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

So....

From the depths of the ocean and our imagination the near impossible seems to have materialized into our (known) reality. Something aquatic that supposedly hasn't existed for a (claimed) 80 million of years has not only been found, but there appears to be footage of such creature too.

This to me was quite the head-scratcher. But it does help me come to grips that the zoological and cryptozoological world still has many mystery's yet to be discovered. I hope that more such discoveries can come to fruition.

By the way did I mention that it has 300 teeth? (Right-Click and choose 'view image' to see it in full)

The below Article comes from this Newsweek link
Prehistoric, Dinosaur-Era Shark With Insane Teeth Found Swimming Off Coast of Portugal

The rare frilled shark is considered a “living fossil,” as its makeup has remained unchanged for 80 million years. This summer, researchers found one alive and thriving off the coast of Portugal, adding evidence regarding the resilience of this ancient sea creature.

The shark was discovered off the Algarve coast by researchers who were working on a European Union project in the area, the BBC reported. The aim of the project was to "minimize unwanted catches in commercial fishing," but the team unknowingly unearthed one of the rarest and most ancient animals on the planet.

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

What a beast! Did you notice how different its tail is compared to other sharks? It's horizontal. Quite beautiful to look at and one more reason to be grateful I live on land.

I can't imagine running into that beastie in the wild.

Thankfully I live in a land-locked place. LOOK AT THOSE TEEEETH!!!

On a side note, it is AMAZING how little we know about the ocean, and what is in it.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were huge Kraken lurking in the depths.

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

Not sure if this the same shark caught of Portugal that a thread was done on a few days ago . Looks kinda different . From the other OP .


If different i aint going for a swim near Portugal , and i am from Australia .

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.

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.

On the contrary. 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. The existence of this creature which appears to remain (largely; as we cannot know for certain whether it has changed in some ways on a very basic level) unchanged suggests a state of being that is most efficient for surviving in it's environment... who would have thought that being powerful, fast and having lots of very sharp and enormous teeth would be the most efficient way of surviving in a world of predators and prey eh?
Essentially, apex predators do not need to evolve (read: environmental factors are sufficiently stable /species is sufficiently adept at surviving that few mutations occur from generation to generation)

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?

Hint: Societal intervention and medicine.

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.

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.

Why hasnt god given it a super brain and told it to make iphones though?

a reply to: intrptr

Genes or genomes or anything else do not 'decide' to do anything. Changes are a natural response to changes in environment and the demands placed upon a species. There is no determination, it is cause and effect. They do not "know" which is positive. It is NATURAL SELECTION. That's the whole point.

If the more teeth a creature had was a 'positive' thing (i.e. increased survivability) then, over time, the ones with fewer teeth would die out and the ones with more teeth would procreate and survive. There would be no 'deciding', simply a process of NATURAL SELECTION.

Also, if the demands upon a species are not sufficient to engineer a change in the creature then it does not change. Basically, if what you've originally got ticks all the boxes then, no matter what comes along, the 'original' will always prevail and no natural changes will occur in the overall population.

Random mutations do occur, yes, but they would only have survived and become widespread if the creature with the mutations was sufficiently successful (in fact MORE succesful than the original) to survive and procreate widely enough to ensure the 'new version' replaced the 'old version'.

In this case, any 'new versions' clearly did not have any significant advantage over the 'old versions' and thus the 'old version' is the one that continued to reproduce and survived all this time.

It's important to note also that claims of this creature being 'completely unchanged' are based on incredibly incomplete data. How many of these things (what percentage of the overall population? What even IS the overall population?) have been seen, tested, examined, fully understood and genetically mapped?

How many from 80 million years ago have been seen, tested, examined, fully understood and genetically mapped (the answer to the latter is a big fat ZERO of course as we weren't around 80 million years ago with our various instruments, poking around in creatures' genetics).

There may well be MANY examples of the fossils or corpses of these things, littering the bottom of the ocean, with 'unhelpful' genetic mutations: evolutionary dead ends, extinct before they even got off the production line because the changes in their genetics did nothing to increase the survivability of their species.

ETA: Random mutations do NOT favour decay. They do not favour ANYTHING. They just happen.
If what happens leads to an outcome one might (SUBJECTIVELY) call positive, then it will be passed on by natural selection. If it is negative (SUBJECTIVELY) and the outcome is not favourable, then it will not be passed on.

There are no 'good or 'bad' mutations from an objective standpoint. It is entirely relative to the environment and circumstances. What was once an advantage can become a disadvantage or vice versa, depending upon the environment.

The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of random mutations will not lead to an advantage. That much is clear. What are the chances that a random genetic mutation leads to a positive outcome? Very very slim indeed when viewed from the perspective of human time. However, when viewed on the scale of universal time it is, in fact, inevitable.


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!

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).

a reply to: Indrasweb

Genes or genomes or anything else do not 'decide' to do anything. Changes are a natural response to changes in environment and the demands placed upon a species.

More importantly over all that time is the mutations cause by external sources of radiation like cosmic rays, toxins in the environment, etc. These are random and supposedly the driving force to mutate life forms 'upward' along the evolutionary path.

I disagree about genes 'deciding'. Cell division is only accomplished successful if the DNA strands copy perfectly. Mutations that are faulty are kicked out by the immune system as foreign, cancers destroy the host.

a reply to: intrptr

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

a reply to: intrptr

To be fair, evolution wouldn't require that the entire species evolved into a different species. So over these 80 million years or so, there could've been thousands of individuals in this species that had enough mutations that they "evolved" into separate sub-species (though most mutations don't create separate species anyway).

However, those branch species could simply be extinct now. In fact, here's something from the somewhat reliable wikipedia article that backs this idea:

Chlamydoselachus is a genus of sharks and the sole extant member of the family Chlamydoselachidae, in the order Hexanchiformes. It contains two extant and several extinct species. The most widely known species still surviving is the frilled shark (Chlamydoselachus anguineus). It is known as a living fossil, along with Chlamydoselachus africana, also known as the Southern African frilled shark, which is only found along coastal areas of South Africa. The only two extant species of this genus are deep-sea creatures which are typically weakened in areas closer to the surface.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Indrasweb

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.

.......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?

Because we're not originally from this planet.

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.

a reply to: EternalShadow

Well now that is an entirely different proposition (and one which does not preclude the notion of natural selection either i might add).

One cannot dismiss that claim out of hand. Though I might add that posting any proof you have for that claim might add weight to your argument.

There has been some suggestion that the original "stuff" that existed which eventually spawned life on this planet may well have been extraterrestrial in origin, conveyed here perhaps on some hunk of rock from a far flung galaxy, though I suspect that wasn't what you were getting at

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

Not sure if this the same shark caught of Portugal that a thread was done on a few days ago . Looks kinda different . From the other OP .

If different i aint going for a swim near Portugal , and i am from Australia .

That looks like one of these. It has the frill gills and the tail

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous


WHOA!

a reply to: enlightenedservant

To be fair, evolution wouldn't require that the entire species evolved into a different species.

If we consider origins and development of 'lower' life forms into 'higher' forms of life, it becomes key.

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.