Slashdot Mirror
Shark 6th Sense Related to Human Evolution?
An anonymous reader writes "Scientists at the University of Florida are claiming that certain genes found in sharks that give them their 'sixth sense' and allow them to detect electrical signals could also be responsible for the development of the head and facial features in humans. From the article: 'The researchers examined embryos of the lesser spotted catshark. Using molecular tests, they found two independent genetic markers of neural crest cells in the sharks' electroreceptors. Neural crest cells are embryonic cells that pinch off early in development to form a variety of structures. In humans, these cells contribute to the formation of facial bones and teeth, among other things.'"
...do different things in different organisms. This is not news. It is a study of cellular fate in two different biological contexts of distantly related organisms.
It seems we get a new "sixth sense" every few months. Perhaps it's time to review the whole "five senses" thing so that people stop using "sixth sense" as if it's something special or supernatural?
Common (backboned) ancestor with (they think possibly) an electro-whatever sense
Demented But Determined.
Most fish have some electrical sense, though some may do it better than others. I'd guess this sense was re-invented many times.
Terrestial animals, including humans, can feel strong gradients in the air before thunderstorms.
The scientific method is pretty much the definition of how you aquire science (systematic knowledge). To agree or disagree with a definition does not make much sense.
;-)
However even if a model or theory cannot be scientificly proven or disproven it might be of use anyway, for example: mathematics is in fact not a science since it is derived from axioms (fundamental concepts *belived* to be true). Even so, no scientist would deny the usefulness of mathematics
Remember that you (as a mammal) are covered in tiny hairs. I think you "feel" electrostatic charges because these hairs stand on end.
Yeah. He was wrong. That's OK. Trouble is, he was wrong about just about every single thing he tried, and then got cited as an unassailable authority by just about everyone in Europe for over a thousand years.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Let us just say that the preponderance of evidence supports the theorey of evolution. Something that can not be said for creationism as explianed in the bible.
You are right, of course, bad science is everywhere you look. There will be scientists who believe in creationism, even blindly so. Afterall, we are all inherently irrational creatures and scientists are no exception.
Science, on the other hand, strives for the most rational explanations. And when the Grandparent said: We don't consider science to be subject to public policy, and as such, laymen don't get a vote. I think I can safely translate him to mean: Science cares not for an individual's desires, only for the truth
"Shared genetic material, shared aspects of biochemistry that could be different, shared morphology, etc."
Aren't those the same kinds of similarities between cars that have vastly different designers and designs? You're not proposing that cars are not the product of separate creations just because they have a lot of similarities are you?
Engineering and the Ultimate
Common elements of humans found in rocks. Have we evolved from a common ancestor?
Do rocks regularly make imperfect, self-sustaining copies of themselves?
If not, then your analogy is completely and totally inane.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Seriously: When it comes to shared ancestry, the evidence is very, very, very strong. There are hundreds of thousands of datapoints. There are an extreme number of predictions that have been done based on this, there are extreme amounts of verification.
You are actually jumping to a conclusion. I'm assuming this isn't malicious - you seem to want to actually get at the real answer - yet when you take the time to actually inspect the evidence around evolution, you'll find that it is confirmed a million ways. As I said in another post: Evolution explains most variation in nature. There may be other sources of variation we do not know of - yet they cannot displace evolution and the data we have around it. Instead, they may be supplementary theories, used *together with* evolution.
This knowledge is sort of like our knowledge of the continents. 500 years ago, we didn't know about more than a couple of continents - the eurasian continent and africa. Now, we know all the continents *and know we know all the continents*. There is sufficient evidence, criss-crossing and linked together, that we can say this as an absolute fact.
There is sufficient evidence of shared ancestry and evolution that we can say this as an absolute fact, too, with similar interlinking.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Look up the recent publications about alcohol dehydrogenases. What you now mention is a good example of convergent evolution, where the needs of function impose structure. The argument you use to counter my reply in effect proves my point. If you are a believer in intelligent design, please admit to it. But do not bother us here with its flawed arguments. For further discussion everybody is better off reading the judge's dissection of intelligent design in the recent Kansas ruling.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.