Convergent evolution Intelligent Design News

Shark and human proteins “stunningly similar”; shark closer to human than to zebrafish

Spread the love
File:Tiburón.jpg
reef shark/ fbattail

Despite widespread fascination with sharks, the world’s oldest ocean predators have long been a genetic mystery. The first deep dive into a great white shark’s genetic code has fished up big surprises behind a design so effective it has barely changed since before dinosaurs roamed.

Cornell researchers have discovered that many of the endangered great white shark’s proteins involved in an array of different functions — including metabolism — match humans more closely than they do zebrafish, the quintessential fish model.

“We were very surprised to find, that for many categories of proteins, sharks share more similarities with humans than zebrafish,” Stanhope said. “Although sharks and bony fishes are not closely related, they are nonetheless both fish … while mammals have very different anatomies and physiologies. Nevertheless, our findings open the possibility that some aspects of white shark metabolism, as well as other aspects of its overall biochemistry, might be more similar to that of a mammal than to that of a bony fish.”

Sharks, for what it is worth, are cartilaginous fishes, so they don’t fossilize much, except for the teeth and scales:

We don’t have much in the way of direct evidence, except for a handful of fossilized scales, but the first sharks are believed to have evolved during the Ordovician period, about 420 million years ago (to put this into perspective, the first tetrapods didn’t crawl up out of the sea until 400 million years ago).

Somebody got an explanation? Or is this just another evolution news dump, hoping  no one will say, how weird is THIS?

14 Replies to “Shark and human proteins “stunningly similar”; shark closer to human than to zebrafish

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    I got a YEC explanation!
    All biology come from a common blueprint/computer program by a creator.
    Deducing biological origins from genetic trails only works if all biology come from a original group of things.
    However the option of a creator would be stuff like this shark thing would be predicted.
    In fact its likely the future trend once more people investigate these obscure things.
    We are all off the same biological rack and any likeness in DNA is just a coincidence from the rack. Not evidence or even hinting of common deswcent.
    Its all been wrong lines of reasoning from the evolutionist thumpers.

  2. 2
    johnp says:

    Robert, you’re wayyyy off. Obviously the chimp-pig hybrid (AKA PIMP) subsequently (or presequently?) mated with a shark. (someone cleverer than me will have to name this progeny).

  3. 3
    Mapou says:

    Obviously, this kind of discoveries destroys the purely nested tree of life hierarchy concocted by the Darwinists. A non-nested hierarchy, i.e., one with lateral branching between distant species, is precisely what one would expect from intelligent design.

    Genetic science is the undoing of Darwinism. There is no place to hide anymore. The future looks bleak for the dirt worshipers. 😀

  4. 4
    Mapou says:

    I, for one, welcome the news that I share DNA sequences with such an exquisitely beautiful and well adapted animal as a shark. Thank you very much.

  5. 5
    goodusername says:

    Somebody got an explanation? Or is this just another evolution news dump, hoping no one will say, how weird is THIS?

    Hmm, I was under the impression that we were closer related to bony fish (such as zebra fish), than bony fish are to cartilaginous fish, such as sharks – and that mammals and bony fish should be equally related to sharks? If that’s the case, than I’m not sure why the researchers would be surprised at this result.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    related notes:

    Family Ties: Completion of Zebrafish Reference Genome Yields Strong Comparisons With Human Genome – Apr. 17, 2013
    Excerpt: Researchers demonstrate today that 70 per cent of protein-coding human genes are related to genes found in the zebrafish,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....131725.htm

    Kangaroo genes close to humans
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

    First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals “Junk DNA” Surprise – 2007
    Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,,
    The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.....m-dna.html

    Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
    A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
    On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....plicing%2F

    Humans, Chimpanzees and Monkeys Share DNA but Not Gene Regulatory Mechanisms – (Nov. 6, 2012)
    Excerpt: Dr. Gilad reported that up to 40% of the differences in the expression or activity patterns of genes between humans, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys can be explained by regulatory mechanisms that determine whether and how a gene’s recipe for a protein is transcribed to the RNA molecule that carries the recipe instructions to the sites in cells where proteins are manufactured.,,,
    Dr. Gilad also determined that the epigenetics process known as histone modification also differs in the three species. The presence of histone marks during gene transcription indicates that the process is being prevented or modified. “These data allowed us to identify both conserved and species-specific enhancer and repressor regulatory elements, as well as characterize similarities and differences across species in transcription factor binding to these regulatory elements,” Dr. Gilad said.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....201124.htm

    Darwin’s Doubt (Part 8) by Paul Giem – developmental gene regulatory networks and epigenetic information – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;index=8

    A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
    Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” –
    Eric Davidson
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79811.html

    Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video
    Text from one of the Saddleback slides:
    1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows.
    2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring.
    3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo.
    Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes.
    http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

  7. 7

    Anyone that watches “shark tank” already knew this.

  8. 8
    vjtorley says:

    This is odd, because according to timetree.org, humans and sharks diverged 462 million years ago, while humans and zebrafish diverged 400 million years ago. Maybe shark DNA mutates at a slower rate than for other fish, or zebrafish DNA mutates unusually rapidly? Bizarre.

  9. 9
    Box says:

    Maybe evolutionists can invoke horizontal gene transfer between sharks and humans as an explanation?

  10. 10
    Mapou says:

    Maybe evolutionists can invoke horizontal gene transfer between sharks and humans as an explanation?

    Of course they can and they have. They have invoked viruses as the mechanism of HGT. In other words, some virus infected a shark and stole some of its DNA and injected it into a human ancestor and somehow, the shark DNA found a perfect home in human DNA. The same thing supposedly happened between echolocating bats and whales.

    It’s all preposterous, of course. Don’t ever underestimate the capacity of a Darwinist for self-deception. Theirs cannot be called unfalsifiable pseudoscience any more. It’s just plain voodoo science.

  11. 11
    goodusername says:

    vjtorley,

    This is odd, because according to timetree.org, humans and sharks diverged 462 million years ago, while humans and zebrafish diverged 400 million years ago. Maybe shark DNA mutates at a slower rate than for other fish, or zebrafish DNA mutates unusually rapidly? Bizarre.

    Well, the branch that diverged from sharks 462 million would include both humans and the zebrafish. And so (if I’m thinking this through correctly) zebrafish and humans are equally related to sharks. So I would expect many shark proteins to be closer to the corresponding protein in humans, and many others would be closer to zebrafish.

  12. 12
    PaV says:

    There’s also the possibility that sharks come from the teleostome line of bony fishes, and that a cartilaginous skeleton simply represents a “loss” of function, i.e., loss of ossified cartilage.

    So much for phylogenetic trees, eh?

  13. 13
    Robert Byers says:

    Johnp
    The chimp-pig-shark option would explain a lot about my social circles here in Toronto but still the issue of evidence.!
    They might still add more to it upon more research.

  14. 14
    Gordon Davisson says:

    vjtorley:

    This is odd, because according to timetree.org, humans and sharks diverged 462 million years ago, while humans and zebrafish diverged 400 million years ago. Maybe shark DNA mutates at a slower rate than for other fish, or zebrafish DNA mutates unusually rapidly? Bizarre.

    goodusername:

    Well, the branch that diverged from sharks 462 million would include both humans and the zebrafish. And so (if I’m thinking this through correctly) zebrafish and humans are equally related to sharks. So I would expect many shark proteins to be closer to the corresponding protein in humans, and many others would be closer to zebrafish.

    This agrees with my understanding, as well as the results from timetree.org:

    homo sapiens vs. zebrafish: 400.1 Mya
    homo sapiens vs. sharks: 462.5 Mya
    sharks vs. zebrafish: 462.5 Mya

    …so to the extent this is governed by evolutionary divergence time, sharks should differ from zebrafish and humans by about equal amounts. But as I understand it (and I’m far from an expert on this) the analysis they did isn’t looking at sequence divergence (which tends to follow divergence time), but at difference in gene expression level (and by functional category of gene, not by individual gene). I would expect this to be governed far more by function than by evolutionary history; and since sharks (at least intuitively) seem functionally more similar to zebrafish than to humans, we’d expect their gene expression levels to be more similar to zebrafish.

    In other words, this is surprising, but for reasons that don’t have much of anything to do with evolution. If I’m right about this, I don’t see how this can be considered evidence against evolution.

Leave a Reply