially instigating this evolution. Technically it is artificial, but it's not "artificial selection" because that has a different meaning.
Artificial selection has a specific meaning. Dog breeds are an example of artificial selection. Humans have bred various dogs for different traits and purposes. The humans doing this did this because they wanted these traits in the dogs. They ignored dogs that did not have the traits they wanted. Poachers hunting elephants are not doing so with the intent of altering the elephant population to favour tuskless elephants. They are not artificially instigating this evolution. Technically it is artificial, but it's not "artificial selection" because that has a different meaning.
Those who want to believe creationism don't care what evidence you put infront of them they won't listen because their belief has no facts to prove their point
Humans in general do not like to be told that they are wrong, even if they are. Last time I checked, atheists won't listen to theists, and theists won't listen to atheists, and neither can prove their side. They won't listen because it's their belief.
Humans in general do not like to be told that they are wrong, even if they are. Last time I checked, atheists won't listen to theists, and theists won't listen to atheists, and neither can prove their side.
The difference between theism vs. atheism and creationism vs. evolution is that, while there is little or no evidence one way or the other for the former, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of one side for the latter. And that side isn't creationism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What's weird is that the English language draws an arbitrary line between "artificial" and "natural", in which natural can involve animals while artificial involves one specific animal. In this case, there's very little to separate this from natural selection, appart from the fact that the instigators happen to be Homo Sapiens.
The difference between theism vs. atheism and creationism vs. evolution is that, while there is little or no evidence one way or the other for the former, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of one side for the latter. And that side isn't creationism.
Actually, it's not "creationism vs. evolution." It's "creationism vs. macroevolution." A creationist would then argue that the latter has no evidence.
I'm not a young-earth creationist. I'm just saying that's what they say. They're not completely irrational.
Quote from Bogardan Mage »
What's weird is that the English language draws an arbitrary line between "artificial" and "natural", in which natural can involve animals while artificial involves one specific animal. In this case, there's very little to separate this from natural selection, appart from the fact that the instigators happen to be Homo Sapiens.
I think the weird thing is that sometimes we draw that arbitrary line, and sometimes we don't.
Any kind of artifact is artificial, and artifact just means arte-factum, something crafted. So the division is usually between things that are crafted, and everything else. But one could argue that everything is natural when you get down to it (since all we are are a collection of atoms, and our "craft" is simply the result of a domino effect of internal and external reactions, which could be said about the earth "crafting" the grand canyon).
Actually, it's not "creationism vs. evolution." It's "creationism vs. macroevolution."
Fair enough, but they're making an arbitrary distinction between macro- and micro-evolution.
Quote from extremestan »
A creationist would then argue that the latter has no evidence.
And they'd be wrong. The fossil record, I think, is considerable evidence. Now, we can't actually observe generation give birth to slightly-different generation until speciation occurs (whenever that is), but until the invention of a WormCam it's the closest thing to it. So it's not definitive, but to outright deny that it is evidence in evolution's favor is to be irrational.
Quote from extremestan »
Any kind of artifact is artificial, and artifact just means arte-factum, something crafted. So the division is usually between things that are crafted, and everything else. But one could argue that everything is natural when you get down to it (since all we are are a collection of atoms, and our "craft" is simply the result of a domino effect of internal and external reactions, which could be said about the earth "crafting" the grand canyon).
The artifice is not in what we create, but what we consciously set out to create. Now, the decision to create may arise from what are ultimately the same processes that created the Grand Canyon, but to say that the distinction between the two is "arbitrary" is, I think, false. The key is to think of artificial not as an antonym of "natural" (a word that is very nebulous) but as merely one type of process that can occur. The Chevy Impala arose through human artifice as the Grand Canyon arose through water and wind erosion, not as the Grand Canyon arose through natural processes. As there is nothing arbitrary about the definition of erosion, so too is there nothing arbitrary about the definition of artifice.
Question: Would you call a beaver dam artificial?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Denver is, at least in part, correct. Creationism, by its very nature, has no evidence supporting it. It probably will never. The existance of geological and other features that indicate an old earth have removed any place that one might have found evidence. The only "evidence" that Creationist are able to cite is evidence for an old earth, with ad hoc explainations for how it came about. The rest is misunderstandings and, in some cases, lies.
I was objecting to the logical structure of this statement:
Quote from Denver »
I mean, if one could prove creation were true, why would anyone still holdout onto atheism?
Even if there were evidence for creationism, that wouldn't prove it to be true. Therefore, the continued existence of atheists is no argument for the lack of evidence for creationism.
Consider that the reverse is also true. Creationists still hold out against evolution (or macroevolution, if you like). Should we then interpret this to mean that there must be no evidence for it? Of course not; the lack of a deductive proof that would sway everyone (or maybe not) does not imply the lack of inductive evidence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Fair enough, but they're making an arbitrary distinction between macro- and micro-evolution.
Well they'd say that microevolution is evolution within a species. But species separation is often arbitrary, so that's what I'd try to deal with if I were to argue against a Creationist. The thing to stress in such a discussion is that the Bible does not define exactly what animal "kinds" means.
Quote from Bogardan Mage »
Denver is, at least in part, correct. Creationism, by its very nature, has no evidence supporting it. It probably will never. The existance of geological and other features that indicate an old earth have removed any place that one might have found evidence. The only "evidence" that Creationist are able to cite is evidence for an old earth, with ad hoc explainations for how it came about. The rest is misunderstandings and, in some cases, lies.
Wholeheartedly agreed. You've summarized it quite nicely.
Well they'd say that microevolution is evolution within a species. But species separation is often arbitrary, so that's what I'd try to deal with if I were to argue against a Creationist. The thing to stress in such a discussion is that the Bible does not define exactly what animal "kinds" means.
It occurs to me, on this point, that Creationism doesn't need all this micro/macro evolution nonsense to function. For some reason Creationism and IDT have evolved (no pun intended) together to the extent that one is mearly the other with more stress on a particular aspect (Creationism stresses the creation, and Intelligent Design stresses the idea that evolution is scientifically impossible). My theory as to how this happened is something like this:
Darwin Contemporary #1: Have you heared of this Charles Darwin fellow? He says that all life on earth shares a common ancestor.
Darwin Contemporary #2: What blasphemy! His theory of evolution is preposterous, of course.
Darwin Contemporary #1: Of course. What nonsense.
Flash forward a bit...
Evolutionist: Wow, look at this. Evolution in [insert animal here] has been scientifically observed.
Creationist: That's impossible. Evolution is nonsense. My ancestor said so, and he was a contemporary of Charles Darwin.
Evolutionist: No, it says right here.
Creationist: Oh, that. That's not evolution, that's adaption.
Evolutionist: Yeah, that's what evolution is.
Creationist: Well call it "microevolution". What you're claiming is "macroevolution", which hasn't been shown yet.
And a bit further:
Other Creationist: ...and that's why evolution is nonsense. Any questions?
Other Evolutionist: What about all these documented cases of evolution?
Other Creationist: That's microevolution. Didn't you read the dialogue just before this one?
Other Evolutionist: But microevolution is changes within species isn't it? Some of these feature results that cannot breed with the original species, like the mosquitoes in the London underground.
Other Creationist: They're still mosquitoes aren't they? You said so yourself. Besides, that example actually proves creationism because such rapid microevolution would be necessary to create the diversity we have today from the animals that could fit on the ark.
Other Evolutionist: You do realise that if you dropped the microevolution/macroevolution stuff it would be even easier, don't you?
Other Creationist: Don't be rediculous. Evolution is nonsense. My ancestor said so, and he was a contemporary of Charles Darwin.
And that's how two completely unrelated ideas can be juxtaposed to the point of inseperablility over time.
Evolutionist: Wow, look at this. Evolution in [insert animal here] has been scientifically observed.
Creationist: That's impossible. Evolution is nonsense. My ancestor said so, and he was a contemporary of Charles Darwin.
Evolutionist: No, it says right here.
Creationist: Oh, that. That's not evolution, that's adaption.
Evolutionist: Yeah, that's what evolution is.
Creationist: Well call it "microevolution". What you're claiming is "macroevolution", which hasn't been shown yet.
Microevolution is not adaption -- indeed, evolution is not adaption. Unless you're using adaption in the colloquial sense.
Anyway, here's my theory on how the discourse went:
E1: Here is this theory of evolution.
C1: Ridiculous.
Later..
E2: Evolution by natural selection is thus demonstrated.
C2: Yes but only within the species. Something of a species cannot become a different species.
Later..
E3: Species distinctions are ultimately arbitrary. Often a species will diversify internally and then become picky with their breeding choices. It's not a matter of leaping from species to species. It's a matter of one species spawning new ones. Then the environment selects the good ones, and the others get the shaft.
C3: Oh, good call.
It's exactly the same. Fitness is directly relative to the environment. Fitness means nothing without an environmental backdrop to weigh it against.
If you're an insect and a mutation causes your exoskeleton to be purple/green polka dots, and in your environment nearly all the predators dislike purple/green polka dots, then you have high fitness vs. your cousins, because you're unwanted.
Make no mistake, this is an example of environmental selection in action.
@story: Literal Creationists believe in "microevolution" (evolutionary changes within a species). This story doesn't hurt them one bit.
This story has been told a lot. Its artificial evolution, mind you, but evolution all the same. There is a certain crab (i dont know what its called or where its from... maybe someone can help if they've heard this story) that has been harvested for centuries in Japan. However, the villagers take care only to eat certain crabs, as some are supposedly the spirits of Samurai. Their markings on their back make strange shapes, and some do really look like Samurai faces. As a result, most of the crabs in the lake have Samurai on their backs.
:bunnycake:
YOURS MAY BE NEXT
Why is it "artificial", because humans are doing it?
We're just as much a part of the system of predator and prey as any other animal.
Because the desire for ivory (the driving variable in the environmental selection) is an "artifact" of an abstract social system.
I agree with you that "artificial" and "natural" are not a dichotomy, which is what I think you're pointing out. But social artifacts are certainly artificial.
I think a better term to use is "environmental selection."
They are when it relates to our "hunting" of them. If we were hunting them for our basic human survival, then it would be safe to assume that our hunting of them would remain steady, if not increase. Since our hunting of them is dependant on our demand for Ivory(which has decreased since the 7s, if I'm not mistaken), it is not safe to assume that our hunting of them will remain steady, or increase.
They are defined by their trunk, size and even...the females, lack of tusks, when compared to the African Elephant.
So if hair color is not a defining characteristic, and lack of tusks is not a defining characteristic, would both, not be examples of evolution?
Fair Enough.
Well, poaching is not at the same pace that it was 30 years ago, and for the moment doesnt show any signs of making a dramatic comeback. Isnt it possible that, if poaching continues to drop(even ever so slightly), that tuskless elephants chance for reaching the majority is slight?
You asked for an example, and while it certainly is not one I would consider to damn palaeontology, it certainly falls within the paramaters I stated.
In this context its human influenced. Even with their propensity for survival due to their lack of tusks, they have managed to remain the extreme minority. And dont give me that its only been 30 years bit. With the percentages we're talking about...its out of 250 elephants. Even one or 2 elephants can mark a signifigant change...percentage wise, but not realistically.
Its the humans that are inducing the change, but like senori said, its a battle over semantics, that I appologize for starting.
I would say they dont. I think they kill them, often times out of their dormant wild instinct, but they dont eat them, or they rarely do. If birds fall under their prey, in that context, wouldnt humans be prey to bears, lions, sharks, etc, because they have killed us whether it be out of fear, confusion or instinct?
Wouldnt tusks also be considered a manner in fighting off predators? Havent they, numbers wise, shown their dominance, and are still the primary target for mates?
But, the demand for animals that are necessary for our survival, and ones used to satisfy our indulgences do not parallel.
Firstly its from 5% to 10%, and secondly...Its out of 250 elephants!! 5% is very small with that reference number.
Firstly, I was going by what wikipedia's definition was, and secondly, like I said earlier, I'm going to avoind this battle, and concede that we're predators. I reserve the opinion, that our predation and reason for it greatly differ from the normal sense and its effect on such "changes".
Regardles of the current "pressure" on their survival, dont you think that 90% has a better chance of furthering their species than 10%?
Also, how can you assume a steady poaching rate for tusked elephants? Like I mentioned earlier, poaching of tusked elephants is ENTIRELY dependant on demand, which is not guaranteed, or extremely likely to continue at the rate it once was. Therefore its rather presumptuous to think that the tusked elephants will maintain their steady decline in numbers due to such reasons.
If you will refer to the context of my post, he asked for another species hunted for one specific genetic characteristic, the rhinocerous and its horn being such an example. Certainly a smaller scale, but none the less valid.
1) What reason do you have to believe that human demand for ivory will continue to the point to where the amounts of both varieties will be almost equal?
2) Tuskless elephants are not a new breed. It is already a known trait of Asian elephants (primarily females) to not posees tusks. Being tuskless is merely a trait, not the dawn of a new species of elephant.
3) How is the presence or lack thereof of tusks not discernable?
Again, what makes you believe that current demand for ivory is even close to that of 30 years ago? What leads you to believe that it wont drop?
I guess my problem is I fail to see how these are safe bets. Perhaps if you could show me a trend or current evidence that suggests ivory demand will be steady for the next XX years, then perhaps my view will change. Until then, I find this position to be a rather unsafe bet, as mans desire is one of the most fickle things I know of.
Well, there are obviously sufficient advantages to having tusks for them to have maintained a 90% majority despite 30 years of being the soley hunted target.
You can like or dislike my examples, but regardless, the nebraska man theory fit into the criteria he asked for.
Again, I'm conceding this point.
Dont be general. Is someone who cust off a branch for some widdling wood, and someone who clear cuts for lumber on the same scale? Do they have the same effect on tree consumption in an area? Both are cutting wood, both are not, however, the same.
We're talking about a small number of elephants, and an even smaller number that are emerging due to a human activity that is hardly one that can be considered steady, or has the promise of continuing at its pace or even growing.
More so than those with built in defense mechanisms?
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
Must we therefore assume that it will drop off? You're right, demand could decrease. But it could also remain the same. If it does, this evolutionary pressure will continue and numbers of tuskless elephants will increase.
Important point about evolution: "Species" is a largely arbitrary label*. A new "species" appears when a population of creatures has accumulated enough changes that to call it a member of the old species wouldn't do it justice. Elephants minus tusks may not be a new species in most biologists' minds, but if they, due to other evolutionary pressures, turn black, develop a prominent fatty hump, and lose 300 pounds of average muscle mass, then things might be different.
Evolution is an accumulation of minor features. There is no point in Darwin's theory where Nature goes "Ta da! New species!"
*Two individuals are sometimes defined as being of different species if they can't interbreed with each other, but there are several objections to this definition, the most flippant of which is "What if they're both male?"
So? It may be in this particular case that as evolutionary pressure decreases, the disadvantages of tusklessness again outweigh the advantages, and so populations return to normal. What do you say about the other examples of evolution in action on this thread, like the Manchester moths or resistant strains of microbe?
In such a small population, such changes spread faster. Twelve more male elephants without tusks could impregnate just about every female in the population (unless they're monogamous; not an expert on elephant mating habits).
It doesn't matter whether or not they're predators in any definition of the term. What matters is they're applying selection pressure. Man-eating sharks apply a very subtle evolutionary pressure for faster-swimming humans; one probably lost in the noise of random variation, but still present.
Again, these are evolutionary advantages of tusks; no one's denying that. The statistics show that they are currently outweighed by the evolutionary disadvantages of tusks, namely poaching.
So?
5% is 5%.
How do our intentions affect the survival rate of tusked elephants, i.e. the evolutionary pressure on them? Evolutionary pressure can change very fast. If a volcano erupts nearby, there's suddenly a host of new advantages and disadvantages to certain traits. Same if a natural dam breaks and a large area is covered in water, if a nasty forest fire clears out all the old growth in a forest, or a fluke of meteorology results in it being overcast for several weeks during a normally sunny time of year. Duration, or potential duration, of evolutionary pressure is not a measure of whether or not it is a pressure.
Do you understand the principle here at all? Once there was 5%. Now there is 10%. Extrapolate the future from these numbers. Obviously the 90% are less fit to survive in a given environment, as they are being outbred.
So what? See above.
Yes, there was and continues to be some evolutionary pressure on the rhino for it to become hornless. But there could be other factors that make it a continued disadvantage overall, and therefore the rhino remains hornless. For that matter, less poaching means less chance of any given rhino being poached, so even if the other circumstances were exactly the same as with the elephant, the pressure of poaching would still be easier to outweigh.
No reason at all. It doesn't matter. Why does whether the trend will continue in the future define whether or not this phenomenon in the past and present is evolution?
As before: "Species" is arbitrary.
What?
You seem to have fixated on this particular objection as your vindication of your views. I have already conceded that, if poaching continues to decrease (which, just like its increase, is not guaranteed), the elephant population will probably return to its pre-human appearance. Thus, the trait accumulation in this particular case might not be permanent. So what? (a) They're still accumulating the trait now. (b) There are numerous other examples of observable evolution not so easily reversed.
See above.
They lost their 95% majority, remember? These things take time.
What are you trying to say here? This is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. They apply the same evolutionary pressure in different magnitudes, just like varying degrees of poaching. Now, as I said while discussing the rhino, a lesser magnitude is easier to outweigh by other pressures (e.g. the fending-off-lions pressure), but it is still present.
See above.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Let's say, for the sake of simplification, that we kill ten elephants per year. Now, if we start killing nine elephants per year, or even eight, that's still a significant portion of the population, no?
Your point being?
Evolution is not a game of arbitrary defining characteristics. What seperates two species is not what they look like, but whether their offspring can be born and simultaneously be fertile. For this reason, we can tell that horses and donkeys are two species- if relatively closely related ones, because their offspring- a mule; is not fertile.
I can't access the exact figures right now because this is a relative's computer and it's rather poor (loading most web pages causes it to crash) but even if poaching is not at 17th century levels, it still exists and is still very prominent. Assuming that there is still some poaching, no matter how small, it means that there is more environmental pressure on tusked elephants than tuskless elephants.
Either way, it's entirely irrelevant how it turns out in the end. What matters here is the fact that the natural selection process has begun- in the wild, the environmental pressure would likely not go down as it might in poaching.
Hardly. Since the opinion was never accepted by a majority of evolutionary biologists and was indeed dismissed by most of them, it is no more indicative of a "fault" in evolutionary theory than me claiming to be the long-lost relative of Neanderthal man would be.
But you have to realize this started out as extremely aberrant- one or two percent, as was stated in the article. To jump from two percent to five or even ten percent- no matter the numbers, is impressive.
That said, there are so few of these animals that breeding is inherently difficult.
Yes, we would.
Relatively rarely. Though yes, there are probably some cases where tusks will help in battle, but at the moment these pressures are not as great as those of human hunting.
Why not?
The number doesn't matter, for reasons I mentioned earlier. What matters is that the number of these has doubled for no apparent reason other than natural selection.
Okay.
By the way, do you think a virus that targets a certain variation of, say, dogs is an element of natural selection?
Not if the tusked ones are constantly being killed off and the tuskless ones are not, no.
Even if demand for ivory decreases by, say, 50%, the environmental pressure on these animals is still higher- more of these tusked elephants will be killed off than otherwise would be, and more importantly, their competitors- in this case, the tuskless elephants- are not being killed off with any similar frequency.
And I bet you there are some new-age Asian medicines that call for elephant ivory. :winky:
Because we can always assume there is some demand for ivory, regardless of how small it may be, and that it will always necessitate the killing of elephants. Regardless of the scale, this statistically makes a tusked elephant less likely to survive than a tuskless one.
Of course not. The point is that evolutionary changes build up over time. A mutated genome there, a strand there, and eventually the species become incapable of mating with each other- at which point they are different species. This is a natural consequence of environmental barriers dividing populations of animals; it has been demonstrated, in Darwin's famous example, on the Galapagos among birds.
If they interbreed, one variety would die out eventually. In this sense, there would be no discernable difference between the minor variations of the species; they would both have the same uniform characteristics to the extent that you would not be able to tell the descendant of one group apart from another.
Even if the demand for ivory drops, elephants will still be hunted, because there will still be some demand no matter what. Regardless of whether there is less poaching than there was thirty years ago, there is still significant poaching, and even assuming a dramatic drop in demand there will still be significant poaching, because demand will still exist for some ivory.
As I have said throughout this post, ivory demand does not need to be steady for there to be some demand for ivory.
Not when you consider the fact that there were virtually no tuskless elephants before the poaching began.
As I demonstrated above, not really.
When you concede a point once, you don't need to say it over and over again in the same post. :tongue2:
No, because one of them is not a woodcutter. If someone cuts down a hundred trees for paper, they are still indisputably a woodcutter, even though they do not need paper for basic survival.
No, because you don't consider a herbivore who accidently kills a carnivore once per year or decade a predator. I suppose the discerning factor to me would be the desire to kill the being for something that is seen as a need, be it a need or not.
Here's the great thing, though; it doesn't matter whether tuskless elephants survive or not. It is the fact that they are appearing because of an environmental influence that demonstrates natural selection. Natural selection is not always steady, nor does it have to be to be called natural selection. The important factor is the fact that they are demonstrating a change through environmental stimuli- the basic sort of stimuli that would, in nature, be relatively consistent.
That depends upon whether you consider the tusks a built-in defense mechanism.[/font]
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Artificial selection has a specific meaning. Dog breeds are an example of artificial selection. Humans have bred various dogs for different traits and purposes. The humans doing this did this because they wanted these traits in the dogs. They ignored dogs that did not have the traits they wanted. Poachers hunting elephants are not doing so with the intent of altering the elephant population to favour tuskless elephants. They are not artificially instigating this evolution. Technically it is artificial, but it's not "artificial selection" because that has a different meaning.
Weird!
I am listening to him now...
HE IS THE MOST HILLARIOUS MAN I HAVE EVER HEARDE!!!! CAN SOME ONE GET HIM ON COMEDY CENTRAL!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!~!
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
Humans in general do not like to be told that they are wrong, even if they are. Last time I checked, atheists won't listen to theists, and theists won't listen to atheists, and neither can prove their side. They won't listen because it's their belief.
Like the banner? Click it to visit Topher's Shop.
Glad someone got a laugh out of him.
The difference between theism vs. atheism and creationism vs. evolution is that, while there is little or no evidence one way or the other for the former, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of one side for the latter. And that side isn't creationism.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What's weird is that the English language draws an arbitrary line between "artificial" and "natural", in which natural can involve animals while artificial involves one specific animal. In this case, there's very little to separate this from natural selection, appart from the fact that the instigators happen to be Homo Sapiens.
Actually, it's not "creationism vs. evolution." It's "creationism vs. macroevolution." A creationist would then argue that the latter has no evidence.
I'm not a young-earth creationist. I'm just saying that's what they say. They're not completely irrational.
I think the weird thing is that sometimes we draw that arbitrary line, and sometimes we don't.
Any kind of artifact is artificial, and artifact just means arte-factum, something crafted. So the division is usually between things that are crafted, and everything else. But one could argue that everything is natural when you get down to it (since all we are are a collection of atoms, and our "craft" is simply the result of a domino effect of internal and external reactions, which could be said about the earth "crafting" the grand canyon).
Fair enough, but they're making an arbitrary distinction between macro- and micro-evolution.
And they'd be wrong. The fossil record, I think, is considerable evidence. Now, we can't actually observe generation give birth to slightly-different generation until speciation occurs (whenever that is), but until the invention of a WormCam it's the closest thing to it. So it's not definitive, but to outright deny that it is evidence in evolution's favor is to be irrational.
The artifice is not in what we create, but what we consciously set out to create. Now, the decision to create may arise from what are ultimately the same processes that created the Grand Canyon, but to say that the distinction between the two is "arbitrary" is, I think, false. The key is to think of artificial not as an antonym of "natural" (a word that is very nebulous) but as merely one type of process that can occur. The Chevy Impala arose through human artifice as the Grand Canyon arose through water and wind erosion, not as the Grand Canyon arose through natural processes. As there is nothing arbitrary about the definition of erosion, so too is there nothing arbitrary about the definition of artifice.
Question: Would you call a beaver dam artificial?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
By which I suppose I should clarify: Creationism is an idea that stems from the Bible. People who believe the Bible are asked to make a leap of faith.
I mean, if one could prove creation were true, why would anyone still holdout onto atheism?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes. And?
I'm saying that creationism is as unprovable as God. Creationism stems from the Bible, Christianity stems from the Bible.
That's all.
(Although it could be argued that Christianity stems from Christ, and that the bible stems from Christianity, I don't want to get too off topic.)
Even if there were evidence for creationism, that wouldn't prove it to be true. Therefore, the continued existence of atheists is no argument for the lack of evidence for creationism.
Consider that the reverse is also true. Creationists still hold out against evolution (or macroevolution, if you like). Should we then interpret this to mean that there must be no evidence for it? Of course not; the lack of a deductive proof that would sway everyone (or maybe not) does not imply the lack of inductive evidence.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well they'd say that microevolution is evolution within a species. But species separation is often arbitrary, so that's what I'd try to deal with if I were to argue against a Creationist. The thing to stress in such a discussion is that the Bible does not define exactly what animal "kinds" means.
Wholeheartedly agreed. You've summarized it quite nicely.
It occurs to me, on this point, that Creationism doesn't need all this micro/macro evolution nonsense to function. For some reason Creationism and IDT have evolved (no pun intended) together to the extent that one is mearly the other with more stress on a particular aspect (Creationism stresses the creation, and Intelligent Design stresses the idea that evolution is scientifically impossible). My theory as to how this happened is something like this:
Darwin Contemporary #1: Have you heared of this Charles Darwin fellow? He says that all life on earth shares a common ancestor.
Darwin Contemporary #2: What blasphemy! His theory of evolution is preposterous, of course.
Darwin Contemporary #1: Of course. What nonsense.
Flash forward a bit...
Evolutionist: Wow, look at this. Evolution in [insert animal here] has been scientifically observed.
Creationist: That's impossible. Evolution is nonsense. My ancestor said so, and he was a contemporary of Charles Darwin.
Evolutionist: No, it says right here.
Creationist: Oh, that. That's not evolution, that's adaption.
Evolutionist: Yeah, that's what evolution is.
Creationist: Well call it "microevolution". What you're claiming is "macroevolution", which hasn't been shown yet.
And a bit further:
Other Creationist: ...and that's why evolution is nonsense. Any questions?
Other Evolutionist: What about all these documented cases of evolution?
Other Creationist: That's microevolution. Didn't you read the dialogue just before this one?
Other Evolutionist: But microevolution is changes within species isn't it? Some of these feature results that cannot breed with the original species, like the mosquitoes in the London underground.
Other Creationist: They're still mosquitoes aren't they? You said so yourself. Besides, that example actually proves creationism because such rapid microevolution would be necessary to create the diversity we have today from the animals that could fit on the ark.
Other Evolutionist: You do realise that if you dropped the microevolution/macroevolution stuff it would be even easier, don't you?
Other Creationist: Don't be rediculous. Evolution is nonsense. My ancestor said so, and he was a contemporary of Charles Darwin.
And that's how two completely unrelated ideas can be juxtaposed to the point of inseperablility over time.
Microevolution is not adaption -- indeed, evolution is not adaption. Unless you're using adaption in the colloquial sense.
Anyway, here's my theory on how the discourse went:
E1: Here is this theory of evolution.
C1: Ridiculous.
Later..
E2: Evolution by natural selection is thus demonstrated.
C2: Yes but only within the species. Something of a species cannot become a different species.
Later..
E3: Species distinctions are ultimately arbitrary. Often a species will diversify internally and then become picky with their breeding choices. It's not a matter of leaping from species to species. It's a matter of one species spawning new ones. Then the environment selects the good ones, and the others get the shaft.
C3: Oh, good call.