[dschuetz]

Elephants without tusks are more likely to survive and reproduce, so while this is a "better" survival trait as part of an evolutionary process, it's not an active response. It's just a mutation that has a better chance to survive.

Like that click-baity headline from the Telegraph, it has a better chance to get clicks phrasing it that way, instead of "Elephats without tusks are more likely to survive violent poachers", imho.

[throw827474737]

The title said "evolutionary response" not active response, which is a fine term in that regard, but others said enough to that.

However, I don't get how this is anything clickbaity here over your title, please explain!

Its almost Godwins-law-like now that every article mentioning evolution will have this nitpicking.. Is it pedantic monday already again?

[1letterunixname]

Nit: Also taco Tuesday eve.

[effingwewt]

Taco Tuesday Eve.

[Etheryte]

But that's exactly what evolution is? Evolution isn't an active process, it's just just the better fit thriving and carrying their genes on slightly better.

[IshKebab]

I don't see what your issue is. You just described the mechanism by which an evolutionary response happens.

[1letterunixname]

Splitting hairs of "an instance of natural selection leads to a more survivable feature" vs. "the theory of evolution". Both are likely and the most likely explanations.