scientists confirm that baby hammerhead shark had no paternal dna
By squaretile
@squaretile (3778)
Singapore
May 23, 2007 3:44am CST
in line with another mylot conversation on two male flamingo parents, just read a bbc news article that says a hammerhead shark gave birth even though it had no contact with a male. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature
this happened in nebraska, usa in 2001. apparently common in bony fish it has not happened with cartiliginous fish such as sharks. it has been verified recently that the baby shark had no paternal DNA.
this natural occurance might be due to pressure from over fishing of sharks. however due to the absence of paternal DNA this weakens the genetic make-up of the baby shark and also weakens the chance of species survival.
quite fascinating!
4 responses
@sunslinger (474)
• Singapore
23 May 07
There seems to be a lot of weird things going on in the animal kingdom. Maybe it was always there and we're only starting to learn about it now. I just hope that these weirdness is just evolutionary Darwinism and not due to human hands.
1 person likes this
@beaniegdi (1964)
•
24 May 07
I was really suprised as well when I saw this on the news and at first thought it had only just happened and was suprised when I read more stories tht it happened in 2001. I cannot remember hearing of it at all then. It can only mean that this has been happening before but we didn't know or that the shark has evolved to be able to do this, which shows that we are all evolving and changing. It makes you wonder what other suprises nature might have in store for us one day.
@squaretile (3778)
• Singapore
25 May 07
yup, maybe one day men will be able to have babies themselves and save us all the trouble. but in this case it was the female. guess males don't have the necessary hardware/equipment so it's harder for it to happen the other way round. shucks. or should i say, sharks? haha.
@naka75 (795)
• Singapore
23 May 07
I am just pondering that this evidence points to the fallacy of monolithic religious faiths that postulated human beings come from combination of male and female, and that it has encompassed every life on the planet as a result of 'creation'. Then why do a baby shark don't have paternal DNA? Does it mean it is not created? Then where did it come from? Using scientific evidence to prove validity of religious theory and then again disprove science when it doesn't corroborate with it. Which is which?
@ahgong (10064)
• Singapore
23 May 07
wow... Fascinating!
Is this evolution in progress?
Will this result in a better a better species or some weaker mutated form?
This is interesting... evolution in our time!
will there be newer species to be found due to this progression?
hmm... looks like I have been watching the wrong channels for nature documentary.
