May 11, 2006
THERE GOES THE "M" IN DARWINISM:
DNA tests confirm bear was a hybrid (AP, 5//10/06)
Northern hunters, scientists and people with vivid imaginations have discussed the possibility for years.But Roger Kuptana, an Inuvialuit guide from Sachs Harbour, North West Territories, was the first to suspect it had actually happened when he proposed that a strange-looking bear shot last month by an American sports hunter might be half polar bear, half grizzly.
Territorial officials seized the creature after noticing its white fur was scattered with brown patches and that it had the long claws and humped back of a grizzly. Now a DNA test has confirmed that it is indeed a hybrid — possibly the first documented in the wild.
Though open-minded people hardly needed more proof that species is a social construct. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 11, 2006 7:55 AM
A pizzly bear?
Posted by: Rick T. at May 11, 2006 9:28 AMAre we witnessing evolution?
Posted by: AllenS at May 11, 2006 10:35 AMAllen:
No, proof that there is no such thing as speciation via Darwinism.
Posted by: oj at May 11, 2006 11:07 AMI thought anti-evolutionists believed in the fixity of species.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at May 11, 2006 12:37 PMFixity yes, but there's no such thing as species. There are bears, just like there are pigs. Darwin observed farmers breeding pig varieties and figured, correctly, that bears (for example) might similarly breed into varieties in the wild. He went hilariously wrong when he imagined that even though the pigs stayed pigs under designed evolution the bears might naturally speciate until they learned to read the newspaper on their own.
Posted by: oj at May 11, 2006 12:45 PMWith so much evolutionary science lost in the miasma of DNA analysis and fossil studies, the non-scientist has to fall back on plausibility to make any kind of measured judgment. Either that or just park his brain and surrender completely to "a consensus of the overwhelming majority of biologists", blah, blah. I've always thought natural selection (as the exclusive driver) failed that test, but genetic drift seems quite pausible. I would probably have bought it were there not so many suspicious articles about how the ability to interbreed would have been lost if the isolated species hadn't been discovered in the nick of time by those nosy scientists.
But a previous article on this bear claimed polar bears and grizzlies went their separate ways 250,000 years ago and that they never interbreed in the wild. How long is genetic drift supposed to take?
Posted by: Peter B at May 11, 2006 3:31 PM"until they learned to read the newspaper on their own."
Does the theft of picnic baskets count?
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 11, 2006 8:57 PMOnly outside Jellystone Park.
Posted by: Dave W at May 11, 2006 10:21 PM