When did Megalodon really go extinct?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
This source claims that the ancient shark Magalodon was still alive 11,000 years ago.



Could Megalodon still exist? In 1875, a British survey ship, the HMS Challenger, recovered two Megalodon teeth near Tahiti. The five-inch teeth were dredged from a depth of 14,000 feet. When the teeth were dated in 1959, they were found to be 11,000 years old.


The popular explanation is that they went extinct 1.6 million years ago according to this source.



Megalodon's appearance in the mid-Miocene (16 million years ago) and its extinction in the Plio-Pleistocene (1.6 million years ago), a barrage of large-scale changes occurred that affected the marine environment.


That's a bit of a difference in agreement between the scientists and the people that found real evidence don't you think? The first article goes on to state that Megalodon may still be alive and well today in the depths of our oceans. After reading both articles I think that's a much better explanation than claiming that it went extinct long ago. Anyone else have any evidence that Megalodon could be alive and well?




posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Thestargateisreal
 


Here is an interesting essay on the topic. They address several arguments that have been made that it is still alive, but ultimately arrive at a skeptical conclusion:



The ultimate point that debunks the suggestion of modern-day survival of C. megalodon is the current paleoecological view of the shark. Simply put, all available evidence suggests that C. megalodon inhabited tropical waters and, like the extant white shark, was a coastal species (Purdy 1996). It was not a deep-sea inhabitant that fed on giant squids (Architeuthis sp.), as envisioned by many proponents of C. megalodon survival (e.g. Clark 1968; Shuker 1995). A creature as large and adapted to a coastal, warm and food-rich marine habitat as C. megalodon could not survive in the cold, food-poor deep-sea. Millions of years of evolution moulded C. megalodon to be an active, shallow-water predator of primitive whales, not a sluggish, deep-sea, squid-eating leviathan. In fact, C. megalodon may have died out due partially to the Pliocene extinction of a major food source, early baleen whales known as cetotheriids. (Other possible factors in the extinction of C. megalodon include changes in oceanic circulation, the closing of the Isthmus of Panama [which might have cut off access to mating and pupping areas] and even competition from other large predators such as orcas [Orcinus orca] [Richard Martin in prep.].) The whales that survived and evolved into the species we know today may have simply been too fast for C. megalodon to catch (Richard Martin in prep.). These new whales also showed a trend towards colder waters, to which C. megalodon was not suited. These factors resulted in a lessened food supply, and in a sense, C. megalodon may have starved to death.

Some proponents of C. megalodon survival might still say that C. megalodon could have adapted to a deep-sea environment after its accepted extinction date of about 1.5 millions years ago. This argument lacks all reason. Deep-sea fishes and other animals are extremely well adapted to the harsh conditions of their environment, with reduced skeletons and tissues, pressure- and temperature-insensitive enzymes, low activity and metabolic rates, and specialized foraging methods, among other adaptations (Ellis 1996; Helfman et al. 1997). Likewise, C. megalodon was probably well adapted to its very different shallow-water environment. The idea that C. megalodon could simply change all of its anatomical, physiological and behavioural specializations to adapt itself to a totally different environment, such as the deep-sea, is fatuous.

If C. megalodon were still alive today, than it would have to exist in the shallow, food-rich continental shelf waters to which it was so well adapted. I doubt that any serious proponent of C. megalodon survival would suggest that the great shark could remain undetected in this region. Like the extant white shark, C. megalodon surely fed near the sea surface at times, and if it were still alive today we would have ample evidence of its existence. Certainly, popular activities such as surfing, swimming and boating would become that much more hazardous with a 15 m, super-predatory shark swimming around.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
They are most likely still lurking in the depths, Just like giant squid, they are Never really seen but, tentacles and such wash up from the depths,

If it did actually show its self we would only hunt it and kill it anyway, its best they do not surface,



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Megalodon is not extinct. Just exists in a different form



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
In the form of Death tone music?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
You know it



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
The Megalodon went extinct during the Norrasic period...the era in which Chuck Norris gave birth to himself.


2nd



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
The essay posted against the idea is based on the assumption of many things. As far as I know the only thing we have are teeth, nothing else has been found. How can someone conclude for sure about their habitat with only teeth? If we have teeth, then why not anything else?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Well maybe they had a skeleton made of cartilage like our modern day sharks do, so the only thing left behind are the jaws and teeth.

Just a thought.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TimesEnd
 


How does a tooth tell you where something lived?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
The Tooth found obviously tells you it lived in the aria it was found,



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
The rest of the remains, are probably on the sea bed of where the teeth was found



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SupersonicSerpent
 


In 1.6 million years or more of tidal currents an object can't move? Why were younger teeth found that blow the generally accepted extinction theory out of the water? Why were they found in the wrong place?

In 1.6 million years if fossil remains of Salmon are found in the rivers of Alaska will scientists conclude that a Salmon was a freshwater dwelling fish?
edit on 13-8-2011 by Thestargateisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
We tell the age of dinosaurs from the rocks they were in or other better known and dated fossils found along with them or near them, particularly mammal teeth and small sea creatures. We can only date a rock precisely if it was made from a volcano — not by gradual buildup like most dinosaurs are found in. Volcanic rock contains some radioactive minerals in tiny amounts. These minerals break down over time at a very steady rate. By measuring how much of these minerals have broken down we can date such a volcanic rock to within 100,000 years of when it was made, even if it was many millions of years ago. Of course, such volcanic rock isn't always around dinosaur fossils. So often we have to guess from these other clues.

Now if they found newer teeth and they can prove it, then the logical conclusion would be that they didn't die out.

They can take samples of the teeth and run a forensic test to see mineral deposits, density of calcium growth, among other things to find out where it was. Of course that is based on our knowledge, so yet again its a logical guess.

With the statement of it being a deep runner in the ocean. We have only recently explored a small portion of ocean so it might still be around.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Maybe it was frozen, and was carried by ice the last Last glacial period was around 11.000 years ago maybe there could be a connection,



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I know this isn't really adding anything to the topic, but I just wanted to say that the Megalodon has always interested me ever since I was a kid. The whole idea of a giant shark fascinated me and even now I still try to look up all the info I can about it just to keep hope that there might be one still out there.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Megs have been extinct since the middle of the Pleistocene. if there were any still alive, there would be whale carcasses, with big bite marks taken out of them, washing up on our beaches. the teeth found by the HMS Challenger, were wrongly estimated to be 11,000 years old by the amount of manganese that was coating them.
as stated above...sharks have a cartilaginous skeleton, and as such, only the teeth and vertebrae are left to fossilize after decomposition. occasionally, the cartilage itself will fossilize, but only very rarely.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordpiney
Megs have been extinct since the middle of the Pleistocene. if there were any still alive, there would be whale carcasses, with big bite marks taken out of them, washing up on our beaches. the teeth found by the HMS Challenger, were wrongly estimated to be 11,000 years old by the amount of manganese that was coating them.
as stated above...sharks have a cartilaginous skeleton, and as such, only the teeth and vertebrae are left to fossilize after decomposition. occasionally, the cartilage itself will fossilize, but only very rarely.


Actually last I heard they were unable to correctly determine a time for the teeth.

I really hope they are around, maybe in some sort of Steve Alten-esque scenario. They are really fascinating. although I like to imagine them more around the length of 200 feet than the average 60 feet, gives them some extra "oomph"



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Celestica

Originally posted by lordpiney
Megs have been extinct since the middle of the Pleistocene. if there were any still alive, there would be whale carcasses, with big bite marks taken out of them, washing up on our beaches. the teeth found by the HMS Challenger, were wrongly estimated to be 11,000 years old by the amount of manganese that was coating them.
as stated above...sharks have a cartilaginous skeleton, and as such, only the teeth and vertebrae are left to fossilize after decomposition. occasionally, the cartilage itself will fossilize, but only very rarely.


Actually last I heard they were unable to correctly determine a time for the teeth.

I really hope they are around, maybe in some sort of Steve Alten-esque scenario. They are really fascinating. although I like to imagine them more around the length of 200 feet than the average 60 feet, gives them some extra "oomph"

that's because they are probably older than 60,000 years, and c14 dating is impossible to do on anything older than that. if megs were still alive in the deep water scenarios, like Steve Alten wrote about, they wouldn't look anything like the megs of the past. they would be eel-like due to the intense pressures of the deep.
200 feet huh? lol. that's one big shark! they would have 25 inch teeth. i would love to have one of those in my collection.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by lordpiney
 


Why are whales not Eel like from the pressure?





top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join