Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

" width="8" height="8"/> Sharks' Sixth Sense Related to Human Genes
Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+
gnuneo
post Feb 7 2006, 09:07 PM
Post #1


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,068
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



Sharks' Sixth Sense Related to Human Genes

Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com 45 minutes ago

The finding supports the idea that the early sea creatures which eventually evolved into humans could also sense electricity before they emerged onto land.

The finding is detailed in the current issue of the journal Evolution & Development.

Sixth sense

Sharks have a network of special cells that can detect electricity, called electroreceptors, in their heads. They use them for hunting and navigation.

This sense is so developed that sharks can find fish hiding under sand by honing in on the weak electrical signals emitted by their twitching muscles.

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.

The finding suggests that neural crest cells migrate from the sharks' brains to various regions of the head, where they develop into electroreceptors.

Glenn Northcutt, a neuroscientist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study, said the finding was interesting, but that more studies are needed before a direct link between neural crest cells and electroreceptors can be established.

"It still requires a definitive experiment, where the developing neural crest cells are marked with dye, the embryo develops and the dye clearly shows up in the electroreceptors," Northcutt said.

In the new study, the researchers found snippets of genetic material associated with neural crest cells in the electroreceptors. They did not dye the neural crest cells and trace their development.

Our electrical ancestors

Scientists think that all primitive animals with backbones, including the early ancestors of humans, could sense electricity. As they evolved, mammals, reptiles, birds and most fish lost the ability. Today, only sharks and a few other marine species, such as sturgeons and lampreys, can sense electricity.

"Our fishy ancestors had the anatomy for it," said study team member James Albert, a biologist from the University of Louisiana.

The ability to sense electrical signals is useful in aquatic environments because water is so conductive. On land, however, the sense is useless.

"Air doesn't conduct electricity as well," Albert said. "When it happens, it's called a lightning bolt and you don't need special receptors to sense it."

The development of the electroreceptors is believed to mirror the development of the lateral line, a sense organ in fish that allows them to detect motion in surrounding water. Similar processes are thought also to be involved in the development of the inner ear, the organs which help humans keep their balance.

The electroceptors are also believed to behind many sharks' ability to detect changes in the Earth's magnetic field. Other studies indicate that like sailors, sharks can also navigate by celestial cues.

Scientists think that these two abilities are what allow some sharks to swim straight lines across vast distances of featureless ocean. One recent study found that a great white shark, nicknamed Nicole, swam nearly 7,000 miles between South Africa and Australia in just under 100 days.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060207/sc_...tedtohumangenes

------------------------------------------------------------

extremely interesting, although i would certainly cast doubt on the notion that humans can no longer "sense electricity" - we may not have the electrical sense of the shark, but we also don't have the nasal ability of the dog either but we can still sense odour.

but thats another debate.

"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.

The finding suggests that neural crest cells migrate from the sharks' brains to various regions of the head, where they develop into electroreceptors."

these cells sound interesting - in early evolutionary steps they are perhaps part of the communication network of the shark, a form of communication that would certainly appear to be telepathic to a creature not aware of it, as the sharks will certainly use this sense to both read other sharks behaviour and also transmit signals (if this is possible - and there is no reason why they would not be able to do so rationally).

and in later evolutionary steps they evolve into the highly developed communication network that we can call the 'face', which even ignoring such features like 'mouth' that allow verbal communication, can communicate vast quantities of information simply by arranging muscles.

*if* they are the active cells, it sounds like more research is needed on this.

""It still requires a definitive experiment, where the developing neural crest cells are marked with dye, the embryo develops and the dye clearly shows up in the electroreceptors," Northcutt said."

but if they are, then the genes that trigger their development might yeild some *very* fruitful exploration... :)
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Telum
post Feb 7 2006, 11:50 PM
Post #2


Admin
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,145
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



QUOTE
these cells sound interesting - in early evolutionary steps they are perhaps part of the communication network of the shark, a form of communication that would certainly appear to be telepathic to a creature not aware of it, as the sharks will certainly use this sense to both read other sharks behaviour and also transmit signals (if this is possible - and there is no reason why they would not be able to do so rationally).



So now sensing electricity == telepathy?

This post has been edited by Telum: Feb 7 2006, 11:50 PM
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Feb 8 2006, 01:28 AM
Post #3


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,068
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



QUOTE
So now sensing electricity == telepathy?


is there a meaning to the double ==?

what i said was:

QUOTE

a form of communication that would certainly appear to be telepathic to a creature not aware of it, as the sharks will certainly use this sense to both read other sharks behaviour and also transmit signals (if this is possible - and there is no reason why they would not be able to do so rationally).


Main Entry: te·lep·a·thy
Pronunciation: t&-'lep-&-thE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -thies
: apparent communication from one mind to another by extrasensory means —tele·path·ic /"tel-&-'path-ik/ adjective —tele·path·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.



tell me, did you actually read it to find it interesting, or mainly to find something you could attempt to criticise?

Just inquiring <_<
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
libvertaruan
post Feb 8 2006, 03:05 AM
Post #4


H.N.I.C.
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 8,876
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Jawja
Member No.: 125



Telum has a point; an electrical sense does not equate telepathy, like taste buds in our intestines do not actually mean we can smell with our butt.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Bayesian methodology
post Feb 8 2006, 03:19 AM
Post #5


Obtainer of Afghan Baby Skulls
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,565
Joined: 28-May 05
From: Casa del JLB
Member No.: 859



QUOTE(gnuneo @ Feb 7 2006, 09:28 PM)
is there a meaning to the double ==?


I know I used it a lot in my stupid programming class.

== means equal.
!= means not equal.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Feb 8 2006, 03:56 AM
Post #6


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,068
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



QUOTE
== means equal.
!= means not equal.


thats what i figured - we used to use a = to means "equivalent to", a four stroke (one more up and down) for "equal to", and =/= for "not equal to".

i hadn't seen == before.


lib, whats the deal with you today? are you on a "protecting other forum users from gnu's savage attacks" tip or what?

to make clear:

QUOTE(gnu)
a form of communication that would certainly appear to be telepathic to a creature not aware of it,


QUOTE(tell'im!!)
So now sensing electricity == telepathy?


QUOTE(gnu)
Main Entry: te·lep·a·thy
Pronunciation: t&-'lep-&-thE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -thies
: apparent communication from one mind to another by extrasensory means —tele·path·ic /"tel-&-'path-ik/ adjective —tele·path·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


QUOTE(lib)
Telum has a point; an electrical sense does not equate telepathy, like taste buds in our intestines do not actually mean we can smell with our butt.


now, am i supposed to take this seriously? can you communicate with other people by using the taste buds in your stomach?

it is *likely* that sharks have learned to communicate using this sense - it is a characteristic of life that it tends to expand its awareness and interaction between itself and the external world - why the shark would be the exception to this and not realise that this sense can be used not only for 'reading' other sharks, but also almost certainly for 'transmitting', is certainly possible - i just consider it unlikely.

given that, yes, i would argue that there are similarities between human concepts of 'telepathy', and this specific sense of the sharks.


and BTW - if you couldnt see that telum was not trying to make any worthwhile or interesting point, but was merely trying to score off me, then you don't belong as a moderator. :huh:
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
libvertaruan
post Feb 8 2006, 04:55 AM
Post #7


H.N.I.C.
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 8,876
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Jawja
Member No.: 125



The advantages of telepathy are too much for it to disappear for us in evolution, should the species not destroy itself soon after developing it (which is all to likely). You would be able to tell if the sharks were telepathic, fo shizzle.

And I'm just pointing out that you're wrong, not that I'm trying to protect someone. After all, you're harmless :P
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Feb 8 2006, 05:08 AM
Post #8


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,068
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



QUOTE
The advantages of telepathy are too much for it to disappear for us in evolution, should the species not destroy itself soon after developing it (which is all to likely). You would be able to tell if the sharks were telepathic, fo shizzle.


you are ignoring an all too likely possibility - that we *do* actually still have a primitive telepathy (more or less developed according to the individual), but that we are *culturally* blind to it.

if this seems unlikely to you, remember that auras, despite being portrayed across the globe, in cultures and times vastly seperated, are *still* regarded as hogwash by many supposedly 'respected' western scientists.

mind you, using the same paradigms these alleged scientists do, even love is non-existent, so i guess the deliberate ignoring of auras, hypnosis, and ESP in general is hardly surprising. <_<
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
libvertaruan
post Feb 8 2006, 06:28 AM
Post #9


H.N.I.C.
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 8,876
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Jawja
Member No.: 125



lol, I don't put much stock in the spiritual ideas of people who think the verification/falsification principles are good recommendations, or else I would not be a Christian, or before that a pantheist. Because, should there be a transcendent reality, it is not within human ability to physically percieve it with the senses; after all, and if you do then obviously you should be sent to a madhouse. No, I much prefer Hegel's dialectical panentheism (if you want to call it that) to pure atheism/I don't care about transcendental reality because it is meaningless.

If I saw auras (and I think I may have occasionally), then I will believe in them fo' shizzle; otherwise it is not that they don't exist, its that I don't know. After all, do I not believe in a scientifically unverifiable (to the world) God?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Telum
post Feb 8 2006, 12:16 PM
Post #10


Admin
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,145
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



Sensing electrical fields has absolutely nothing to do with telepathy. You can detect an electrial field with a small amount of a ferromagnetic substance, or charged particles, or a whole host of other things that can easily be used in protiens in the receptor cells. Furthermore, recieving electrical signals has nothing to do with transmitting them.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Feb 8 2006, 02:42 PM
Post #11


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,068
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



QUOTE
Sensing electrical fields has absolutely nothing to do with telepathy.


then i am potentially ignorant on what precisely is telepathy - as you seem to have definite knowledge on this, perhaps you would be so kind as to share it? Or is it similar to tarot having nothing to do with kabbalah, ie a brentonlike urge to make solid declarations based on nothing more than your desire to be obstructionist? I *DO* hope its the former, i am very interested in such matters as ESP and if you have some solid ground under you then i am interested in hearing it.

QUOTE
You can detect an electrial field with a small amount of a ferromagnetic substance, or charged particles, or a whole host of other things that can easily be used in protiens in the receptor cells.


so?

QUOTE
Furthermore, recieving electrical signals has nothing to do with transmitting them.


perhaps you missed this bit:

QUOTE
it is *likely* that sharks have learned to communicate using this sense - it is a characteristic of life that it tends to expand its awareness and interaction between itself and the external world - why the shark would be the exception to this and not realise that this sense can be used not only for 'reading' other sharks, but also almost certainly for 'transmitting', is certainly possible - i just consider it unlikely.


so - what is this certain knowledge about telepathy?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Mr Beer
post Feb 8 2006, 10:00 PM
Post #12


A man of wit, refinement and beer.
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,558
Joined: 16-August 02
From: Australia
Member No.: 101



QUOTE(Telum @ Feb 8 2006, 12:16 PM)
Sensing electrical fields has absolutely nothing to do with telepathy.  You can detect an electrial field with a small amount of a ferromagnetic substance, or charged particles, or a whole host of other things that can easily be used in protiens in the receptor cells.  Furthermore, recieving electrical signals has nothing to do with transmitting them.
*



^^^
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
miltonfriedman
post Feb 9 2006, 04:02 AM
Post #13


teetering on a breakthrough
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,587
Joined: 8-September 02
From: Potomac, MD
Member No.: 164



look, if gnuneo thinks that some cells that could detect electrical current is "ESP", then just let him do it. Why keep this going and letting gnuneo to pollute this board? let him be. if he thinks we can call anything we don't understand an ESP, then he is no different from ID proponents.

This post has been edited by miltonfriedman: Feb 9 2006, 04:03 AM
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Telum
post Feb 10 2006, 01:03 AM
Post #14


Admin
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,145
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



QUOTE(gnuneo @ Feb 7 2006, 11:56 PM)
it is *likely* that sharks have learned to communicate using this sense
*



No, it is not. Passive reception of electrial signals is different than transmission. Does your radio allow you to broadcast back to the station?

QUOTE
- it is a characteristic of life that it tends to expand its awareness and interaction between itself and the external world


Evolution has no goal. You cannot evolve towards something. Evolution is not towards anything evolution is away from attributes that negatively affect an individuals chance to breed.

QUOTE
- why the shark would be the exception to this and not realise that this sense can be used not only for 'reading' other sharks, but also almost certainly for 'transmitting', is certainly possible - i just consider it unlikely.


Can you shoot laser beams out of your eyes?
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Telum
post Feb 10 2006, 01:04 AM
Post #15


Admin
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,145
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



Or perhaps humans are deficient. Do other animals shoot lasers out of their eyes?
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Feb 27 2006, 01:38 AM
Post #16


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,068
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



QUOTE(mr beer.)
^^^


perhaps you missed the bit where he defined *not* the sensing of electrical fields, but *telepathy*. We have that in common, although it seems only i am aware of that lack. <_<
QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE(gnuneo @ Feb 7 2006, 11:56 PM)
it is *likely* that sharks have learned to communicate using this sense



No, it is not. Passive reception of electrial signals is different than transmission. Does your radio allow you to broadcast back to the station?


it does when the radio set is built in, and to communicate you only need to affect your own output. It is *extremely* unlikely that the shark has not realised this, and made use of it.

communication does not have to be on the level of discussing whether the earth goes around the sun or vice versa.

QUOTE

QUOTE
- it is a characteristic of life that it tends to expand its awareness and interaction between itself and the external world


Evolution has no goal. You cannot evolve towards something. Evolution is not towards anything evolution is away from attributes that negatively affect an individuals chance to breed.


in your religious viewpoint that may be right. Unlike you and your coreligionists however, i tend to regard the 'actors' in evolution as being other than dead matter - people *choose* characteristics they regard as positive, evolution (even using the limited paradigm of darwin) IS a somewhat conscious affair.

most creatures find a heightened ability to survive as an attractive characteristic, and having a strong communicative ability will almost certainly give the individual an edge on rivals that cannot.

unlike you i put things in processes, and see where it comes out - clearly i also understand 'life' processes better. Try to keep your religions out of your 'science'.

QUOTE
Can you shoot laser beams out of your eyes?


can you produce thoughts out of your brain?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Telum
post Feb 27 2006, 02:00 AM
Post #17


Admin
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,145
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



QUOTE(gnuneo @ Feb 26 2006, 09:38 PM)
QUOTE

No, it is not. Passive reception of electrial signals is different than transmission. Does your radio allow you to broadcast back to the station?


it does when the radio set is built in, and to communicate you only need to affect your own output. It is *extremely* unlikely that the shark has not realised this, and made use of it.


There is a radio set built into my CD player. I cant get it to broadcast. What is wrong?


QUOTE
in your religious viewpoint that may be right. Unlike you and your coreligionists however, i tend to regard the 'actors' in evolution as being other than dead matter - people *choose* characteristics they regard as positive, evolution (even using the limited paradigm of darwin) IS a somewhat conscious affair.


No. No, its not.

QUOTE
most creatures find a heightened ability to survive as an attractive characteristic, and having a strong communicative ability will almost certainly give the individual an edge on rivals that cannot.


Who are they communicating with if not their rivals?

QUOTE
unlike you i put things in processes, and see where it comes out - clearly i also understand 'life' processes better. Try to keep your religions out of your 'science'.
can you produce thoughts out of your brain?


hallucinogens != science. I know thats hard for you to believe, but perhaps one day you might accept that.

This post has been edited by Telum: Feb 27 2006, 02:01 AM
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
miltonfriedman
post Feb 27 2006, 02:07 AM
Post #18


teetering on a breakthrough
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,587
Joined: 8-September 02
From: Potomac, MD
Member No.: 164



seriously, gnu, why do you do this to yourself?
QUOTE
in your religious viewpoint that may be right. Unlike you and your coreligionists however, i tend to regard the 'actors' in evolution as being other than dead matter - people *choose* characteristics they regard as positive, evolution (even using the limited paradigm of darwin) IS a somewhat conscious affair.


evolution is not dictated by Judaism or fake acid trip that you pretended to be on once in a while. evolution is a simple process of picking what works. that's it. here is a summary of your arguments:

gnu: shark has sixth sense due to evolution because sharks wanted to have sixth sense
scientific community: data from animal's kingdom suggest that evolution is not a pick-and-choose process
gnu: that's because i do not define evolution based on evidence.

i don't get you, gnu. what do you get by making up your own definitions for evolution in the face of overwhelming biological, theoretical, and observational data that all pointed to the other direction?

you may think it is cool to invent new definitions ala kfs, but that is not free thinking. free thinking is to propose new theories AFTER obtaining new data, not to change a theory b/c the data contradict your belief. you should learn to be more honest with yourself.

This post has been edited by miltonfriedman: Feb 27 2006, 02:14 AM
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
zaragosa
post Feb 27 2006, 10:56 AM
Post #19


False Mirror
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,923
Joined: 25-June 02
From: Brussels, Belgium
Member No.: 62



If sharks have a sensory system that can perceive electricity, it is obviously not extrasensory perception.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
miltonfriedman
post Feb 27 2006, 04:15 PM
Post #20


teetering on a breakthrough
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,587
Joined: 8-September 02
From: Potomac, MD
Member No.: 164



QUOTE(zaragosa @ Feb 27 2006, 05:56 AM)
If sharks have a sensory system that can perceive electricity, it is obviously not extrasensory perception.
*


oh nos, this is a scientific definition. thus, it is direct contradiction to gnuneo's definition, ie. he defines the theory of evolutionary process.

This post has been edited by miltonfriedman: Feb 27 2006, 04:15 PM
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post

Reply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic

 


Lo-Fi Version
Time is now: 5th March 2006 - 10:15 AM