Prehistoric, Dinosaur-Era Shark With Insane Teeth Found Swimming Off Coast of Portugal

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: badw0lf

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

The rare frilled shark is considered a “living fossil,” as its makeup has remained unchanged for 80 million years.

Not even random mutations, over all that time, at all?

Whats that say about theories of evolution?

According to some by now, it must have morphed into a fish frog squirrel thingy and back...lol.

backs it up, actually. The thing evolved efficiently for it's habitat.

Evolution theory depends on RANDOM mutations over millions and millions of years. One proof it doesn't is right in front of your face: this fish is unchanged over all that time. Proving (once again) that Genes stay the same or the cell divides and cannot reproduce, mutates and dies, or adapts (but stays in the same specie).

Mutations occur. The genome from these fish have differentiated over time, however, without pressures forcing the old traits to die out, you still end up with a species of fish that exhibits the same phenotypes as what we saw millions of years ago. There is a reason why the deep sea, which it’s lack of changing environmental pressures over time is where we have found species that appear relatively the same.

Wouldn't sea floor drift, cataclysm, and other factors change that environment over that long a period?

Especially Cataclysm.

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

Whoa, that teeth... looks like God was doing some serious beta testing.

Nice find, literally.

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: intrptr

How are you conflating cancer with genetic changes in species over millions of years?

If a cell mutates, giving rise to cancer, the immune system will allow it to fester because its been fooled into thinking its part of the body.

Its a defective mutation that destroys the host by swimming under the radar of specie conformity.

That 'conformity' is programmed into the DNA, it does not favor evolving to different forms of life, it represses it.

a reply to: intrptr

But that doesn't mean the "lower" life forms simply disappear because a mutant/"evolved version" is born.

Also, what's higher & lower in this context? The whole point is for lifeforms to survive and then thrive in their environments. If a particular species fits a particular environment perfectly, then further mutations may actually be harmful to the mutants for that environment. The mutants would either have to find new environments that suit their new traits or they wouldn't be able to keep up with the ones that are better adapted for that particular environment.

The situation with the frilled sharks seems to be like that. From my link above, there seems to be a second "version" that only lives in a specific environment (the southern African coast). And there are several other "versions" that are extinct. So if anything, this means that the "version" in the OP found a perfect environment where it could survive for 80 million years without needing any further adaptions. It also seems to mean that further mutations/adaptions to this species don't improve the survival rates of the mutants/"evolved" ones.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Also, what's higher & lower in this context?

Evolving from lifelessness has to include electric mud puddles or whatever, then the mutations over millions of years to higher and higher life forms. Random especially brought on by cosmic rays, toxins, stress, etc.

Over that long a time frame

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Indrasweb

Second edit:

And the reason the human genome is decaying as you put it is because we have completely usurped the process of natural selection! We have enabled those with faulty genetics to survive in a world that would have previously chewed them (and consequently their entire genetic lineage) up and spat them out within days of their coming into the world (if not hours). Of course the alternative to what we have now is a Hitleresque purge of the "impure" and no sane or feeling human being wants anything to do with THAT!

Former 'higher' civilizations like Rome and Greece cared for their handicapped and disabled too, if they were the right "Class".

Genes had nothing to do with it,.

Thanks for the race purity reminder, it is at the heart of evolution theory.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that comment, aside from illustrating what I said about humans usurping natural selection.

Also, I don't hear anyone (aside from a few fringe loonies) calling for racial purity based on the theory of evolution...

"If a cell mutates, giving rise to cancer, the immune system will allow it to fester because its been fooled into thinking its part of the body. 

Well... thank you for providing an example of a cell mutation that has nothing to do with changes in genetics over millions of years.

Look man, I don't know what your alternative explanation is (I'm guessing its the old "it was god what done it") and if that's what you choose to believe then have at it. Makes no odds to me.
But honestly, I think you could do with having another look at the basic fundamentals of the theory here (objectively and without the preconceived ideas preferably) because from what you're saying I don't think you understand what the theory of evolution and natural selection actually means. No offense intended but I feel like you're missing the point..

Sure hope the Syfy channel doesn't see that article.

Or we'll end up with another stupid snip movie from them.

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

That specimen looks about 80 million years old.

a reply to: Indrasweb

Look man, I don't know what your alternative explanation is (I'm guessing its the old "it was god what done it") and if that's what you choose to believe then have at it. Makes no odds to me.

Religions magical explanation is just as biased as evolution when it comes to origins.

I don't hold either, the only thing that makes sense to me is life was engineered somewhere else and brought here.

Not only but this garden of life is monitored and cared for to prevent total extinction.

I know, I've seen one of their 'thingys'.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Indrasweb

Look man, I don't know what your alternative explanation is (I'm guessing its the old "it was god what done it") and if that's what you choose to believe then have at it. Makes no odds to me.

Religions magical explanation is just as biased as evolution when it comes to origins.

I don't hold either, the only thing that makes sense to me is life was engineered somewhere else and brought here.

Not only but this garden of life is monitored and cared for to prevent total extinction.

Fair enough, as I said, whatever makes sense for you. It's not like you're working in genetics or something so, makes no odds to the rest of us

I know, I've seen one of their 'thingys'.

Oh god another #metoo sexual abuse allegation incoming... them aliens better lawyer up...

Already posted.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Indrasweb

Sp what you're saying is life exists no where else?

Now, this fish must have some really good immune system properties. Viruses and prions along with dietary changes will stimulate change and it must be able to combat those things in it's natural setting. Hopefully some crazy people will not figure they can make a buck off of selling the fish meat and promoting it as anticancer.

It kind of looks like a huge mudpuppy with teeth and no legs. I wonder how many of these are still around, they must be extremely rare and deserve protection status from the governments of the world.

a reply to: intrptr

Huh? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I'm certain life exists somewhere else.

However, that's a far cry from saying "intelligent life exists somewhere else, has developed the tech to travel across the universe, has developed the tech, and for some reason the notion, to create an entire planet of creatures and periodically visit and keep an eye on things"

One is a statistical probability (inevitability?) the other is, without supporting evidence or proof, a fantasy.

I love how our first instinct when seeing a possibly endangered species is to snatch it out of its habitat and start poking and prodding it. Leave the damn thing alone and let it go on its way instead of killing it for "research".

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous salamander

Aqumaman has a new ally...the salamander eel...thing.

It goes so show how vast our planet is and how much we still don't know. The Coelcanth was thought to be extinct, but was caught a few decades ago, the colossal squid was stuff of myths and legends until one was caught, and just recently a new species of primate was discovered.

I saw a story about this salamander eel...thing years ago and while i'm no marine biologist it looks like a bottom feeder, the small eyes, the lower inclined jaw, reliance on extra sensory receptors, I could be wrong but this creature may be the precursor to the Catfish.

Who knows what we will discover next *insert Jaws theme here*

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Indrasweb

If anything it supports the theory of evolution: that only mutations that provide an advantage over current states of being will survive, and any mutations which do not provide any advantage will die out.

How does the genome know which adaptation is 'positive'? The theory supports random mutations which, by their preponderance over great lengths of time, produce change.

The now known fact this creature did not mutate at all over "80 million years" supports the notion that species do not 'evolve upward' from primitive to "Modern" versions of themselves.

if that were true, random mutations would have changed this fish long ago, at least a little bit. But it didn't, because random mutations favor devolution, disease and decay. This fish remains the same today as it was because the genome locked out mutations.

Sorry about the science terms, I'm 'underedumakated'.

Edit:

Comparing this type of creature to humans as an example illustrates the concept perfectly: why is it that as a species humans exist with all kinds of unhelpful and even life threatening mutations whereas species such as this exist in almost perfect uniformity?

Human genome is decaying overall, not improving.

Ill explain.

Evolutions main catalyst isnt the mutation itself.

Its the environment. Remember, its called natural selection.

On the surface, our planets environments and ecosystems change relatively rapidly. That environment and ecosystem chooses the mutations that proliferate.

This is a deep sea creature.

The deep sea envrionment isnt that different from how it was 80 billion years ago or however long its claimed.

Because the environment is stable and theres so few species that can inhabit those extreme conditions, this creature has no need or reason to evolve.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: badw0lf

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

The rare frilled shark is considered a “living fossil,” as its makeup has remained unchanged for 80 million years.

Not even random mutations, over all that time, at all?

Whats that say about theories of evolution?

According to some by now, it must have morphed into a fish frog squirrel thingy and back...lol.

backs it up, actually. The thing evolved efficiently for it's habitat.

Evolution theory depends on RANDOM mutations over millions and millions of years. One proof it doesn't is right in front of your face: this fish is unchanged over all that time. Proving (once again) that Genes stay the same or the cell divides and cannot reproduce, mutates and dies, or adapts (but stays in the same specie).

Well to be fair, and this is more an indictment of poor "science" journalism than your reply because you're basing your info on the OP's citations, but this organism hasn't gone unchanged for 80 MA. IN fact, the oldest fossils of them are teeth from the early Pleistocene Epoch.

The article also makes it look like they've just "rediscovered " this species when it's been recorded in scientific literature since the 1880's. The first 2 specimens were brought back to Austria from Japan in 1881 but something happened to the work so the first published paper on them wasn't until 1884. But they're well known and well described. They are exceedingly rare in the wild and live specimens are even more rare with the first video documentation of them in their natural habitat not occurring until 2004.

But previously unknown and unchanged for 80 MA is a drastic exaggeration of facts and if that's theci made by Newsweek they should be ashamed for piss poor editorial oversight. It's unfortunately a common occurrence in publications who have journalists writing about science that they don't particularly understand very well. Personally, I cringe every time I see the phrase "living fossil" in print because it leads people to the same conclusions that you have reached.

When first discovered, It was thought that they were more closely related to extinct clades of sharks and rays but are now thought to be more closely related to more recent sharks such as Cow Sharks. That doesn't mean that they're not part of an extant lineage that stretches back more than 80 MA to the late Cretaceous. But the species itself, despite demonstrating some primitive morphology, only goes back to the Pleistocene and they aren't unchanged for 80 MA.

For a point of comparison, "the coelacanth" and I'll explain why I put I think in quotes, is also called a living fossil and people are under the same impression as you are with the frilled shark... that they were unchanged for tens of millions of years and suddenly reappeared in the Indian Ocean. Much like the MSM hype on the recent drilled shark caught off the Portuguese coast, the reports on Coelocanth are wildly misinterpreted and misrepresented.

See, Coelocanth isn't a species or even a Genus of fish. It's and entire order. In the taxonomic hierarchy, it goes Species, Genus, Family, then Order (then class, phylum, kingdom, domain and finally life). What we actually have are 2 separate species of the genus Latimeria. They have a few morphological similarities to their predecessors but their morphology is clearly not the same as the extinct members of their class with several major differences. Another interesting tidbit that most people aren't aware of is that while Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the same event that killed off the dinosaurs, many specimens from the Cenozoic have since been found in the fossil record. They were simply unknown in 1938 when the first live "Coelacanth" was found off of the S. African coast.

Moral of the story? Be wary when a lazy journalist runs with a sensationalist headline claiming an organism is a living fossil and check other sources to see where the facts line up because the truth is often less exciting but more satisfying.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Indrasweb

Second edit:

And the reason the human genome is decaying as you put it is because we have completely usurped the process of natural selection! We have enabled those with faulty genetics to survive in a world that would have previously chewed them (and consequently their entire genetic lineage) up and spat them out within days of their coming into the world (if not hours). Of course the alternative to what we have now is a Hitleresque purge of the "impure" and no sane or feeling human being wants anything to do with THAT!

Former 'higher' civilizations like Rome and Greece cared for their handicapped and disabled too, if they were the right "Class".

Genes had nothing to do with it,.

Likewise, Neanderthal cared for their elderly and disabled as well. Without the hindrances of classism or rankism. They did it because it was the right thing to do, not out of social hierarchy. Men who had limbs amputated and survived the procedure were cared for by the rest of their group. Elderly who were so arthritic that there was no way they could get their own food, taken care of by their group. This occurs across several members of our genus for the last few hundred thousand years.

Thanks for the race purity reminder, it is at the heart of evolution theory

Not even remotely close to true. Just because so,e late 19th century eugenicists created and promoted "Social Darwinism" to promote their own sick world views doesn't mean that eugenics has any role in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. I would have to assume that you take umbrage with the MES and don't believe that, despite being the most widely evidenced and best supported theory in the history of science, evolution is a valid biological process because I've never seen anyone who understands how evolution works or believes it is a legitimate biological process make statements associating it with eugenics. That argument, in my personal experiences, has only ever been made by people who are unconvinced that evolution occurs. If I am incorrect, I apologize in advance but your belief that eugenics is a core aspect of MES is completely false.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Indrasweb

Sp what you're saying is life exists no where else?

Life exists in thermal vents on the ocean floor.

It exists throughout the galaxy in various forms.

Don't let anyone tell you different.