The hersterical (there is no misspelling) headline: “Polar bears are ‘rewriting their DNA’ to survive warming Arctic, study suggests” (one of many who “reported” on this).
I suppose it’s good to see the return of Lysenkoism trumpeted in a major propaganda outlet, because the old models in biology, as we have seen, are failing.
But it’s not as good to see artificial nervousness about polar bear population numbers, which have likely only been increasing since hunting them was officially frowned upon. In the early 1970s estimates said 5–8,000 left; today, nobody seems to have an accurate count, but the last solid estimate from 2015 gave 22–31,000 (activist groups seem anxious to downplay any good news about increases).
We have seen predictions of Arctic ice disappearing nearly every year from the 1970s (here’s a list). Yet Nature, being the ripe old lady she is, stubbornly ignores these predictions. The ice remains, and even increases from time to time.
All that is to one side, and not directly important to the “research” behind the headline. But it’s all well to keep in mind. We need only one more bit of information to help us, and that’s to note there are several different genetically dissimilar (to varying degree) subpopulations of polar bears, spread over the Greatest White North. The link above (and other sources) says there are 4 to 19 such populations. The exact number is not critical to us.
The peer-reviewed paper is “Diverging transposon activity among polar bear sub-populations inhabiting different climate zones” by Alice M Godden and others in Mobile DNA. Let’s look at the Abstract (with my paragraphifications):
A new subpopulation of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) was recently discovered in the South-East of Greenland.
This isolated colony inhabits a warmer climate zone, akin to the predicted future environments of polar bears with vastly reduced sea ice habitats, rendering this population of bears particularly important.
Over two-thirds of polar bears will be extinct by 2050 with total extinction predicted by the end of this century, therefore understanding possible mechanisms of adaptation via genomic analyses and preservation are critical.
Transposable elements (TEs) are mobile elements that may play a role in an adaptive response to environmental challenges. We analysed transcriptome data from polar bear sub-populations in cooler North-East (NEG) and warmer South-East Greenland (SEG) to compare TE activity between the two populations and its correlation with temperature and associated changes in gene expression.
We identified activity hotspots in the genome of regions with significantly differentially expressed TEs. LINE family TEs were the most abundant, and most differentially expressed and divergent in the SEG population compared to reference TEs. We report a significant shift in TE activity and age, with younger more abundant TEs in the SEG populations.
Differentially expressed genes in SEG populations were linked to Foxo signalling, ageing and metabolic pathways. Our results provide insights into how a genomic response at the TE level may allow the SEG subpopulations to adapt and survive to climate change and provides a useful resource for conservation in polar bears.
If you’re as used to reading these things as regular readers, you can see that none of it can be taken seriously. It is speculation, supposing, guessing, and a bit of activism, all masked as science. If you’re not so used to it, let’s see why.
If a new subpopulation was just discovered, than that means (and my apologies for pointing this out), a new subpopulation was discovered. Thus Polar bears must be doing okay.
The authors suppose, with no evidence, that genetic differences in the newly discovered subpoplation were caused by warmth, but if that’s true, then it means polar bears can adopt to heat, which means polar bears must be doing okay.
They say “Over two-thirds of polar bears will be extinct by 2050”, which shows they do not know the meaning of extinct, which requires all of the species dying off. Then they suddenly do remember what extinct means and say polar bears will go extinct after all of them are dead, and even after many of us are dead (in 2050), so that few of us will be left to check their prediction. Recall polar bears should have gone extinct several times already, given the many and varied predictions of demise.
But suppose this new prediction is accurate, and that polar bears will indeed go extinct by, say, 2100. Then what? Seriously: if polar bears will certainly be gone, besides lamentations, then what? It means it is inevitable, and of that which is inevitable, nothing can be done. So why worry?
We next learn “Transposable elements (TEs) are mobile elements that may play a role in an adaptive response to environmental challenges”. “May”, also means “may not”. It is speculation.
Next comes the correlation which becomes causation because it is their correlation, a common habit of scientists.
Finally comes the Big Contradiction. It seems polar bears won’t go extinct after all, and that “TE level” could “allow the SEG subpopulations to adapt and survive to climate change.” Once again, polar bears are doing okay, and will do okay.
This isn’t the worst science in the world, but it is of the kind that endemic. Scientists must publish or, unlike polar bears, they will go extinct. And they have learned that if you can tie research into “climate change”, you won’t perish.
If you doubt all this, I leave you with this picture of a headline that came out right after the paper:
Here are the various ways to support this work:
- Subscribe at Substack (paid or free)
- Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs
- Zelle: use email: matt@wmbriggs.com
- Buy me a coffee
- Paypal
- Other credit card subscription or single donations
- Hire me
- Subscribe at YouTube
- PASS POSTS ON TO OTHERS
Discover more from William M. Briggs
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
