patrick.net

That is a stretch. That single protein is far less complex than an eye, but nobody is saying squids and humans must have evolutionarily separated only after eyes were formed in the common ancestor. Instead, it is explained as a paralleled evolution. That is, some mollusks like squids and octopi developed eyes while evolving from their clam like ancestors independent of any other lineage. More likely the Atlantic Herring and the Smelt developed the AFP protein through parallel evolution, not some magic teleporting gene.

HeadSet says

Instead, it is explained as a paralleled evolution.

I think the article is claiming that parallel evolution is not possible in this case, because the gene is too similar.

If it were parallel, there would be a lot of differences.

The human eye and the octopus eye are parallel evolution, but genetically extremely different.

If it is a single protein, pretty routine these days to check the DNA sequences for similarity and possible evolutionary alterations/mutations.

Would any self respecting herring actually fuck a smelt? I don't think so.

Patrick says

The human eye and the octopus eye are parallel evolution, but genetically extremely different.

True, but eyes are complex. The article is talking about a protein. The same environment that the herring and the smelt thrive in could lead to the same natural selection of that protein. Just as the mollusk and mammal living lighted environments led to the evolution of similar organs containing lenses, retinas, optic nerves, and specialized area of a brain to process images. Maybe a better example would be human races. East Asians and Nordics did not evolve from each other, but both evolved white skin. Similarly, equatorial Africans and South Asians did not evolve from each other, but both have dark black skin. This is still a better explanation that air-gap gene transfer between non-microscopic species.

HeadSet says

The same environment that the herring and the smelt thrive in could lead to the same natural selection of that protein.

Let’s use the terminology correctly. I do not wish to argue semantics but natural selection cannot increase variability. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_25

Environmental characteristics are either advantageous to or deleterious to existing phenotypes. This in turn plays an important role in which phenotypes reproduce and which die off before passing on their genes. But what if there is genetic variability that is present in a population that is not expressed in a readily discernible phenotype until environmental pressure demands this gene to turn on?

HeadSet says

Maybe a better example would be human races. East Asians and Nordics did not evolve from each other, but both evolved white skin. Similarly, equatorial Africans and South Asians did not evolve from each other, but both have dark black skin

All races have a common ancestor so your premise is false. It is a good example of parallel evolution but it is an even better example of how the human species has an unbelievable genetic reservoir from which to express adaptations. It is as if God created humans (and all of the plants and animals) with the necessary variability in latent genes (unexpressed unless environmental conditions demand a phenotype change) to adapt to various environments that can be present at any given time on this planet (which He also created). The fact that diverse races that do not share a recent (in the last 500 years) common ancestor express similar adaptations to similar environmental conditions is evidence of a wise and benevolent Creator who wanted to give His creation the means to thrive in diverse environments regardless of their recent lineage.

PeopleUnited says

All races have a common ancestor so your premise is false.

No, not false. All races have a common ancestor is true, but I said that East Asians and Nordics did not evolve from each other. And as people migrated the world, both East Asians and Nordics developed white skin. That is, the same skin color genes come to the forefront through natural selection from both groups living in less sunny latitudes.

I'm going to stay out of this one and watch ya'll duke it out.

Ceffer says

If it is a single protein, pretty routine these days to check the DNA sequences for similarity and possible evolutionary alterations/mutations.

Would any self respecting herring actually fuck a smelt? I don't think so.

Back in the early 2000s, Graham was studying AFPs under the direction of her lab leader Peter Davies when she was struck by the uncanny resemblance of the smelt protein’s gene to one of the antifreeze genes produced by herring. The genes’ introns — stretches of noncoding DNA, which generally mutate faster than coding regions — are more than 95% identical. “The only conclusion we could come up with was that the gene was transferred horizontally,” she said.

It sounds much closer than convergent evolution would do.

They herring and smelt don't have to fuck, in fact their fertilization is out in the water. Maybe somehow a fragment of smelt sperm DNA made it into a herring egg or vice versa.

Patrick says

the gene was transferred horizontally

Kind of like all those girls who claim they got pregnant from sharing bath water?

Technically not impossible, just extremely unlikely.

There is some good pun to be made about horizontal gene transfer in bed...

Patrick says

Would any self respecting herring actually fuck a smelt? I don't think so.

That statement is sooo against the concepts of LBGQXYZ, you intolerantist.

HeadSet says

That is, the same skin color genes come to the forefront through natural selection

My mistake, turns out we are both saying the same thing with different words.

As I understand your hypothesis, the populations of reproductively isolated descendants of the first humans both retained the ability via preexisting but unexpressed genetic information to respond to environmental conditions selecting for lighter or darker skin pigmentation?

This is what I was arguing as well.