[sph]

> Assume a counterfactual world without poachers, would the elephants evolve to be tusk-less?

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.

[danbruc]

[...] would the elephants evolve to be tusk-less?

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?

[latexr]

> evolution occurs every time a new elephant is conceived

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.

[johannes1234321]

> maybe the resulting animal lives longer.

Living longer 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.