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.'"
Have you ever, while having your eyes closed, felt the position of a pointy object several contimeters distant from you face, especially from your forearm? I did and many people know that feeling. I have no idea whether this is an electrostatic field or what, or if it has anything common with... sharks, but it is probably quite a common phenomenon. I do not really know why I have not seen it described anywhere in the literature.
6th sense: Your "stuffy room" sensor for excess CO2. 7th sense: Infrared sensors around your lips: Close your eyes. Put your hand three inches from your face. Feel the heat around your lips? 8th sense: Your ears can correlate pressure changes to detect that you're between walls.
"Evolutionists" don't have an agenda, unless you count science as an "agenda." We don't consider science to be subject to public policy, and as such, laymen don't get a vote.
This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution
If you believe in the general concept of "science" it absolutely does.
My point isn't to try and start a flame war, just simply that it's poor journalism to take something completely irrelevant to origin of life
Read the damned article. They're talking about the same stem cells in the embryo developing into electrosensors in sharks and ears in humans. That absolutely has everything to do with embryonic development which is known to mirror vertebrate evolution, at least to those who follow science.
It makes for bad science.
Are you a scientist? Because among actual scientists, evolution is as much an established fact as gravity. Don't fall off the edge of the flat earth on your way out the door.
There's a saying in developmental biology circles that neural crest cells are the only really interestng part of vertebrate embryology. They form (IIRC) the autonomic nervous system, endocrine glands and pigment-producing cells too, as well as the ganglion of the auditory nerve - which is why some animals show a link between colouration and deafness.
It just implies that sharks and us, remotely related as we are, use a common toolkit to specify seemingly different kinds of things, such as electroreceptors and neural crest cells in humans. The former may be neural crest derived. So are many receptors in our skin. It does not mean that we are descended from sharks in any way. We are related, as all life is. Nature abounds with examples where very remotely related genera will use very similar genes to specify tissues with similar functions but very dissimilar compositions. The same gene that specifies eyes in the fruit fly for instance specifies eyes in us humans. Yet our eyes are not like those of a fly at all. The gene says "Make an eye here". The same will apply to electroreceptors in sharks and neural crest derivatives in humans. One of the genes might say "migrate here and make this receptor", regardless of the identity of the receptor. A gene is a tool, like a hammer. It is not the blueprint.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
Anyway, one of the hard-to-pin-down aspects of shark encounters is a "sense" people report having just before they become fully aware of a big shark's presence. This may just be memory colored by the adrenaline rush that came with the encounter -- but it's very commonly reported that, moments before the water starts boiling or whatever, the surfer gets a cold, "something isn't right here" feeling.
(Which would also be a touch of an evolutionary advantage for the person able to sense it, yeah?)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I agree. To generalize a bit and throw in some random thoughts, the word dogma comes to mind when I read many posts about science on Slashdot. Here is a definition of dogma from Wikipedia:
"Dogma is belief or doctrine held by a religion or any kind of organization to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted."
In my estimation that definition describes a lot of Slashdotters' beliefs in science and scientists. Similar to what the author of the summary wrote. People are looking for ammunition to fit preconceived ideas, instead of just opening their mind and searching for the truth. To me that is what science is about or should be anyway, a search for the truth without prejudice.
I'm a bit off topic here and rambling, I guess seeing people try to bend and form scientific research to prove their own belief systems has been disturbing me lately. It seems that science is the new religion for many. This new religion's adherents are just as intolerant of other's viewpoints as good old fashioned religions have been.