You can watch my interview with Tom Nelson about the latest issues in polar bear conservation and highlights of my latest book, Polar Bear Evolution.
On Youtube:
Tom tells me, “It’s also up on other video sites such as Rumble and BitChute, and will soon be available on other podcast apps such as Apple Podcasts (most, but not all, of those are audio-only). It should also be on Spotify, Google Podcasts, Pocket Casts, Podvine, Overcast, Amazon Music podcasts, Audible podcasts, Castbox, RadioPublic, Twitter, etc.”
Summary: Susan Crockford, a zoologist, discusses the challenges in accurately estimating polar bear populations and the ongoing debate between Inuit communities and polar bear specialists regarding population sizes. She also shares her theory on the role of thyroid hormones in polar bear evolution and the quick adaptation of species to new environments using the example of the Russian foxes.
A list of topics covered, by time-stamp in the interview, is listed below.
1,874 views Jan 18, 2024 (at 8 pm PST) Tom Nelson Podcast
Scientist Susan Crockford has spent decades writing professional papers and books but has been blogging about polar bears for non-scientists since 2012. Her books include Polar Bear Evolution: A Model for How New Species Arise, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, Sir David Attenborough and the Walrus Deception, Polar Bear Facts & Myths (for kids), and (for fiction lovers) a polar bear attack thriller set in Newfoundland called EATEN.
00:00 Introduction and Guest Presentation
00:32 Recent Developments in Polar Bear Research
01:31 Discrepancies in Polar Bear Population Reports
04:03 The Impact of Climate Change on Polar Bear Populations
05:08 Challenges in Polar Bear Population Management
05:38 Historical Perspective on Polar Bear Populations
08:07 The Politics of Polar Bear Research
10:13 The Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Polar Bear Research
13:46 The Consequences of Speaking Out in Polar Bear Research
23:35 Exploring Polar Bear Evolution
32:56 The Mystery of Animal Transformation
33:22 Debunking Genetic Mutation Theory
34:06 The Role of Thyroid Hormone in Animal Transformation
36:33 Understanding Hormonal Rhythms
38:27 The Hypothesis of Hormonal Selection
39:58 The Theory’s Reception and Testability
41:17 Challenges in Measuring Thyroid Hormone
41:39 Potential Testing Methods and Future Research
46:29 Exploring Polar Bear Evolution
01:00:34 The Role of Thyroid Hormone in Species Differentiation
01:03:30 The Process of Animal Domestication
01:07:14 Closing Remarks
Dr. Susan is a climate skeptic hero. She has made three BIG contributions.
I wrote a long guest post about the Holocene development of sedentary agriculture (domestication of plants and animals) and the importance of epigenetics therein in a longish post over at Judith’s some years ago. Non dry bean epigenetic examples include teosinte==> maise(corn), Guinea fowl==>chicken, wild boar==>swine, aurochs==> cows, and wolves==>dogs. DNA basically all the same, behavior most definitely not.
See Susan at 30 + minutes where she discusses “foxes” becoming “dogs” in just a short time, a limited number of generations.
Yes, that is why I say all canids are just dogs.
ALL the required genetic material for every type of dog, is in every other type of dog. Therefore there is only one species, DOG.
So IMO, when Susan speaks of “speciation” I think the reality is just “specialization” to their environment, and although with time specific physiological changes occur and become prominent, that does not mean that a new species is the result.
So, as to brown and white bears, I think the same of those two “big bears” since they can breed with each other and reproduce and the offspring can reproduce. They are ONE species. With time and different environmental influences, white bears would, again IMO, revert to Brown Bears.
Foxes did not become dogs. They have different numbers of chromosomes for starters. And all the evidence is that dogs evolved from wolves.
No Isaak, just no. Dogs evolved from an ancient (now extinct) wolf-like ancestor that was related but different and distinct from the modern wolf population. Dogs are not descended from modern Wolves.
There is also a wild african dog south of the Sahara.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_wild_dog
His system is geared for a virtually 100% meat diet. The article tells of his very small numbers, but there are a fair number that have been domesticated. I was given one as a house dog by an Englishman to look after while he was on leave when I was working for the GeologicalSurvey of Nigeria in the mid 1960s.
I can attest to his meat consumption. We had guests for dinner and I had taken a roast out of the oven and put it on the stove top. Stepping away to get a carving knife, the dog jumped up and snatched the roast, which he dropped because it was hot. I grabbed it off the floor, rinsed it in water and put it back in the stove to sterilize it for a while. After dinner, I gave the remains to the dog.
Oh and btw – foxes and dogs share a common ancestor but, as I mentioned, they both only share a distant ancestry with wolves. Without looking it up further, I’d doubt that dogs evolved from foxes – it’s more likely they both evolved from the same type of ancestor but different from wolves.
I just have to disagree with that last point, Drake, we would both agree that Brown and Polar Bears would produce viable hybrids if they mated, but I think that Polar Bears have gone a step further away from Brown bears than just having a different coat. The webbed paws, specialised for swimming, the lack of male hibernation are of a different type of bear, not one that would easily revert to a Brown Bear.
I remember reading about an amphibian (salamander?) in California that has a northern version, a central version and a southern version.
The central version can breed with both of the others but the northern cannot breed with the southern. (I don’t think there was any mention of whether or not the central crosses could then reproduce themselves.)
Excellent summation, Rud!
And that is not a small compliment! I envy those with that writing ability.
A couple comments, not contradictions or criticisms.
Last one first:
Current assumptions for serious human caused impacts to farming with changes to human raised foods, every agriculture life style.
e.g., Common European, Asian family of vegetables, all with identical DNA, to our knowledge, are the cabbages, brassica oleracea; Varieties are represented by cabbage, Brussel sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, kohlrabi, etc.
Mankind has eaten genetically modified foods since the dawn of agriculture.
One would be remiss if one did not point out this is just a rough correlation. During the same period polar bears got access to more food over longer periods of time.
Nor is “hunting” the proper word for commercial harvest of polar bears.
Polar bear hair was a favorite for tying tails and bodies on weighted jigs and was in millions of fly tying kits as well as the furs used by commercial lure making companies.
If anyone would know game and predator abundance, it would be local subsistence hunters.
Holy poley schmoley I’ve come out of my shell and turned turtle on critter sustainability-
Texas aquarium rescues cold-stunned turtles from freezing waters | Watch (msn.com)
But the oceans are boiling! I was expecting Turtle Soup not frozen Turtle.
Heard this already. Her theory about changes that underlie domestication and other rapid evolutionary changes is fascinating – gonna buy the book.
So am I.
In fact if I had the money, I’d buy extra’s for some commenters on here – they need to read her book!