Yes, this is
artificial selection which was well known way before Darwin - it's how we get tame pigs, cows, sheep
etc.. If hunters go for the largest/biggest tusked/brightest feathered/whatever type of prey then they will select
against the genes that cause whatever feature we're talking about. So yes, shooting the biggest tuskers will reduce the proportion of these in the gneral population
but it doesn't prove very
much about evolution I'm afraid.
Darwin's theory of evolution is based on
natural selection - it was well known that you could artificially select properties to breed for domestic animals, his concern was about how
wild animals ecolved. What your observations show is that humans can have an effect on selection in (perhaps)
semi-natural populations - the herds of elephants are being manipulated by humans in much the same way as sheep/goats, cows/buffalos, boar/pigs and what have you, have been ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by wild worlds
Just been looking at the pics that Black has put up in the gallery. Has anyone noticed how small the tusks are of most of the elephant pics in this and other galleries are? I know there are a few "tuskers" about including "Duke" that roams around Lower Sabie/Crocodile Bridge in KNP ,but not many maybe 7-10?
I was chatting about this over a few beers with a mate a while ago. His theory is that years of slaughter has eradicated of many of the eles that are naturally “big tuskers” and the result is that the naturally smaller tusked animals are those that are breeding.(big tuskers being the prefered mate)
He went on to expound that he believes this shows that Darwin’s theory of evolution is proved beyond doubt within a very short space of time.
Even in the cold light of a hangover it seemed to make sense. I suppose if this theory is correct, what has taken only decades to change by man will take thousands of years to put back, taking into account the lifespan of an ele? Any opinions? WW |