Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The discovery of a rare wild Grolar bear, a fertile Grizzly / Polar bear hybrid, is being treated as a terrifying sign of global warming in the Arctic.
Grolar bears: Climate change could be behind grizzly-polar bear hybrid, scientists say
An unusual bear shot by a hunter days ago in Nunavut, a territory in northern Canada, is thought by experts to be a “grolar” or “pizzly” bear.
But some scientists say the two bear species are breeding more often because climate change is causing them to cross paths.
Chris Servheen, a bear biologist and Adjunct Associate Research Professor at the University of Montana, said sightings of this hybrid bear species have been very rare in the past.
“But they seem to be more common now,” he said.
Mr Servheen said not very much was known about the grolar and pizzly bears, as little contact had yet to be made between them and humans.
Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-19/grolar-pizzly-bears-climate-change-creating-hybrids/7428354
My question: why aren’t greens celebrating this find, as evidence that Polar bears are capable of rapidly changing their phenotype, in response to radical changes to the polar climate?
Hybridisation is a common form of adaption in the natural world, which allows the rapid spread of important survival traits amongst diverse populations. Modern humans carry the genetic fingerprint of frequent hybridisation, including evidence of likely cross breeding with Neanderthals. Some scientists even claim hybridisation was not only important, but essential to the rise of modern humans.
The Hybrid Origin of “Modern” Humans
Recent genomic research has shown that hybridization between substantially diverged lineages is the rule, not the exception, in human evolution. However, the importance of hybridization in shaping the genotype and phenotype of Homo sapiens remains debated. Here we argue that current evidence for hybridization in human evolution suggests not only that it was important, but that it was an essential creative force in the emergence of our variable, adaptable species. We then extend this argument to a reappraisal of the archaeological record, proposing that the exchange of cultural information between divergent groups may have facilitated the emergence of cultural innovation. We discuss the implications of this Divergence and Hybridization Model for considering the taxonomy of our lineage.
Read more: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11692-015-9348-1
Evidence of occasional fertile hybridisation of Polar Bears is simply evidence that Polar Bears are more adaptable than environmentalists generally accept. If the arctic ever warms to such an extent, purebred Polar Bears are no longer ecologically viable, they would simply be replaced with hybrids, or even near purebred Grizzlies. And when Arctic conditions cooled again, creating strong selection pressure for lighter fur, “Polar Bears” would quickly re-emerge from the diverse ursine gene pool.
“They seem to be more common now”
And that could not possibly result from having a much higher population of observers in the arctic than at any time in the past?
It could also have to do with having a much higher population of Polar Bears in the arctic.
Bingo!!! And this principle applies to every aspect of climate science, and also of life.
Even non-existent things can become more numerous when their is some incentive to discover them.
For example, during the witch craze, witchfinders noted that witches were becoming increasingly numerous.
Of course, now we are discovering more extreme weather, river erosion, glacial retreat, flooding, extinctions, hybrid polar bears etc etc.
Often, in places where we were not previously looking.
It seems as though the more we look, the more things we find.
The general public are far too trusting of the nonsense that is delivered to them as “science”.
I don’t think that the ordinary person imagines that a “scientist” might be willing to overlook this very obvious consideration.
Apologies – the first “their” should be “there”. And I should be more careful when posting.
“… sightings of this hybrid bear species have been very rare in the past.”
“But they seem to be more common now,” he said.”
1) When you spend more tie looking for something, you’re more likely to find it.
2) AND as pointed out by Dr. Crockford, above, the larger polar population can/will cause expansion out of its common range and habitat.
3) But, since the most reasonable 1 & 2 don’t justify the appropriate ends, our (and by “our”, I mean yours) CO2 output must therefore must be assumed to be the primary cause.
“But some scientists say the two bear species are breeding more often because climate change is causing them to cross paths.”
“Some scientists” say a lot of things. Mostly dumb, unscientific things completely lacking in evidence, particularly regarding “climate change”.
Since the meme about “climate change” supposedly threatening polar bears except that their numbers were increasing didn’t pan out, I suppose now they’ll try latching onto this ridiculous claim.
Obviously, the grizzly bears are not paying attention to that sign on the border of Nunavut that says ‘Polar Bears only beyond this line’.
Bruce in addition to “some scientists” you have the quote there “seems” to be more hybrids now than before. Seems like the usual hype. Not one measurement in a carload of somes and seems and maybes and coulds a plenty.
This is something of a rehash of the old dispute between “lumpers” and “splitters” in naming species. Once, there were several named species of brown bears.
Even with all the genetic sequencing, there is still the question of how much of a genetic difference is “necessary” to differentiate between species, subspecies, etc. I had a professor who pointed out that one could argue that all “splitting” should have the same requirements across the board: x genes/differences are needed to split into any class, any order, any genus. The same number of differences would be needed to differentiate between insect species as mammal species or bird species. Good luck working that out.
Of course, thinking our classifications really matter is an anthropocentric conceit. No animal cares besides humans. If they can breed/mate (and feel the urge), they will. If offspring result, the animal is not going to seek an abortion because the baby is a hybrid.
Things are going to change, whether we like it or not. I am not advocating apathy, but humans need to exercise some humility and gain some perspective. A polar bear is not thinking, “Hey, humans are using fossil fuels. As a result, I now feel an urge to mate with grizzly bears, an urge that did not exist in my species prior to the Industrial Revolution.”
From what I read I understand that green are avaient all what is known since Darwin about evolution
So can they be qualified as creativist?
World waw created one way and must ne er change!
A grizzly bear is just a sub-species of brown bear. If the geneticists are correct, Ursus maritimus evolved from the brown bear.
On the pitfalls of interbreeding-
Perhaps they were both colour blind; or just not racist?
Way off scale on the absurdity index:
1- “We have only seen a few examples [ever?]” but we are sure this one bear is evidence of a trend caused by climate change. Oh wait, might not even be a hybrid. Oh wait, we might have killed the only living example. The fundamental green hypocrisy – we had to kill the bear to save it.
2 – Grizzlys don’t like humans – duh – from an early age, young grizzlies learn that humans have bang sticks and kill their parents. Forget the Middle East – the UN should fund a negotiation to end the bear-human hostilities and return the world to its perfect Gaia state, where young children could play and take naps with their bear cub friends while the parents sit around and feast on salmon together.
3 – Assertions based on zero evidence. Maybe they are being “seen more frequently” because hunters are venturing further north due to climate change.
But I can’t wait to see the breathless headline in the HuffPuff this afternoon – “Giant Mutant Grizzly-polar Bears Rampaging Through the Arctic Thanks to Climate Change!”
Grizzly’s and Polar Bears both love humans. Especially with a little ketchup.
I hate to see a good opportunity to do some science wasted by the CAGW zealots, who only take these opportunities to advance the propaganda, not actually find out what’s going on. For example:
1. Is this males impregnating females, or the reverse (would imply different range behaviors)?
2. There is strong evidence (see Susan’s Polar Bear Science blog) that polar bear populations are expanding – is the mating a result of territory pressure (e.g. Polars moving south?), or grizzles moving north?
3. Polar bears can survive for long periods in southern ranges (ever see any in San Diego at the zoo?), but more importantly, they can spend many summer months away from their source of food, because of spring gorging,
4. While global temperatures are going up (somewhat, barely) globally, what’s happening locally in Canada ranges where these species are coming into contact? Summer cooling? There is some evidence for that, which would make this mating completely irrelevant to CAGW, or even AGW for that matter.
I can think of another four or five questions to investigate that similarly don’t prove anything about the alarmist meme – is anybody doing science on that?
This stuff really irritates me, when there are real scientific questions to answer about phenomena like this.
“Is this males impregnating females, or the reverse..”. you will need to explain that a little more.
Wolves and coyotes sometimes interbreed as well. Republicans and Democrats have been known to marry each other. And the point is…
Taylor,
See my comment above – what’s going on is that tundra grizzlies in Nunavut are expanding and moving south into suitable habitat. They were over-hunted for decades (if not centuries) but are now recovering.
As I said, note that this article (and the CBC one I cite) did not consult a polar bear specialist for comment. That’s a bit odd, I think.
Susan
Indeed. Remove humans and spectacular results, no need for “climate change”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/
Susan
I’m a fully qualified polar bear non-expert (I know nothing…), and I always enjoy your posts.
I do have a question about your 7:54 post: you say tundra grizzlies are moving south (presumably into polar bear territory); did you mean the polar bears are moving south (presumably into grizzly territory)?
Javert,
No. It’s the grizzlies that are moving – the polar bears have always occupied NW Hudson Bay. As I understand it, the tundra population (in Nunavut – to the north of Arviat, where this bear was shot) are recovering nicely, and moving south into suitable habitat.
The only other possibility is that grizzlies on the prairies are moving east (from Manitoba) but according to recent censuses that seems unlikely – just not that many grizzlies around.
why mess up a good climate scare story by asking a real expert???
JVC
Aha, Grizzlies moving south – who would have thought? Susan, thanks, another great example of a cranky non expert being enlightened by an expert. Thanks for taking the time to educate me, and also prove that this has little to do with warming. If grizzlies are moving south, and running into polar bears, you could even make a case that this argues for cooling, not warming…
with wishes for continued success with your blog,
Taylor
Meanwhile, here is the news from Scotland:
“Keepers at a wildlife park were left scratching their heads when what looked like a brown bear
turned up in the polar bear enclosure.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14504416._Brown_bear__found_in_polar_bear_enclosure_at_Highland_Wildlife_Park/
The photograph is superb…
I have to thank you for posting that link. One of the funniest things I have seen in quite a while!
How biology has changed. Whatever happened to The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution?
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Modern_Synthesis.html
Ernst Mayr was instrumental in gaining recognition of his biological species concept, according to which a species is a set of organisms that can interbreed among each other.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/2/l_062_01.html
So are polar bears and grizzly bears different species or merely two varieties of the same species? Are these bears more or less alike than are Great Danes and Saint Bernard dog varieties?
More like dogs and wolves, which also freely hybridize… or coyotes and wolves that also hybridize, or…
Well, dogs are now classified as Canis lupus familiarus. Now every dog owner has a wolf-dog. Even the Pomeranians are now considered wolves. That last fact is probably the best argument against defining species by ability to interbreed. 🙂
The more likely reason caused by man is the reduction of bear habitat causing polar bears and grizzlies to cross paths more often. If the planet is warming, habitable surface increases and all of this increase occurs in prime polar bear territory, so you would expect less interaction with other species.
Pizzly bears.
The most likely reason is a randy grizzly/polar bear male meeting a randy polar/grizzly female bear and then getting jiggy with it. Or maybe it’s an albino grizzly?
When a group of bears get isolated from the general population, and the lighter-colored ones have greater reproductive success, this is due to a decrease in genetic variability; the light-fur trait was more latent, but in the right conditions has become more common, to the detriment of the full range of genetic variability.
This is not evolution, addition of information, but devolution, loss of information.
“but essential to the rise of modern humans”
Radical environmentals consider modern humans to be the source of all problems. So it’s natural that the process that gave rise to them would be considered evil.
This is also evidence that Grizzly’s and Polar Bears aren’t separate species, but merely sub-species.
MarkW
Sorry Mark, but even animals from different genera can interbreed. A bit of hybridization does not invalidate separate species status. Many people are taught that simple rule but it’s actually more complicated than that.
Yup.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep%E2%80%93goat_hybrid
Different genera, yet crosses are common despite different chromosome counts…
It isn’t a species barrier, only a species strong suggestion…
” If the arctic ever warms to such an extent, purebred Polar Bears are no longer ecologically viable, they would simply be replaced with hybrids, or even near purebred Grizzlies. And when Arctic conditions cooled again, creating strong selection pressure for lighter fur, “Polar Bears” would quickly re-emerge from the diverse ursine gene pool.”
Evidence shows that this is exactly what happened in the past when temperatures rose or fell.
The polar bears’ island is sinking; the grizzly bears’ island is sinking, so they are forced to swim out to a third, strange, foreign island somewhere in between. This means loss of identity and culture. Could governments not step in and arrange expensive I mean extensive programs to preserve bear culture and identity? Start by parachuting in grief counselors… Provide safe spaces… And inclusive restrooms…
Perfect planetary conditions were just before the Industrial Revolution and humans commencing the big increase in burning fossil fuels.
CO2~280 parts per million=perfect(even though plants were starving and would have been shutting down if CO2 had decreased 120 ppm instead of increased that much)
Global temperature then, shortly after the Little Ice Age has also been deemed as the perfect temperature, to use as a metric to compare where we have come from and where we are headed.
A snap shot of life on the planet(that we think existed) during that time frame is also seen as the near perfect environment that we should judge all changes in life since then by.
It is true that humans have had some profoundly , widespread, negative impacts on life and the environment of planet earth. This continues today. However, the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has rescued life from dangerously low levels of this beneficial gas.
The best thing that we could do would be to increase CO2 another 120 ppm and concentrate on cleaning up the real pollution.
It is part of the church dogma for the Church of Climate Change.
The Roman Catholic Church tried to cling to geocentrist view of the universe even as the scientific observational evidence built that it was at least heliocentric. Then it was church dogma of an earth and mankind ruling over it that wasat the center of God’s creation.
Today, the Church of Climate Change central dogma is that any change in climate, and by extension any plant or animal adaption in response, is the work of man’s poisoning, defiling, and destruction. This tenet of the church professes on faith that the evil CO2 molecule is “carbon pollution” as the key sin.
And not just any-old CO2 molecule, but that really nasty anthropogenic CO2 molecule that came from oil, gas, or coal burning, as if climate and GHG physics cared on the provenance of the carbon atom. The magical anthropogenic CO2 molecule thus causing all sorts of environmental mayhem according to CC church dogma. Take it on faith. If you don’t believe, then the congregants have perjorative epithets to label you, just as other religions have for heretics, blasphemers, infidels, heathens, and apostates.
Yes, the Green religion is like all the others. It’s a collection of faith based beliefs reinforced with guilt and fear.
I fail to see the “Panic” part in the quote or in the article. Could me explain where you see that “greens panic”?
If asked, I’d be inclined to remark that wouldn’t increased hybridisation indicate larger populations of both Grizzly and Polar Bear. Meaning more opportunities to interbreed? Surely, given the Greens regular hand waving over Ursus Maritimus being so threatened, should this not be celebrated as ‘good’ news?
For a given value of ‘good’, as in the Greens little world, it appears all change but the change they say they want is ‘bad’.