If a species lacks the preexisting genetic diversity here, it dies.
[1] At least by default, they can of course clarify that they actually think the universe has desires.
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!
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?
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.
Of course they would! I can't see how you can disprove that. In both that world and ours there are or have been tusk-less elephants, elephants with two heads, elephants that live 150 years.
Evolution is pseudo-random. The whole of nature gives context and some variants thrive better within this context. It is illogical to take life out of its natural context and think whether it would have evolved differently.
Your question should be rephrased as "would elephants without tusk thrive and outcompete regular elephants in a poacher-less world?" Maybe yes, maybe no, but my point is that evolution occurs every time a new elephant is conceived, and maybe the resulting animal lives longer.
The word »evolve« in that sentence means exactly what you say, »thrive and outcompete regular elephants«, or at least that is the way I wanted it to be understood. What is your definition of that word in that context that makes the sentence mean something different?
Mutation occurs. Evolution is when the population changes, not individuals.
In this time frame it is unlikely elephants would have evolved without tusks in a world without poachers, because in that scenario tusks are an advantage.
Living linger is secondary to evolution. Producing more offspring, which can produce offspring itself is what matters.
If an animal becomes old and endangers the herd it is harm for selection. If it can't produce offspring anymore, but protects the youngers it can be useful for survival rate.
Cause and effect are very complex concepts, probably not even well understood ones, but I would rather avoid descending into the philosophy of cause and effect, so I will just pick a potentially naive idea of cause and effect. Assume a counterfactual world without poachers, would the elephants evolve to be tusk-less? No, so the poachers cause elephants to become tusk-less.
It's that some elephant got a rare mutation, and those mutated elephants aren't as targeted by poachers, thus are able to survive more easily.
That is the mechanism at play under the hood, but it does not mean that the abstraction of poachers causing tusk-less elephants or even more abstractly that evolution causes tusk-less elephants under those circumstances are not also valid descriptions.
Plenty of popsci journos write as if nature is intelligent and driven by some purpose.
Which - to a certain extend - is fine. Countries go to war, wars cause destruction, companies go bankrupt, rivers flow to the ocean, holidays make people happy, programs produce outputs, ... none of this is really true in a certain sense. But that is fine, all our words are abstractions and we understand what they really mean, they do not have to be understood literally.