[HN Gopher] History of Antarctica revealed in octopus DNA
___________________________________________________________________
History of Antarctica revealed in octopus DNA
Author : pseudolus
Score : 52 points
Date : 2023-12-22 11:42 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| throwup238 wrote:
| Using animal genetics to study other phenomena is one of my
| favorite techniques!
|
| We've got a lower bar for when humans started wearing clothing,
| for example, because about 120,000 (+/- 50,000) years ago body
| lice genetically diverged from head lice to the point that they
| could no longer mate.
| echelon wrote:
| That's so interesting! Do you have other examples?
| ace2358 wrote:
| And a reference would be great!
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Reference and abstract:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002236/
|
| Clothing use is an important modern behavior that contributed
| to the successful expansion of humans into higher latitudes and
| cold climates. Previous research suggests that clothing use
| originated anywhere between 40,000 and 3 Ma, though there is
| little direct archaeological, fossil, or genetic evidence to
| support more specific estimates. Since clothing lice evolved
| from head louse ancestors once humans adopted clothing, dating
| the emergence of clothing lice may provide more specific
| estimates of the origin of clothing use. Here, we use a
| Bayesian coalescent modeling approach to estimate that clothing
| lice diverged from head louse ancestors at least by 83,000 and
| possibly as early as 170,000 years ago. Our analysis suggests
| that the use of clothing likely originated with anatomically
| modern humans in Africa and reinforces a broad trend of modern
| human developments in Africa during the Middle to Late
| Pleistocene.
| tedunangst wrote:
| This is neat, but I'm not sure how it "warns" us of anything.
| Were the octopus harmed by the interbreeding in some way? Also,
| how does the existence of a past event predict the future? I get
| climate models, but this genetic evidence would also exist if the
| planet were getting colder.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| the warning is - yes, oceans were 10 meters higher, not long
| ago..
| ratboy666 wrote:
| To quote the article:
|
| "The new octopus genome data, she adds, "is pretty convincing
| evidence that a full collapse happened." The findings
| reinforce the importance of understanding how modern climate
| conditions are affecting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Dutton
| says. "This is telling us that we need to take this bigger
| picture seriously." Continued ocean warming--driven by
| greenhouse gas emissions--could destabilize the submerged
| portion of the ice sheet. To lower the chance of another
| collapse, she says, "We can't just kick the can down the road
| and wait to make emissions cuts for another 5 years, another
| 10 years. It really demands that we do it now."
|
| Emissions in the modern sense were not the cause of this.
| But, it happened. Is Dutton making the claim that emissions
| are the cause now? I'll accept all of Dutton's claims, except
| that one; there is no basis for that claim. Lower the chance
| of another collapse? By how much? Would that have actually
| helped 100,000 years ago? I make the claim that Dutton is
| suffering from hubris.
| twoWhlsGud wrote:
| You drive a car of type Model Z. Someone, looking at a
| crash of a Model Z which was going 50 mph, discovers a
| design flaw that is particularly acute when the car is
| driven faster than 70. Do you:
|
| * adjust your driving behavior in accordance with whatever
| bayesian impact the new data has?
|
| * psychoanalyze the person doing the research, or decide
| that nothing that happens at 50 mph could tell you
| something about the behavior at 70 to reassure yourself you
| can ignore the new data?
|
| Your call...
| wredue wrote:
| There are indeed multiple sources of emissions, many not at
| all needing human intervention at all.
|
| Luckily, we can generally measure natural emissions vs
| human emissions and find how much of it is being caused by
| us. Incidentally, due to where various gasses are trapped,
| many natural looking emissions are still our fault, this is
| frequently discussed in talks and papers about runaway
| climate change (note that I mean talks and papers from
| scientific authorities, not Facebook and fox)
| happytiger wrote:
| Yea the verbiage is sensationalist. But sea level rise is more
| than an existential threat, it would reshape everything.
|
| Here is what the octopus genetics tells us is possible (to
| repeat):
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VbiRNT_gWUQ
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| reshape everything < existential threat.
|
| Sorry, but it is a pet peeve of mine that existential threat
| bas become a buzzword devoid of meaning.
| kulahan wrote:
| If you have a house of cards and someone starts swapping
| them out for other random things, most of which do not
| work, then reshaping everything == existential threat. Our
| environment is in an incredibly delicate balance in some
| locations, and we don't know how losing some species might
| have larger domino effects.
|
| If they're rare creatures, maybe the effect won't be large.
| But who knows?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think your response reinforces my point. I understand
| existential threat to mean human extinction threat.
|
| Humans can outlive the destruction and change of
| basically every environment on earth. We can live in
| swamps and blistering deserts.
|
| What do you think existential threat means?
| playingalong wrote:
| They might either mean that the (current line of)
| humanity will not continue
|
| or
|
| Millions will die.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| For the latter, I contend that millions die every week as
| the status quo, so I don't see events that might kill 10s
| or even a few hundred million as an real existential
| threat.
| exe34 wrote:
| Remember what happened during COVID? Now imagine the
| "essential" workers are all dead or too busy fighting for
| the last scrap of food. The food trucks no longer turn
| up. The hospitals aren't running. You might survive, but
| our technological civilization of billions won't.
| kulahan wrote:
| An existential threat to us is, as the name implies, a
| threat to our existence. Unknown domino effects which may
| or may not have changes so large that it causes massive
| swathes of humans to die off, forever changing the future
| of our species, seems to fit that description.
|
| How much more does it need to be existential to you?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| A credible chance of extinction without unknown unknowns.
| exe34 wrote:
| I see it as an existential threat to our technological
| civilization. Humans, like cockroaches, will survive. It's
| just not going to be a place you'll want to live in.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| For curiosity of the reader and myself. How are the genetic
| markers isolated in a way that it can without of a doubt explain
| an iceshelf collapse?
|
| I think an article like this should go more in depth. I am just
| wondering because it doesn't explain the process.
|
| I also don't disagree with the worrisome amount of greenhouse
| emissions.
| borissk wrote:
| "The average temperature of the planet was about 0.5degC warmer
| than it is today--and climate projections predict it will be
| again within decades. The global sea level was also 5 meters to
| 10 meters higher than current levels. Many scientists believe the
| collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and consequent melting
| could have been a primary reason."
|
| So there's a good chance the inevitable 0.5degC warming will be
| followed by a massive raise of the ocean waters. That will have
| some interesting effects on the society. No wonder Mark Facebook
| and probably most of the other billionaires are building bunkers.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-22 23:01 UTC)