|MEGASHARK GETS MORE MEGA, according to Science Alert and SciTechDaily 9 June 2021, and Palaeontologia Electronica DOI: 10.26879/1140. The size of the extinct giant fossil shark now named Otodus megalodon (used to be Carcharodon) has been re-estimated using the size of its teeth compared with teeth from the living Great White shark, then using the Great White’s body proportions as a guideline. Over the years a formula has been developed using the height of a fossil tooth to calculate the size of the shark it came from. Estimates based on this formula have ranged from 15 to 18 metres, but when Victor Perez of the Florida Museum of Natural History got school students to measure Megalodon teeth and use the formula they came up with wildly differing estimates. Part of the problem is that shark teeth vary in height according to where in the jaw they are located. So, it is necessary to know where in the jaw the tooth comes from. After studying a near complete set of megalodon teeth in the Florida Museum of Natural History, along with teeth and jaws of living sharks, palaeontologists have come up with a new formula based on the width of the teeth. The researchers now consider this a more accurate indicator as the width of the teeth is related to the width of the jaw, which is related to the overall size of the shark. Using the new formula the scientists have increased megalodon’s size to an estimated body length of 20 metres (65ft). There are still some limits to how accurate this new formula can be as there is no way to know whether Megalodon’s teeth had gaps between them or overlapped, as seen in some living sharks. Victor Perez of Florida Museum of Natural History, one of the researchers, commented: “Even though this potentially advances our understanding, we haven’t really settled the question of how big megalodon was. There’s still more that could be done, but that would probably require finding a complete skeleton at this point”. He still uses the shark teeth and the formula as a school lesson. He explained: “Since then, we’ve used the lesson to talk about the nature of science – the fact that we don’t know everything. There are still unanswered questions”.|
Links: Science Alert, SciTechDaily
ED. COM. It is important for students to understand the nature of science, including its strengths and limitations. In this example the size of teeth can be accurately measured, but as the scientists admit they are not able to observe the precise arrangement of teeth in the megalodon jaw, so they must make assumptions based on living sharks. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is important to acknowledge what is actually observed vs what is assumed. Whatever the real size of Megalodon sharks, they were certainly a lot bigger than any shark observed in the present-day oceans. This should lead scientists to ask why the change? However, they will not find the answer just by studying present day sharks or fossil shark teeth. They need to know the real history of the world, i.e. that it started out very good, and therefore could support giant animals, but has since been degraded due to human sin and God’s judgement. Science will not reveal this. Only the written record of the Creator and Judge can reveal this, and scientists should be humble enough to admit it, and then use it to better understand the results of their study of the present-day world.
One doesn’t have to be a scientist to know evolution is, well, a lie! For instance ‘The sea iguana has a very unique ability to stop one of its major internal organs so it can “hide” from one of the ocean’s greatest predators… the shark. Can this ability evolve? It can’t, it had to be created that way.’
Now that the China virus is somewhat old news the climate change scammers are out in force. So, ‘According to CNN global warming is making shark attacks worse. And if you’re wondering how a shark attack could get worse, does it mean they’re becoming more frequent over time? No, CNN admits “It’s not that there has been a sharp increase in shark attacks in Australia overall — there have been 21 shark incidents this year, which is normal and consistent with previous years.” Then what changed? “The difference,” they say, “is in the fatality rate.” So the number of fatalities has been rising? Nope: “[The] average of one death per year has stayed stable for the past 50 years.” But this year there have been seven shark attack deaths. Must be climate change right? Except that “There are a number of possible explanations — several experts have pointed out that year-by-year figures always fluctuate, and this could be simple bad luck.” But surely seven is the most ever. Again no. “The last time the country had seven shark attack deaths a year was 1934, according to a spokesperson from the Taronga Conservation Society Australia. The highest annual figure on record dates back to 1929, with nine deaths.” Undeterred, CNN concluded “But there’s another possible culprit: the climate crisis.”
How does that one work? Well, “As oceans heat up, entire ecosystems are being destroyed and forced to adapt. Fish are migrating where they’ve never gone before. Species’ behaviors are changing. And, as the marine world transforms, sharks are following their prey and moving closer to shores popular with humans.” See?
No. We don’t see. The story itself admits the number of shark incidents is the same as it always was. So it’s not a matter of sharks and their prey being closer to humans. And if the climate crisis is causing the sharks to be hungrier or bite harder, why is it that, as CNN notes, “there were no shark attack deaths in Australia in 2019” even though last year they said the climate crisis was so bad it was burning all the forests in Australia.
And furthermore if it’s climate change, but the number of deaths hasn’t been rising for fifty years, does that mean climate change only kicked in in 2020? If the number of shark fatalities is a proxy for climate change, and it has been constant for 50 years, does that mean there was no climate change?
Moreover global warming is global, so if in response “sharks are following their prey and moving closer to shores popular with humans” then attacks should be surging everywhere. And they’re not.
One final point should be pondered. If the number of shark attacks in Australia is rising because of sudden warming, to levels not seen since the 1930s, it could be that the late 1920s and early 1930s were as hot as it is today, saving the shark-warming link but implying today’s warming was matched in decades past. It’s a tendentious reading of the data. But a heck of a lot better than saying roughly one fatality a year for half a century then a spike in 2020 is a hockey stick proving man-made climate change is going to kill us all even if it has to swim up from beneath us to do it.
Thus the CNN story expires with one last gory upheaval: “On land, Australia’s climate crisis has led to raging bush fires, extreme heatwaves, and one of the worst droughts on record. But it has also slammed the oceans with acidification and rising temperatures, which can wreak havoc on entire ecosystems.”
You just never know where global warming will hit next. Cue the Jaws music.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/11/11/jumping-the-shark/