Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

First-ever natural narwhal-beluga hybrid found, has bizarre teeth

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From ScienceDaily:

A team of researchers has compiled the first and only evidence that narwhals and beluga whales can breed successfully. DNA and stable isotope analysis of an anomalous skull from the Natural History Museum of Denmark has allowed researchers to confirm the existence of a narwhal-beluga hybrid.

The hybrid’s skull was found on the roof of a hunter’s toolshed in Greenland.

“As far as we know, this is the first and only evidence in the world that these two Arctic whale species can interbreed. Based on the intermediate shape of the skull and teeth, it was suggested that the specimen might be a narwhal-beluga hybrid, but this could not be confirmed. Now we provide the data that confirm that yes — it is indeed a hybrid,” says Eline Lorenzen, evolutionary biologist and curator at the University of Copenhagen’s Natural History Museum of Denmark. Lorenzen led the study, which was published today in Scientific Reports.

Using DNA and stable isotope analysis, the scientists determined that the skull belonged to a male, first-generation hybrid between a female narwhal and male beluga.

The hybrid’s skull was considerably larger than that of a typical narwhal or beluga. But the teeth were markedly different. Whereas narwhals have only one or rarely two long spiraling tusks, belugas have a set of uniform conical teeth that are aligned in straight rows. The hybrid skull has a set of long, spiraling and pointed teeth, that are angled horizontally.

“This whale has a bizarre set of teeth. The isotope analysis allowed us to determine that the animal’s diet was entirely different than that of a narwhal or beluga — and it is possible that its teeth influenced its foraging strategy. Whereas the other two species fed in the water column, the hybrid was a bottom dweller,” according to Mikkel Skovrind, a PhD student at the Natural History Museum and first author of the paper.

Paper. (open access) – Mikkel Skovrind, Jose Alfredo Samaniego Castruita, James Haile, Eve C. Treadaway, Shyam Gopalakrishnan, Michael V. Westbury, Mads Peter Heide-Jørgensen, Paul Szpak, Eline D. Lorenzen. Hybridization between two high Arctic cetaceans confirmed by genomic analysis. Scientific Reports, 2019; 9 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-44038-0 More.

For all we know, this could be common. If it’s a bottom dweller, who was looking? Maybe hybridization plays a bigger role in evolution than we supposed. And then schoolbook Darwinism plays a smaller one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcQ9KfoizXw

See also: Bird, Tested And Released, Turned Out To Be A Hybrid Of Three Species

Is The Recently Cited Hybrid Dolphin-Whale A “New Species”? No.

and

A physicist looks at biology’s problem of “speciation” in humans

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Mimus: Honestly, I'm perfectly OK. When I was eight, I could jump 10 inches high; when I was sixteen, I could jump 20 inches high; when I was 24, I could jump 30 inches high; therefore, when I'm 32, I'll be able to jump 40 inches high, and when I'm 40, I'll be able to jump 50 inches high. Microevoluion is NOT macroevoluion. Darwin made the mistake of extrapolating small changes into huge changes, and evolutionary biologists (Darwinists) ever since have perpetuated this mistake. However, modern biology and its powerful genetic analyses bring out the error being made. Now, it's just 'true believers' propping up an antequated theory, much like the Ptolemians. IOW, ADAPTATION is NOT evolution. Hence, the substitution. Read Behe's "Edge of Evolution".PaV
June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Brother Brian:
Which puts paid to the debt of mutations and selection not being observed to produce new species.
You continually equivocate and that is very telling. Even YECs accept that speciation occurs and that it is driven by variation- designed in variation produced by built-in responses to environmental cues (Spetner 1997).ET
June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Brother Brian:
If a cat fossil was found in the Cambrian evolution would be falsified .
Nonsense. For one you don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes so forget about cats.
Yet both are completely consistent with evolution.
That all depends on what you mean by "evolution", as blind watchmaker evolution can't even produce eukaryotes so forget about a crayfish.ET
June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
The first one. These posts are verging on the the kairosfocus/BA77 level, I don't engage with those two because ti's pretty clear they have an unhealthy relationship to this site. Hopefully PaV isn't joining them.Mimus
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
:-/ Are you really honestly asking if he’s OK or are you just plainly mocking his statementAaronS1978
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
Honestly PaV, are you OK? You are not making a lot of sense.Mimus
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
ADAPTATION is not progressive: it is conservative; it tends to the status quo. Of course, as Gould told us, the great hidden secret of paleontology is that what the fossil record demonstrates is mostly "stasis."PaV
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
Well I think it’s more of an argument towards the semantics of evolution in its definition and how you view it. Evolution often means change, with a dash of teleology, as often evolution is regarded as a change for the better, but that’s predominantly because of our current media. Evolution doesn’t really change for the better, it just changes for whatever works at that time I think the real disagreements come from what is the lead cause for change. The main factor Like in the case of brother Brian and myself he leans towards natural selection being the main factor. Which of course is mutations, which can’t often be predicted, and natural selection selecting the survivable mutations out of the bunch. I lean towards life being teleological and having far more control over those factors then what brother Brian is willing to give it or many evolutionists for that matter. Neither one of us disagreed with a lot of points that we made above about hybridization I’m not saying that we agreed completely on things we don’t, We just view things differently. You see I just don’t agree that natural selection could create all the biodiversity we have today, Nor do I believe that it’s random and it was strictly for survival. What I do believe is that life, it’s self, is the writer of its own evolution (change) and that it does actively adapt versus waiting for some unseen force that has no brain to act upon it by happenstance. I believe life has teleology built into it and that is why I lean towards ID and I’m religious. This is not to say that natural selection doesn’t happen I just don’t think it’s the star of the show it’s more like someone that pulls the curtains aside. That is why I except things like hybridization more readily over slow and gradual processes that can be very messy and actually produce a lot of different things that don’t work a.k.a. a lot of guesswork that we really don’t see a lot of in the fossil record No that’s not to say that it doesn’t happen, but the way evolution has been described to me is that it is messy and doesn’t know what it’s doing and that it would have to have an incredible number of mutations to produce one successful species. And I would expect to see a lot of mistakes all branching from one species as it continues to change but we don’t we see a lot of different species being molded and sculpted and then suddenly change and I think that’s better explained by hybridization and life having a more active role in its own evolution, Of course you can only say that our physics is the guiding hand of God so again that’s another way of looking at it, natural selection is actual god acting on his creation. Now you can argue that certain body parts and organs are mistakes and have no function. But how often do we find that they had function or still have function and we were wrong about our original assumption. Anyways, species seem to come and go only because something dramatic killed them or they magically disappeared, and I think a lot of those disappearances can be attributed to intermingling with other species in creating something better and more adept But life doesn’t wait for evolution or I won’t say evolution, I’ll say natural selection to act on it. natural selection is a common sense strategy it’s built into cause-and-effect, but life actively adapts for example bacteria can use crispr to remove genetic markers to protect them selves from viruses life has so many of these bizarre but amazing novelties that seem to just perfectly work in their environments. So don’t get me wrong life changes and if you’re using evolution as a definition for change yeah that’s true But I don’t believe life just sits there and waits for some stupid event to happen like a mutation or an extinction event. And if you want to perfect example of that, the most perfect example of a species not waiting for natural like selection to take its place well look at usAaronS1978
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Mimus
What do you think adaptation means? Apparently they think that it means design.
Brother Brian
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
What do you think adaptation means?Mimus
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Brother Brian: I've adjusted your statement to make it correct:
If there was no variation in populations, ADAPTATION would be falsified. If variations were not heritable ADAPTATION would be falsified. If there was no source of variation ADAPTATION would be falsified. If there was no differential survival based on variations ADAPTATION would be falsified. If a cat fossil was found in the Cambrian evolution would be falsified (barring time travel of course ???? ).
PaV
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
I’m not sure it’s actually possible with in our physics there could ever be anything that showed no variation. Cyanobacteria, Ctenophora coelacanths elephant sharks and stromatolites all are living fossils with little possibly no variation, which I doubt, but all I’m sure have some type of variation. Even creatures that are 100% clones of them selves have variation of some kind just because of epigenetics and other environmental factors Survival of the fittest is just a logic, why would that not be true of course if your fit for your environment you have a better chance of survival But that’s the problem I don’t believe you can have any type of creature on this planet that would not have the slightest variation, and being adaptable in an environment that is ever change is the only way to survive unless you are a rock. Also Schrodinger the time traveling time cat can still be explained through a series of rapid evolution. Or could be written off as a statical Outlier So the only evidence that I can see capable of disproving evolution would have to be something straight bonkers and out side of our realm of cause and effectAaronS1978
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
PaV
Of course, you see the problem here: evolution is unfalsifiable. So, it is meaningless.
If there was no variation in populations, evolution would be falsified. If variations were not heritable evolution would be falsified. If there was no source of variation evolution would be falsified. If there was no differential survival based on variations evolution would be falsified. If a cat fossil was found in the Cambrian evolution would be falsified (barring time travel of course :) ).Brother Brian
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Brother Brian: When you say that " . . . both are completely consistent with evolution," this, of course, is always true. Everything is "consistent" with evolution since evolution is no more than "just-so" stories. If some unexpected result is found, new "just-so" stories are formulated. Easy as that. Of course, you see the problem here: evolution is unfalsifiable. So, it is meaningless.PaV
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
The new feeding habits (foraging at the bottom; taste for new foods) came from nowhere, and just happen to match the new-teeth requirements!? Am I missing something? Perhaps someone will propose that these habits are not instinctive, and therefore can be learned (actually self-learned) by the hybrid?santana
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
It wasn’t even so much that it was happenstance it was definitely part of pet trade, And supposedly a breeding accident. The more I read about it the more it look like it was hybridization of two different types of crayfish. It seems a lot like the Africanized honey bee. In any case this was not natural it was bred into existence whether it was an accident or if it was on purpose and I kind of think it was on purpose as it would make a perfect feeder animal. Another reason for this was its origin was from Florida and not one bit of its population manage to get into Florida is ecosystem at all. It only takes one of these crayfish forward to populate in an ecosystem indefinitely. Secondly, it never occurs again in the population. It only shows up in Europe after it’s released into their ecosystem It’s a perfect example of what I am talking about above, hybridization that creates an entirely new species. But what’s important to note here is that this wasnt natural.AaronS1978
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Brother Brian:
This crayfish meets all of the requirements of a new species. It does not interbreed with others.
If it clones itself it doesn't interbreed with anyone, duh. And no one knows if what happened was happenstance or by design.ET
June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Lol stupid talk text “your crayfish” not You’re a crayfish lol I’m really sorry about thatAaronS1978
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
BB There is much debate about the origin of a marbled crayfish They think it was a mating accident between two different types of Slough CrayFish They just know it’s related they don’t even have an exact origin from it other than the fact that it was definitely part of pet trade and it was bred This is not been the first time a new species has risen do to some kind of breeding. In fact the more I read the more it look like this creature wasn’t natural at all, As they put it some kind of breeding accident Furthermore they’re not even allowed into the United States which makes it even more suspect, Invasive species and all And then finally there is no other instance of the marble crayfish appearing anywhere in Florida which is apparently where it originated from I would not attribute this is an example of any kind of natural evolution whatsoever I’m pretty sure we bread that and it was sent over to Germany So pun completely intended You’re a crayfish seems kind of fishy oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That hurt my own brain that completely backfired on meAaronS1978
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
Mimus, I agree. I PaV’s example is not a true clonal population. Yet, I provided an example of one that truly is. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/science/mutant-crayfish-clones-europe.amp.html This crayfish meets all of the requirements of a new species. It does not interbreed with others. It has high fitness. And it is only a few years old. Which puts paid to the debt of mutations and selection not being observed to produce new species.Brother Brian
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
Here’s a paper that deals with the unexpected heterogeneity of these hermaphroditic, selfing fishes.
Did you link to the right paper? This one is not about a clonal species and does not conclude there is "unexpected heterogeneity".Mimus
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Wait, this is crazy... How come the hybrid feeding habits are different from the parents habits? Foraging at the bottom might comceivably be learned (in this case, self-learned!) But developing a "taste" for new foods that "coincidentally" fits your new teeth... that is crazy!santana
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
I can assure I did search for this paper. (and if I had I wouldn't have found it, since these fish are selfing and not clonal!). The answer came from familiraity with evolutoinary biology, rather than googling to guess you question. I find this comment in your follow up post quite remarkable
neo-Darwinism saved Darwinism from the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium.
Do you think people went around thinking HWE was proof that evolution couldn't happen before 1920?Mimus
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
PaV@25, your link supports your view (which still retains sexual reproduction) less than my crayfish example (which is totally asexual). Yet both are completely consistent with evolution.Brother Brian
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
Here's a paper that deals with the unexpected heterogeneity of these hermaphroditic, selfing fishes. If I only had a dime for every "unexpected" finding biologists come up with. This is simply another result that conflicts with expectations derived from neo-Darwinian "theory." neo-Darwinism saved Darwinism from the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. But now, as they say, "neo-Darwinism is dead." So, with it, Darwinism is 'dead.' Now what? What will save Darwinism from final death? (Other than biologists who are completely opposed to alternate thinking)PaV
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
But this simply is not true. It is well known that pure strains of bacteria (clones) maintained in the laboratory slowly become different than their wild strain ancestors. That is why researchers who maintain a bio-bank of archetype bacterial strains (e.g., specific strains of E. coli) must re-isolate from wild populations after a number of generations. Do you mean in the sense that environmental factors can actually change the DNA of the species I’m not disagreeing with that, are you saying the fact that mitochondria can’t be miss placed during cellular division which that is absolutely true, That’s actually one of the reasons why things that are genetically identical can be different. This is even the case with mitochondria they can process proteins quicker than others and during cellular division two the mitochondria That process protein quicker than the other to get locked in one cell and the other cell get shafted. Or are you saying that it is incorrect that genetic diversity between clones is not minimal or slight as I stated, but actually quite different and at that point we would be debating what we feel is minimal and what we feel is not minimal Other than that from what I’m getting from you I think we are arguing the same difference when it comes to hybridization I’m not discounting evolution. More on the lines that I think certain mechanisms of evolution were a little bit more prominent than they are giving credit forAaronS1978
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
PaV
I just saw the answer you gave @ 13. No, that wasn’t what I had in mind. It is an actual fish species I had in mind.
There was a type of "new" crayfish that I read about (last year, I think) that is an invasive species and reproduces, as far as we know, only by cloning. Ecologically, asexual reproduction can be a very effective strategy, at least for the short term. And we see this strategy being employed by several species, ranging from bacteria to (apparently) crayfish. What we have found when we study cloning species more closely is that many of them still undergo some process of genetic exchange (e.g., plasmid transfer in bacteria, conjugation in protozoans, sexual reproduction in water fleas) every now and then. A cloning strategy can afford a population rapid reproduction when they are in ideal environmental conditions, and result in them filling the available niche. However, this strategy also comes with a risk. Environmental change or the introduction of a new pathogen can result in a complete crash of the cloned population. It will be interesting to see the long-term outcome of the cloning crayfish as it is known that it is the result of a recent mutation of a sexually reproducing crayfish.Brother Brian
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
AaronS1978
Now I most certainly don’t claim to be an expert on this but when you look at the fossil record there are abrupt changes and another species replaces it that is very similar but yet different, I always thought this might be better explained by fertile hybrids.
I don't doubt that this occurs.
There are many theories for this but to be terribly honest with you I always lean towards the fact that Neanderthal was the source of the fair skin.
Again, I wouldn't rule this out as a possibility. Or at least as a contributing factor. However, I don't think that you can ignore the fact that black skinned people produce less vitamin D, and white skinned people are more prone to skin cancer. It seems to me that it hot sunny climes, being black might be an advantage in that it lessens the probability of skin cancer; and being white skinned in northern (less sunny climes) might be advantageous in that it allows more vitamin D production.
We can never really know how it works no matter what we’re just not capable of building a time machine to find out
I think we agree on this. All we can do is lean towards the theory that explains more of the data. In some cases, it may be a balance of different theories.
But the intermingling between two species producing a new species seems like a pretty safe bet.
And this is not rules out by evolution. By definition, hybridization inserts increased variation into a population. In some (probably most) cases the offspring will have lower fitness. But There is no reason to think that some hybrids may have increased fitness.
Now to answer your question, the immortal jellyfish is colonies of clones of itself it’s been around for millions of years with no real change i believe If that answers your question about genetic diversity. Millions of bacteria do the same every time they divide cellularly even the clones are slightly different given the spacing of mitochondria between the two divides 1/2 might get three mitochondria while the other half gets one in the mitochondrion themselves are different and sometimes have different genetic code So the genetic diversity is slight at best. But if I’m getting what you’re hinting at there is no change and you are correct.
But this simply is not true. It is well known that pure strains of bacteria (clones) maintained in the laboratory slowly become different than their wild strain ancestors. That is why researchers who maintain a bio-bank of archetype bacterial strains (e.g., specific strains of E. coli) must re-isolate from wild populations after a number of generations.Brother Brian
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
PaV
Such a population has been found. So, what’ your answer?
Do all individuals in this population have identical genomes?Brother Brian
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Mimus: You say: "Knowing that a species is clonal is not really enough information to guess at the amount genetic diversity. " Certainly you could "guess". You might not "know," but you could guess. Yet your answer suggests that you've looked around the internet and now know the answer. And we hear nothing from Brother Brian.PaV
June 24, 2019
June
06
Jun
24
24
2019
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply