Dunno what we’re supposed to make of this news release:

“What? We’re similar to a sea urchin? That can’t be possible.”

Um, well, not really. Some part of our genomes are the same. And there might be clues in there to help humans live longer (which, I ask: do we really need?). That’s about it. We don’t live in the ocean and we’re not harvested and turned into bite-sized dinner.

I see this as a case that emphasizes the problem with the reductionism inherent in studies of genomes (so what does it really mean if echinoderms and humans have similar genomes?) and the recent emphasis on genes (and genomes by extension) as the gold standard in explaining life’s mysteries. Perhaps there is some anthro-genetic-gold locked away in a sea urchin’s genome, but what else is new? We’ve been looking for and mining genetic gold for a while now…

So yes, it is interesting that sea urchins are closer to us on the phylogenetic tree then say, other genetic poster boys (like Drosophila sp., for example). But, there are lots of other organisms that are closer. It’s just that a echinoderm’s radial symmetry (versus our lateral symmetry) and their morphological dis-similarity to us gives us the immediate impression that sea urchins must be genetically distant. But knowing that chimpanzees, given their genetic code, should be in the same genus as us (or that we should be seen as the third chimpanzee, thanks Jared Diamond) I’m really not that surprised that there’s some overlap with distant relative.

Link: Sea Urchin Genome Surprisingly Similar To Man And May Hold Key To Cures

Unrelated post-script: I love the photo of UCF Professor Cristina Calestani: I think it should be called “Sea urchin, microscope & professor.”