It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Living 80 million year old shark species captured

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Milkweed

I'm curious as to what exactly you're you basing your supposition on that leads you to this conclusion. It's not as if the margins of error in radioactive decay aren't understood or can't be independently corroborated.


Just a guess....

The Biblical view is that the universe is 6000 yrs max.

answersingenesis.org...




posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: trollz

More evidence that perhaps skeptics should be a little more open to not blanketly refusing to accept possibilities due to reasons that keep being proven wrong with more and more exceptions. I mean with exception after exception proving the rule wrong perhaps they should ease off on treating eye witnesses and their testimonies as pure lunacy.


You make it sound like these sharks haven't been known about from fresh caught samples and described in scientific literature since the 1880's. Nobody is discounting eyewitness accounts because while rare, they're actually well documented. The first two specimens caught off of Japan between 1879 and 1881 were brought back to Vienna.

The frilled shark itself isn't from a continuous line that has existed for over 80 Ma and in fact has only been around since the early Pleistocene. It's possible that it existed prior to the early Pleistocene but the earliest known fossilized teeth associated with them is from that time period. They are part of an extant lineage that can be traced back to at least the late Cretaceous ( approximately 95 Ma) and possibly as far back as the late Jurrassic (~150 Ma).

They're certainly rare and only documented in their natural habitat for the first time in 2004 but the narrative that marine biologists are ignoring eyewitness accounts because they don't want to add to the existing body of evidence is the sheer lunacy here because it simply isn't the case.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

That was my first guess but I don't like to assume so wanted to see what the posters rationale was for this belief. It's typically the default position of proponents of YEC but I've seen others with different reasons for believing that dating was incorrect or the age of the earth was wrong.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Winterpain
a reply to: Jefferton

I believe they have known about frilled sharks for years? So, this isn't a new discovery? Maybe the first captured?

~Winter


The first live specimens caught and reported on by "western scientists" was in the early 1880's. They're pretty well documented, just rare. The first documentation of them in their natural habitat was only in 2004 and they're rarely caught so while rather rare, they're still well documented.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

Articles like this are why I still come to ATS...nice find.

Love to see that we humans are still learning about our oceans. Who knows what else is in them?



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ausername

Bums I was just going to post that same statement!
Good old Darwinism fails again



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Winterpain

No, the original article from the IPMA even says that although they exist along the Atlantic and Indian oceans coasts, it's very rarely seen because of the depth at which they live.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Jefferton

cool glad I was able to make your day brighter and less uptight.


and yes like i mentioned is pretty amazing we still make discoveries auch as these.


edit on 371130America/ChicagoFri, 10 Nov 2017 16:37:24 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I wonder what it tastes like



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

From everything that Ive read, supposedly not very good for eating.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42


COME ON MAN, must politics be brought into every thread? I am so sick of this sh1t



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Milkweed

I'm curious as to what exactly you're you basing your supposition on that leads you to this conclusion. It's not as if the margins of error in radioactive decay aren't understood or can't be independently corroborated.


Just a guess....

The Biblical view is that the universe is 6000 yrs max.

answersingenesis.org...


I think one must consider measurement of time from God's perspective before assuming the 7 Days of Creation were in the 24hr format and everthing tgat followed totaled 6000 years. We base a day on one revolution of Earth which wasnt even created until "Days 2 and 3. What if a single God day is a few billion years to us? What if His "days" were translated to "period of time spent creating", so maybe Day 1 was 1-billion years, Day 2 10-billion, Day 3 2-billion... If birds and fish were Day 5, that could be billions of years for dinosaurs to roam, man and animal were Day 6.....



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
I wonder what it tastes like


Chicken of coarse.
(that was a cheep joke).



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
80 million years unchanged by evolution?

Fascinating


When are the wild speculative claims of how old they think things are going to be challenged.

Gotta love it, throw a number out there that can never be verified and in all actuality does not mean a thing.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Milkweed

I'm curious as to what exactly you're you basing your supposition on that leads you to this conclusion. It's not as if the margins of error in radioactive decay aren't understood or can't be independently corroborated.


And how would they be understood.

No way whatsoever to verify or corroborate anything at all.

Far more is NOT taken into account, these parts of science are highly speculative and yet spouted as facts.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Milkweed

I'm curious as to what exactly you're you basing your supposition on that leads you to this conclusion. It's not as if the margins of error in radioactive decay aren't understood or can't be independently corroborated.

I'm guessing they belong to the 6000 year old club.


And you belong to the club that believes everything they read in science mags and media rubbish.

Just another religion, even dumber though, they don't even acknowledge it, that they believe ALSO in things that cannot be proven and matter not at all.

And they force us all to hear and believe their science gods..lol



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Milkweed

I'm curious as to what exactly you're you basing your supposition on that leads you to this conclusion. It's not as if the margins of error in radioactive decay aren't understood or can't be independently corroborated.


And how would they be understood.

No way whatsoever to verify or corroborate anything at all.


Statements like this can only be made from a place of willful ignorance. But then understanding huge subject matter would require looking at the actual science behind it and doing some actual research instead of dismissing it blindly because the notion interferes with your theological prerogatives.

Let me ask you this, is dendrochronology also lacking any validity despite the fact that we can continue to take core samples from a tree throughout its life and verify the efficacy of the methodology? Because just as one example, 14C dating is calibrated against dendrochronology and is well within the very small margin of error. Furthermore, radiometric dating is never the sole determinate for any ascribed age given to an artifact/ set of remains/ or site. But please feel free to lay out the errors in methodology and science for us all. I'd love to see your astute breakdown of why the science is wrong.


Far more is NOT taken into account,


For example?


these parts of science are highly speculative and yet spouted as facts.


Since you apparently know more about Radiometric dating than people who actually study and work in related fields, it should be a simple matter for you to falsify the data since it's mere speculation. I look forward to having you detail what all of the errors in the various Radiometric dating methods are and falsifying it for us mere mortals.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
It's cute. In a sort of OMFG it's ugly kind of way.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
The frilled shark possesses multiple rows of small teeth arranged into
biting surfaces spread out over the upper and lower jaws. Compared
to a modern shark - a Great White - the teeth are very large and
encircle the jaws without any gaps. The wide gaps in the frilled
suggest an early stage of development or it's just another completely
weird new species of shark, many of which probably survive
unchanged for 100s of millions of years..

The Great White shark has about 300 teeth on the top and lower
jaws where the frilled shark may have as many tiny teeth.



a reply to: trollz


edit on 11-11-2017 by ThatHappened because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join