posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 08:30 AM
Here are just a few thoughts that come to my mind:
1. Fossil record. Although incomplete, there's a worldwide decline of fossilized meg teeth observable in the fossil record already beginning in the
Miocene period and also coinciding with the decline of 1/3 of large marine fauna including various whale species meg fed on at the end of the
2. The detailed mapping of the ocean floor has no relevance to megalodon's existence. Moreover, the ocean is in constant change. When could one really
declare an area as "explored". One thing is for sure, a predator of this size would need a lot of food and would also be observable where its food
source is, whilst hunting it. With regards to megalodon that would be marine mammals, most of which spend most of their time in the upper zones of
the ocean. We'd also expect to at least observe juvenile megs grow up in coastal nursery areas, similar to the white shark of today.
3. No credible sighting of a large macro-predatory shark is known to date. The few sightings of large unknown shark species, popularly attributed to
megalodon, are sketchy at best and useless at worst.
4. No carcass or other fresh remains (e.g. a single fresh tooth) is known. One would think that at least the odd juvenile would be attacked by orcas
or at least one fresh tooth would have been found by now. The reports of "recent" 10.000 year old teeth are false.
5. No carcass of bitten prey that could be attributed to megalodon. We'd expect one or two whales or elephant seals to turn up with large bite marks
not attributable to white sharks.
6. 70% of the ocean is probably inhospitable for sharks (abyssal and hadopelagic zones), Apart from various problems (e.g. cartilage skeleton),
there's no food source to sustain a population of megs at those depths.
Moreover, white shark are known to dive over 1000m deep, so what is keeping meg from showing up such depths? There's no reason to assume megs are true
mega-deep-sea sharks in any true sense of the word, except for one: To have a convenient excuse as to why we are not observing these apex predators of
the past, when we should have no problem whatsoever should they still exist.
7. Extinction is nothing new, nor uncommon. Why should megalodon be exceptional? The way some meg-possibly-lives advocates argue, one would think
extinction is such an absurd and rare circumstance - it isn't. Many claim meg had to adapt to survive, which just proves all the more they were under
threat of extinction. If they have changed so much over time that we wouldn't even recognize them as megalodons anymore, they'd still be "extinct" as
8. Lack of good reasons/arguments for their existence, (whilst mostly ignoring what we do know or can infer from the fossil data at hand about the
animal in question.) It is not enough to look at what is possible and what we don't know. We should be taking into account what is probable and what
we already do know. Meg-possibly-lives-advocates need to deal with the arguments and numerous scientific papers at hand, instead of simply appealing
to the lack of knowledge and pure speculation. By reading what scientists actually are saying about megalodons perhaps we can start undrerstanding how
scientists can say something like "The megalodon is extinct." in the first place.