How Fish Might Have Evolved Hands

How Fish Might Have Evolved Hands

image

Scientists may have discovered how the first sea creatures evolved to walk on land.

We've all seen the evolutionary charts that show the progression from a single-celled organism, to a fish, a lizard, a mammal, a primate and then humans. Heck, even the Darwin fish on many a geek's car has limbs, but we hadn't figured out exactly how life on Earth evolved to grow the larger limbs that allow locomotion on dry land. In a study published in the Developmental Cell journal this week, a group of researchers from the CSIC-Universidad Pablo de Olavide-Junta de Andalucía, in Seville, Spain may have discovered the chemical needed to produce the strong limbs a fish would need to move around without the water to support them.

How do you figure this out? Well, you inject mouse genes into zebrafish. The study detailed how injecting large amounts of the hoxd13 gene, known to help cells differentiate between body parts as an embryo grows, actually increased cartilage growth in the fish. The resulting autopods - the term for limbs before they grow - replaced the fins a fish would normally sprout. The fish in the study continued growing the autopods before they died four days into the experiment, but the scientists think they've found an important evolutionary link. If fish could have naturally produced a lot more hoxd13 gene, then it's possible that's where limbs came from.

"Of course, we haven't been able to grow hands," said Dr. Fernando Casares, but the experiment did prove the genetic mechanisms were in place in fish already. "We found that in the zebrafish, the mouse Hoxd13 control element was capable of driving gene expression in the distal fin rudiment. This result indicates that molecular machinery capable of activating this control element was also present in the last common ancestor of finned and legged animals and is proven by its remnants in zebrafish."

Remember that the next time you order fish and chips you might be munching on your long lost relative. Mmm, so tasty. Please pass the vinegar.

Source: Medical Daily

(Image)

Permalink

I don't like it when articles don't source their claims properly (speaking of the Medical Daily article). Here's the original published study, if anyone's interested in a deeper view at the subject. Quite interesting but very technical, fortunately you only get to read parts of it without a subscription anyway.

Quaxar:
This isn't gaming news!

WAT? This is totally gaming news!

If fish could have potentially grown hands, then they could have potentially been avid gamers. In another life, we could have been playing WoW online with freaking FISH! (heck, who's to say that we aren't already playing WoW with fish players).

Also, a fish, with HANDS??? That's like a pokemon! We're making pokemon!

"this isn't gaming news"??? This is positively gaming news! This is gaming news like peanut butter is peanut butter - 100%!!!

Slow week huh?

Hey, ted!
Yeah Jim?
Lets see if we figure out what made fish grow limb!
Why?
We would get to inject fish with all kinds of chemicals and watch what happens!
........got nothing better to do today...

I guess that's interesting, but it doesn't explain anything about evolution or provide any solid evidence that that's what actually happened. It more posses one possibility that might have been the case... or not.

Science, I am pleased. Now let's see about colonizing another planet.

Also, Geology, I want to see you after class regarding your performance.

For a minute I misread 'mouse' and thought it said 'moose', and I was going to be very surprised by science's shenanigans.

Still pretty cool though, and I have this funny little image in my head of a fish with hands.

Kinda like a creepy Pokemon.

Twilight_guy:
Hey, ted!
Yeah Jim?
Lets see if we figure out what made fish grow limb!
Why?
We would get to inject fish with all kinds of chemicals and watch what happens!
........got nothing better to do today...

I guess that's interesting, but it doesn't explain anything about evolution or provide any solid evidence that that's what actually happened. It more posses one possibility that might have been the case... or not.

Take note of the fact they're studying the how, not the if. The if has long been known.

evilneko:

Twilight_guy:
snip

Take note of the fact they're studying the how, not the if. The if has long been known.

Actually, unless there's been an actual study of organisms, practical or observational, growing limbs like this, then no, they are figuring out -if-. Just because a theory says they did, doesn't mean it happened. Now we know, after this study, that it is possible for them to grow limbs. After this experiment they can find out exactly how they grew limbs, through trial and error, using this study as a base.

Now, if you can find a peer reviewed academic study that shows them observing or experimentally growing limbs on a living creature in a controlled setting, then you are correct, and I am 100% wrong.

OT:

Now this is awesome. Science at work. Believe it or not, I dont have belief in the Evolutionary Theory (Creationist), but this puts it on my radar. Cant wait to see the follow ups on it. Would love to see a longitudinal study over many generations with a non-lethal amount of the chemical.

Does this mean we'll start seeing authentic fish fingers in shops?

I think it does!

Cool. Now, it could actually LEAD somewhere if the fish didn't keep dying. Losing your fins and continuing to swim while becoming a ticking time bomb is not a helpful evolutionary step.

thethird0611:

evilneko:

Twilight_guy:
snip

Take note of the fact they're studying the how, not the if. The if has long been known.

Actually, unless there's been an actual study of organisms, practical or observational, growing limbs like this, then no, they are figuring out -if-. Just because a theory says they did, doesn't mean it happened. Now we know, after this study, that it is possible for them to grow limbs. After this experiment they can find out exactly how they grew limbs, through trial and error, using this study as a base.

Now, if you can find a peer reviewed academic study that shows them observing or experimentally growing limbs on a living creature in a controlled setting, then you are correct, and I am 100% wrong.

OT:

Now this is awesome. Science at work. Believe it or not, I dont have belief in the Evolutionary Theory (Creationist), but this puts it on my radar. Cant wait to see the follow ups on it. Would love to see a longitudinal study over many generations with a non-lethal amount of the chemical.

Did you know: the theory of evolution has more support than gravity? True story.

Let's get you (and the other guy) started shall we?

Here, have a look at the NCSE's evolution primers, and/or the evolution FAQs at Talk Origins. If you prefer audiovisual material, I suggest potholer54's Made Easy series, or for more detail, cdk007's evolution playlist. Of particular interest is cdk007's How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information.

However if you want to directly address the creationist mistakes, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications that have misled you, you may want to look at the following:

Textual:
The Talk Origins Index to Creationist Claims

Audiovisual:
AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series
Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? series

evilneko:

thethird0611:

evilneko:

Take note of the fact they're studying the how, not the if. The if has long been known.

Actually, unless there's been an actual study of organisms, practical or observational, growing limbs like this, then no, they are figuring out -if-. Just because a theory says they did, doesn't mean it happened. Now we know, after this study, that it is possible for them to grow limbs. After this experiment they can find out exactly how they grew limbs, through trial and error, using this study as a base.

Now, if you can find a peer reviewed academic study that shows them observing or experimentally growing limbs on a living creature in a controlled setting, then you are correct, and I am 100% wrong.

OT:

Now this is awesome. Science at work. Believe it or not, I dont have belief in the Evolutionary Theory (Creationist), but this puts it on my radar. Cant wait to see the follow ups on it. Would love to see a longitudinal study over many generations with a non-lethal amount of the chemical.

Did you know: the theory of evolution has more support than gravity? True story.

Let's get you (and the other guy) started shall we?

Here, have a look at the NCSE's evolution primers, and/or the evolution FAQs at Talk Origins. If you prefer audiovisual material, I suggest potholer54's Made Easy series, or for more detail, cdk007's evolution playlist. Of particular interest is cdk007's How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information.

However if you want to directly address the creationist mistakes, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications that have misled you, you may want to look at the following:

Textual:
The Talk Origins Index to Creationist Claims

Audiovisual:
AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series
Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? series

Oh wow, thanks for trying to personally attack someone instead of discussing it. You know, throw alllll of my credentials, knowledge, etc, out the window so you can be prideful?

Yeah, you dont make friends that way, and you HURT your point that way. Have fun, I wont participate in this conversation with you.

thethird0611:

evilneko:

thethird0611:

Actually, unless there's been an actual study of organisms, practical or observational, growing limbs like this, then no, they are figuring out -if-. Just because a theory says they did, doesn't mean it happened. Now we know, after this study, that it is possible for them to grow limbs. After this experiment they can find out exactly how they grew limbs, through trial and error, using this study as a base.

Now, if you can find a peer reviewed academic study that shows them observing or experimentally growing limbs on a living creature in a controlled setting, then you are correct, and I am 100% wrong.

OT:

Now this is awesome. Science at work. Believe it or not, I dont have belief in the Evolutionary Theory (Creationist), but this puts it on my radar. Cant wait to see the follow ups on it. Would love to see a longitudinal study over many generations with a non-lethal amount of the chemical.

Did you know: the theory of evolution has more support than gravity? True story.

Let's get you (and the other guy) started shall we?

Here, have a look at the NCSE's evolution primers, and/or the evolution FAQs at Talk Origins. If you prefer audiovisual material, I suggest potholer54's Made Easy series, or for more detail, cdk007's evolution playlist. Of particular interest is cdk007's How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information.

However if you want to directly address the creationist mistakes, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications that have misled you, you may want to look at the following:

Textual:
The Talk Origins Index to Creationist Claims

Audiovisual:
AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series
Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? series

Oh wow, thanks for trying to personally attack someone instead of discussing it. You know, throw alllll of my credentials, knowledge, etc, out the window so you can be prideful?

Yeah, you dont make friends that way, and you HURT your point that way. Have fun, I wont participate in this conversation with you.

I did not attack anyone in my post.

evilneko:

thethird0611:

evilneko:

Did you know: the theory of evolution has more support than gravity? True story.

Let's get you (and the other guy) started shall we?

Here, have a look at the NCSE's evolution primers, and/or the evolution FAQs at Talk Origins. If you prefer audiovisual material, I suggest potholer54's Made Easy series, or for more detail, cdk007's evolution playlist. Of particular interest is cdk007's How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information.

However if you want to directly address the creationist mistakes, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications that have misled you, you may want to look at the following:

Textual:
The Talk Origins Index to Creationist Claims

Audiovisual:
AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series
Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? series

Oh wow, thanks for trying to personally attack someone instead of discussing it. You know, throw alllll of my credentials, knowledge, etc, out the window so you can be prideful?

Yeah, you dont make friends that way, and you HURT your point that way. Have fun, I wont participate in this conversation with you.

I did not attack anyone in my post.

Oh, it wasnt evident, but you do it in the way that doesnt get you banned.

"However if you want to directly address the creationist mistakes, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications that have misled you, you may want to look at the following"

Yeah, you did. You directly attacked a persons beliefs instead of staying on topic with actually peer-review academic journals, which are the standard.

There is no reason to debate with someone who -thinks- they are better than you and looks down on you.

I like how the comments have somehow turned into a Creationist vs Evolutionist slingfest, completely ignoring the fact that there's a FISH WITH HANDS!

thethird0611:

evilneko:

thethird0611:

Did you know: the theory of evolution has more support than gravity? True story.

Let's get you (and the other guy) started shall we?

Here, have a look at the NCSE's evolution primers, and/or the evolution FAQs at Talk Origins. If you prefer audiovisual material, I suggest potholer54's Made Easy series, or for more detail, cdk007's evolution playlist. Of particular interest is cdk007's How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information.

However if you want to directly address the creationist mistakes, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications that have misled you, you may want to look at the following:

Textual:
The Talk Origins Index to Creationist Claims

Audiovisual:
AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series
Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? series

Oh wow, thanks for trying to personally attack someone instead of discussing it. You know, throw alllll of my credentials, knowledge, etc, out the window so you can be prideful?

Yeah, you dont make friends that way, and you HURT your point that way. Have fun, I wont participate in this conversation with you.

I did not attack anyone in my post.

Oh, it wasnt evident, but you do it in the way that doesnt get you banned.

"However if you want to directly address the creationist mistakes, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications that have misled you, you may want to look at the following"

Yeah, you did. You directly attacked a persons beliefs instead of staying on topic with actually peer-review academic journals, which are the standard.

I did not see any trolling you seem way over defensive shakey ground huh? Science give it a whirl sometime its really cool, way better than some allegories wrapped up into a human edited book written down 1000s of years after the facts and claiming that has any validity upon anything in the real world.

Blind faith is just that blind, never will get any slack for me anytime someone wants to espouse ID or creationism as valid alternative to any science that has been far more proven and supported than anything the church can lay claim to.

Hmmm... I don't really like this experiment. It doesn't really show anything. I mean, even if that hormone WAS what caused fish to grow limbs, what caused the fish to produce the hormone in excess? Maybe it's a small piece to the larger puzzle, but it's a very small piece indeed.

SomeLameStuff:
I like how the comments have somehow turned into a Creationist vs Evolutionist slingfest, completely ignoring the fact that there's a FISH WITH HANDS!

Hand fish and mudskippers existing means I'm impressed with the study but not the fish themeselves :P

Take that creationism!

And I guess it's actually pretty damn likely that we would be related most of the fish in the sea. A lot of fish had sexy time in these past million or so years.

Food on land is a powerful motivator to grow the leg and hand.

The problem with proving evolution by a study of evolving generations is a matter of scale. Evolution works with glacial speed over almost astronomical time frames before it gets to the kind of proof that the common sceptical person questioning evolution is asking for. It's almost as bad as demanding experimental proof for the workings of stars. "Why don't you just collect some helium and hydrogen and convince me that that is how it works?"

No one ever saw an electron power a computer. Science works via scrutiny of hypotheses that grow out of a working theory.

Extrapolating on evolution, scientists have made many predictions that turned out to be true and if they didn't found the wrong assumptions not to be that of evolution. If a theory has stood this kind of scrutiny as long as the theory of evolution has, I think we are allowed our exasperated reactions when someone dismissively calls it "just a theory" and then demands their hypothesis get the same recognition. And it better get it now and be taught at schools to boot.

Without wishing to get involved in creation vs evolution (seriously guys, that question is so far past settled it's not even fun to argue about any more. Evolution is entirely uncontroversial in every country that doesn't have a big group of religious literalists pretending they have good reasons to disbelieve it).

Just wanted to say that "Remember that the next time you order fish and chips you might be munching on your long lost relative", seems to kinda miss fact that every food item you eat, from beef to broccoli, is an immensely distant cousin. Not just the food either - the trees outside, those weird-lookin' deep sea fish, E.coli... all cousins of each other and of us.

Arakasi:
Food on land is a powerful motivator to grow the leg and hand.

Food on land is a powerful selective advantage for any mutant fish able to crawl up and eat it. But no matter how motivated they are about it, they're not going to grow legs by pure force of will.

Mimsofthedawg:
Hmmm... I don't really like this experiment. It doesn't really show anything. I mean, even if that hormone WAS what caused fish to grow limbs, what caused the fish to produce the hormone in excess? Maybe it's a small piece to the larger puzzle, but it's a very small piece indeed.

Assuming that fish produce the hormone at all (though I don't know if that's the case), producing an excessive amount of it would be a fairly small step - duplicate the gene that codes for it, break a regulatory mechanism that limits the amount produced, add some sort of promoter to up-regulate it... not too hard.

If they didn't previously have that specific hormone, they may well have had something similar - there's a whole family of "hox" genes that are involved in the development of body structure, and those are old genes, not a new development in fish. It produces some interesting results if you mess around with them in fruit flies - you can quite easily produce scrambled body plans, like extra pairs of wings where the legs should be. Or the same thing in flowers can have them growing petals/stamens in all the wrong places.

man-man:

Arakasi:
Food on land is a powerful motivator to grow the leg and hand.

Food on land is a powerful selective advantage for any mutant fish able to crawl up and eat it. But no matter how motivated they are about it, they're not going to grow legs by pure force of will.

I am aware of that, growing legs by pure force of will was not the meaning of my rhyme.

thethird0611:

evilneko:

thethird0611:

Oh wow, thanks for trying to personally attack someone instead of discussing it. You know, throw alllll of my credentials, knowledge, etc, out the window so you can be prideful?

Yeah, you dont make friends that way, and you HURT your point that way. Have fun, I wont participate in this conversation with you.

I did not attack anyone in my post.

Oh, it wasnt evident, but you do it in the way that doesnt get you banned.

"However if you want to directly address the creationist mistakes, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications that have misled you, you may want to look at the following"

Yeah, you did. You directly attacked a persons beliefs instead of staying on topic with actually peer-review academic journals, which are the standard.

There is no reason to debate with someone who -thinks- they are better than you and looks down on you.

I wonder if people got this touchy back in the Renaissance when someone dared to challenge their assertion that the Sun orbited the Earth.

Oh wait, they did.

It's a dangerous path someone walks when they are offended by science and reason, or perceive them to be an attack.

Also, when a person says theory and means hypothesis, a dictionary weeps somewhere.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here