# Revisiting Polar Bears: Evolution News **URL:** \ **Category:** Conversation\ **Tags:** Design\ **Created:** [May 2, 2019, 12:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/revisiting-polar-bears-evolution-news/6005 "2019-05-02T12:58:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 22
**Author:** ![sfmatheson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sfmatheson/32/22811_2.png) [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 2:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/revisiting-polar-bears-evolution-news/6005/22 "2019-05-08T14:16:15Z")
> [@NLENTS](#): > > > @sfmatheson Has any one responded to this? > > Yes they have. Their position, stated repeatedly, is that he was culling just the “relevant data” that shows the damaging mutations in question and there was nothing misleading or inappropriate in doing that. To be honest, I don’t think even THEY believe that. I think what we’re seeing in the flurry of highly redundant posts is damage control. I don’t read ENV so I missed all that, thanks. This is perhaps right in @swamidass wheelhouse, but a very recent paper compared various methods of predicting ‘pathogenicity’ and found a range of effectiveness. PolyPhen-2 is median. I don’t know whether DI is selling PPH2 as some kind of gold standard, but this paper seems to show that there are much better tools. > **[How good are pathogenicity predictors in detecting benign variants?](https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1006481)** > > Author summary In precision/personalized medicine of many conditions it is essential to investigate individual’s genome. Interpretation of the observed variation (mutation) sets is feasible only with computational approaches. We assessed the... --- _[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/revisiting-polar-bears-evolution-news/6005)._