It is OK now!

I actually misunderstood your previous message because it was confusing.

Yes, sorry, I realised that once I re-read it later.

Yes! They are.


LOL! I would want to see one too but from a safe distance.


Unfortunately! Megalodons are extinct. They became extinct about 2 million years ago. Though this is a good news for us or else unprecedented number of people probably would have become victims. Though some people still claim that they have seen giant sharks (Giant Ghostly White Sharks or Megalodons) in this modern age and such encounters often turn out to be cases of "mis-identification." One such encounter took place in 1918 but that story was debunked through close analysis of the details provided by the fishermen.


This is true. Megalodons have not evolved in to Great Whites. Infact, Megalodon is an entirely different species of sharks. Hence the term "Carcharodon Megalodon" becomes invalid and is being replaced by "Charcharocles Megalodon." Though some people still use the term "Charcharodon Megalodon" and some simply use the term "C. Megalodon."


No! Megalodons did not evolved in to any species of sharks. They remained the same species till extinction.


This is not true. Megalodons were fast enough to catch Dolphins and Whales of their time.


This is considered to be true. About 3 million years ago, a major Ice Age had occurred and caused massive changes in the climatic conditions of the world. The North and South Poles began to freeze rapidly and temperatures of the Oceans around the world began to drop. Then about 2 million years ago an another "Great Ice Age" occurred and this event actually sealed the fate of Megalodons. The surviving species of Whales started migrating to much cooler waters and Megalodons could not follow them in to such cooler waters because they were accustomed to warm waters. Now Megalodons could not sustain their massive bulks by feeding on much smaller fish and mammals and they most likely starved to death.


A "carnivore creature" does not evolves or changes in to a "planktivore creature."


Whale Sharks are smaller then Megalodons. The average size of an adult is about 35 feet in length but some have reached 40 feet in length. Megalodons however could grow bigger.

Megalodons had huge jaws and teeth and this was enough to tackle Whales.


They did not. Though, I am open to any surprises that might occur.


The case of existance of Megalodons have already been debunked. Some theories and reasons have already been mentioned in this thread and you need to read them. Infact, I have repeated a few notable reasons in the above post.


Sharks as big as Megalodons have not yet been found to thrive in very deep waters.


While Giant Squids would be a good catch for Megalodons in deep waters, but catching them might not be easy for Megalodons because these squids always live in deep waters and even these animals were not enough to satisfy the massive hunger of Megalodons. Through fossil evidences, it is confirmed that Megalodons mainly fed on Whales and Dolphins. Though they could eat anything but Whales were actually their main source of food.


In 2002, reports of a mysterious sound termed as "bloop" surfaced on news around the world. This sound was actually recorded by a US Naval system from the deep waters in 1997. It is speculated that this sound came from a giant animal lurking in the deep waters. Some said that it might be a large Colossal Squid or an unidentified monster. A few even speculated that it might be a Megalodon.


Can you show us the picture of this tooth? If not, then still it is OK, but I doubt that it would be a "fresh" Meg tooth.

Wasan't the bloop heard near where H.P. Lovecraft wrote R'lyeh is? Lovecraft said that R'lyeh is located at 47°9′S, 126°43′W in the southern Pacific Ocean.

The sound was recorded in 1997 in the Pacific Ocean and was tracked from a location near 50 S, 100 W. So it indeed came close from the location of R'lyeh (a lost city mentioned in fictional Cthulhu mythos).

That sound is considered to be "biological" in nature because it was of ultra low frequency.

Meg,

Though I do agree with the majority of your arguement, this is one point that cannot be agreed with. An organism can adapt its feeding habits to changes in its habitat, thus eventually leading to the evolution of new feeding methods. Though, granted, it takes many thousands of years for the changes to become evident.

To give you an example.
> As far as i'm aware the vast majority of prehistoric whales were carnivorous, but in our modern day and age, a large quantity of whale species are now filterfeeders. The same can be said with sharks. I have never heard of a single filter-feeding species of prehistoric shark, but yet we have basking sharks, whale sharks, and megamouth sharks, all of which are planktivores.

So all-in-all that part of your arguement cannot be credible. I'll await your rebuttal.

Joel.

This is a debatable subject.

Evolutionists only theorize that a "carnivore" animal can actually evolve in to a "non-carnivore" animal.

A simple example: If a Lion starts eating grass and continues to do so, even then it will not evolve in to a herbivore animal. And the truth is that a Lion will always remain a carnivore animal.

Also, one important point that some people often forget is that the animals cannot easily change or occupy an entirely different niche in case of shortage or scarcity of their main diet. Though in desperation, they do start feeding on other kinds of food but such actions can cause exposure to new kinds of bacteria and diseases to them, which can often prove fatal for the populations of such animals and in the worst case scenario, many individuals can die due to this reason.

An example: Check the case of Gray Whales. The population of this species have been declining in the past several years, even after been declared to be protected. Here is the evidence: Click! [NOTE: The major reason for this decline so far identified is that their main diet have been affected by slow changes that are recently taking place in the geological conditions of the world due to Global Warming. Though these Whales have started feeding on other kinds of food as well but scientists are concerned that they might get exposed to different kinds of bacteria and diseases due to this, which is not a good sign.]


Baleen Whales came in to existance about 35 million years ago. Nobody knows for sure that which whale was their true ancestor.

Though scientists claim that a whale called "Janjucetus hunderi" was actually a Baleen Whale with teeth. The reason behind this theory is that the "skull" of this Whale has some features that are identical to that of Baleen Whales and one thing you should note regarding this animal is that only the "skull" of this Whale have been found and not the entire body. So this case is still not enough to suggest that this animal was actually a proper Baleen Whale with teeth. Skeletons of marine animals often can be very deceiving but many paleontologists still do not realize this. If you take a look at the skeleton of a Sperm Whale, you can see that how much deceiving it looks. Take a look at the skeleton of a Sperm Whale here: Click!

And the latest research have proved that this whale (Janjucetus) was indeed not the ancestor of the Baleen Whales because it came in to existance about 25 million years ago and we have got no evidence to suggest that this whale have actually evolved in to any other Whale.


Take a careful look at your comment. It indicates that no ancestor of these modern planktivore sharks have yet been found. Now which species of sharks do you think have evolved in to these modern planktivore sharks?

Also, the carnivore sharks have indeed remained carnivore sharks.

An example: Great White Shark came in to existance about 10 million years ago. It has remained a carnivore animal since then on.


Same can be said about your argument. Scientists are only speculating that some ancient toothed Whales "might" have evolved in to Baleen Whales. They have no concrete proof to back this theory. And if there is any kind of proof of this, then show me one.

Also look at the case of Basilosaurus. It was inititally speculated that the Basilosaurus might be an ancestor of modern Whales (both Toothed and Baleen) but this theory was proven wrong through latest research. Basilosaurus actually went extinct and did not evolved in to any other Whale.

So now it is speculated that the modern Baleen whales have descended from a different lineage of Whales. Though their true ancestor has not yet been found.

And the case of sharks is also similar.

So the "holes" in the case of evolution of Whales and Sharks are clearly evident.

I am sure if you go far enough back you would find all whales came from carnivores. There is plenty of instances of animals switching their main nutritional source throughout evolutions history. The evolution of Panda Bears is a great example, but you can find many more. So the statement "carnivores dont evolve into plantovores" is hardly true. I am not saying it is the most frequent of things, but it happens (once there is millions of years of evolution in place to eat a particular food source, why go against it, unless there are very extreme environmental pressures).





Whale evolution is fairly well documented, with no exceptionally large gaps between lineages.



I think lots of shark biologists may disagree with that, lets stop for a moment and think what we know.

As you so kindly pointed out....


Lets think about what we know with modern day physiology and pred/prey relationships. How do large poikilothermic animals, who feed on active endothermic or homeothermic animals, hunt? 2 ways.

1. The wait and see method like crocodiles and alligators use. This works well for ectotherms who don't maintain as strict a core body temperature, it allows them to conserve as much energy up to the point of the kill.
2. The active pursuit. This takes considerable amounts of energy to actively hunt in this style, but we see it many other fish and sharks today. For instance, Tuna were long believed to be cold blooded, they are actually endothermic and when hunting in deeper colder water have even more ways to keep important organs at optimal hunting temperature (like eyes and brain etc). GW sharks eat a wide variety of animals, but are very active hunters (particularly of seals), they maintain fairly strict internal body temperatures and are endotherms as well. Indeed most active large predatory shark and fish species that were once thought to be "cold blooded" are now considered endothermic.

Body size and amount of fat play an important role in determining where animals can hunt and in ability to retain heat. This is called gigantothermy. For instance, since GWs are endothermic they run the risk of over heating when hunting for sustained periods in too warm of waters, even more so because of their large size, which means they have a better tendency to retain heat.

So where am I going with this?

Well since there are no Megs alive today to study its hard to say for certain that they could not follow the whale species into colder waters. Their size alone would have given them a serious advantage to surviving colder waters, not to mention they could very well have been endotherms based on their hunting style and what they were hunting (Hunting whales and dolphins animals who aren't as plenty as say fish, would mean they would need to actively seek prey, unlike say an angel shark who can afford to wait for any fish that happens by).

I am not saying that this could not have contributed to their extinction, I just think we shouldn't put it out there that it is the sole reason for their extinction. Remember extinction is often times more complicated than evolution. People tend to assume that 1 change, 1 meteor, 1 ice age, etc cause extinction when in fact thats never the case.


Also another interesting point you had made yourself, Many meg fossils we have are ones that inhabited shallower water and were juveniles. Shallow water tends to be warmer than open ocean. So if large adult or Subadult sharks were out in the open ocean that would indicate they more than likely had a fair adaptation to colder waters. Modern day sharks who hunt large fish and marine mammals and are open ocean sharks, such as the mako and white shark are endothermic predators.

There seems to be a major problem with people understanding evolution. The problem is, many people I have noticed, need to see evolution happening on specific fast or long term time scales. Certain adaptations take longer than others. Change of diet would be one of these.

In your example you talk about lions starting to eat grass (a very short term change) and then state it won't evolve into a herbivore, obviously the lions would die. Then you state "people often forget is that the animals cannot easily change or occupy an entirely different niche in case of shortage or scarcity of their main diet." Which is true and why the lion is a bad example. Changes to diet man many many changes and must happen gradually.

As a carnivore you can make certain biological molecules with what you get in your diet. If you change your diet, not only do you need to adapt to surface things, like digestion etc, but to manufacturing biological compounds from new building materials too. This takes time!

But again, that does not mean it can not be done. Back to the panda example, the first Asiatic bears were all carnivores, they then became omnivores then onto modern pandas who make good use of the plentiful supply of bamboo.

2 more great examples with birds. The first birds were likely insectivores, today birds eat a wide variety of foods. Also Darwin's finches. The first finch of the Galapagos was likely similar to modern common finches in its dietary habits, meaning seeds insects etc (omnivoric insectivore). Today day the finches are very specific in what they eat, some strictly plants or seeds or insects.

I have already mentioned before that this case is actually debatable. Theory of evolution actually follows the concept of "Natural Selection", which further complicates things. For this very reason, we have seen that many animals have remained unchanged for millions of years.

Though the evolutionists argue that the major changes can be influenced by extreme environmental pressures but the main problem still remains and it is that how can such pressures force a pure carnivorous creature to evolve in to a pure planktivore creature?

Actually this kind of change has always been mentioned in theories but this is not enough. I would like to see a concrete evidence to actually believe in such kind of theory.

There are 3 general classes of animals:

1) Carnivores (Pure meat eaters)
2) Herbivores (Pure Vegitarians)
3) Omnivores (Eats all kinds of food)

Now the truth is that a species of an animal that is carnivorous, actually remains carnivorous till extinction. And the same goes for animals that belong to other 2 classes.

Regarding Panda: The ancestor of modern age Panda was also a Panda and it is called "Ailuropoda lufengensesis." Modern age Panda is considered to be part of the bear family but it has not evolved from any other species of bear, because its ancestor was also a Panda. And Panda is also an omnivorous creature.


Gaps are still infact present. I have already pointed out some.


They do not. Infact many shark biologists have not offered any kind of proper counter argument against that theory.

And you forgot to note one thing in this regard and it is that all marine animals have a certain degree of tolerance for temperatures in waters. There is a good reason behind the case of "warm water marine animals" not thriving in cooler waters, as an example.

Though warm blooded mammals have much higher level of tolerance then other marine life forms, so adaptation for them is far easier. The example of Orcas can be considered in this regard. Though they too have certain limitations in terms of tolerance.


This is all true but being endothermic does not makes animals invincible to the affects of changes in the environment around them.

FACT: Great White Sharks can thrive in cooler waters and they have been doing so for millions of years. Their bodies can tolerate cooler waters but of-course, their tolerance level also has limits. And they are actually considered to be "semi warm blooded animals."


And this is one reason that they seldom thrive in warm waters. Though they can tolerate a maximum of 26 degrees C temperature in waters.


You again failed to consider a very important clue in this regard. About 2 million years ago, a major Ice Age occurred and it caused massive drop in the temperatures of waters around the globe and specially the waters in the North and South Poles became very cool. Now Whales are warm blooded mammals, so they migrated to such cooler regions where waters were too cool for Megalodons to follow. And let us not forget the fact that Megalodons were actually "warm water marine animals." They also had a certain level of tolerance of temperatures in waters and during the Ice Age, may regions in the Oceans around the world became inaccessible to them because the temperaturs in such regions got out of their limits. Thus their movements got restricted to the ever reducing warm waters in the Oceans around the world now.

Infact, Megalodons have also tolerated the cooling down of Oceans for millions of years but like I have mentioned before, there is a specific limit of tolerance of temperatures of waters in all marine life forms including sharks including Megalodons.

An example is that the Great White Sharks have tolerance limit that ranges between 5 degree C as mimimum and 26 degree C as maximum (5 C - 26 C). Now they can thrive in waters that have temperatures within the defined limits of this animal. If the waters become too cool, GWS will not be able to thrive in such cool waters and will die and same is the case in opposite manner.

So despite being endothermic, the tolerance level of this animal still has its limits as mentioned here. Same goes for Megalodons.


I never said that it was the sole reason for extinction of Megalodons. You need to double-check my previous posts to confirm this. But this was one of the main reasons that contributed in the process of its extinction. And I know that extinction process can actually take considerable time to bring down a species that was actually "dominant" in its age. And several factors are involved.

Also it is important to note that it is not just Megalodons, who disappeared about 2 million years ago due to changes caused by the great Ice Age. Many other marine life forms including some species of Whales and Dolphins also disappeared in that time.


Another important fact that you missed here is that in the age of Megalodons (during Miocene and Pliocene periods), the geological and climatic conditions of this world were very different and the Oceans were much warmer around the world then they are today. So even if Megalodons ventured out in to the open oceans, the temperature level of waters were still within their tolerance limits.

The case of adaptations is widely accepted because it does happens. However the "Theory of Evolution" itself is still a subject open for debate because of many flaws in it. Infact, I would prefer to stay out from this debate.

And the case of "change of diet" is a sort of a complicated issue. It does happens under extreme circumstances but it is not like that an animal would go from a being a pure meat eater to become a pure herbivore or planktivore. Such kind of changes have only been mentioned in theories.


The case of Lion shows that they are built by nature to be pure carnivorous creatures and they have remained carnivorous for thousands of years. There is no specific reason that can force them to change in to herbivores. Even under extreme circumstances; if the food becomes scarce, they will rather die of hunger.

And the point regarding the changing of ecological niches was mentioned by me to show that what kind of serious risks are involved in such cases.


But the question remains that why a carnivorous creature would need to change its diet? Even if the food becomes scarce, they might be forced to commit cannibalism rather then depending upon plants and grass. And this case becomes even more complicated in case of Marine animals.


Pandas are actually omnivorous animals. Although it was long thought that bamboo was their main diet, but bones of animals have been found in stomachs of dead pandas, which indicate predatory behavior and thus it is now believed that this species is also omnivorous, occasionally eating small mammals, birds and carrion. And I have mentioned before that the true ancestor of Panda was also a species of Panda.


Who says that the first birds were likely insectivores?

Many prehistoric birds were actually carnivorous creatures. Infact the first known bird called "Archaeopteryx lithographica" was also a predator.

I suppose by the way you say "the evolutionists" you are not one so you probably wont like a dinosaur example but here it is anyway.

Falcarius utahensis is a great example of something coming from being a carnivore to herbivore. If you are in academia and have access to Nature, look it up.





Your right, A. lufengensesis was the oldest panda, like all early Ursidae's it lacked the teeth to be anything but a carnivore. You nicely pointed out 3 basic dietary classes of animals, but Ill ask, do you know what classifies an animal as such a type?

If they can solely subsist on such a diet. A giant Panda can eat nothing but veggies to live. A human, is an omnivore because we lack the ability to make all of our necessary biological components from just meat or plants. In the wild a pandas diet may consist of nothing but plants, on occasion they may eat a carcass of another animal, this does not make them omnivores. Hippos do that as well.

There are no significant gaps in whale evolution, if you want to nit pick to disprove evolution and claim any gap is significant be my guest.







I would suggest if you want to come off scientific you stop using unscientific terms such as "warm blooded". This mysterious tolerance you speak of is called the thermoneutral zone. It has to do with metabolic costs. It has nothing to do with simply being "warm blooded" and everything to do with a species specific TNZ. I'll say it again, since Megalodons are not alive today this is something we will never know.





That is what endothermic means. Really, if you very educated about physiology don't feel embarrassed to use the correct terminology. Though I think you may lack the formal education. There is no specific limit to cold tolerance within reason. You get to a point though where you must expend too much metabolism on heat for it to be feasible to live under the climatic conditions. Great whites are endothermic poikilotherms, not "semi warm blooded animals".





What is the reason? Because they are "semi warm blooded animals"? Hardly, please do read up your physiology. It is unfeasible for them to live in waters warmer than 26 degrees because they lack the necessary metabolic process to loose heat, they are great at maintaining it though.






I failed at considering nothing. My statement was such: Megalodons may have been endothermic poikilotherms like great whites and their large body size gives them a one up on adaptation to climatic changes. As such, its probably unreasonable to think the ice age was their demise, rather only one of many contributing factors.





You have no proof of their warm waterness. They are not alive today therefore determination of their thermoneutral zone is impossible. Their "temperature tolerance", as you sophisticatedly put it
is unknown, so you can't well go about claiming the cooling oceans was their demise.






"Millions of years" only adds to the pile of evidence this was not their demise.




It seemed from the post I read you were implying that was the reason they went extinct. Because they are extinct though, we will never know the exact homeostatic underpinnings of their biology.



Again I did not miss the point. Plenty of species made it out of the Pliocene. Many that did adapted to the changing climatic conditions. Megalodons were around, as you said, for millions of years under changing climatic conditions, this leads to the assumption climate is not the driver of their extinction. During the Pliocene other marine predators emerged as well as a very important event at the end of Plio-Pleistocene, the Geminga supernova went, well, supernova. This could have had a profound effect on small ocean life and sent shock waves all the way to the apex predators. We may not ever know for sure though.

psyche101,

His comments happened prior to my general warning, however, bringing them up after the fact and responding snarkily is not acceptable. Everyone has been asked to refrain from making derogatory remarks, that makes your most recent reply unacceptable, that's why it has been removed. If you wish to comment on any of his 'opinions' you'll need to keep the response civil. Thank you for your co-operation.

MM

>Please inform yourself on Linnaean Binomial Nomenclature. Carcharodon is the genus' name, carcharias the species' name and Carcharodon carcharias the correct zoological name to refer to the Great White Shark.

Carcharodon megalodon however is already a different species but still in the same genus as Carcharodon carcharias.

Carcharocles megalodon is both, a different species and placed in a different genus.

C. megalodon is the abbreviation for Carcharocles megalodon and can be used after the full zoological name has been stated once, until another animal with it's genus startig with "C" is named.


CU, Alan.

I am not going to further debate on the Theory of Evolution because it is a highly controversial subject.

Though I have replied this time.

Falcarius Utahensis was actually an omnivorous dinosaur as evident from its teeth. Now scientists claim that this animal is actually the missing piece between Carnivore and Herbivore dinosaurs. But a simple point can be noted in this case and it is that Falcarius was a fully omnivorous animal but the evolutionists are actually "theorizing" about it that this animal was evolving in to a herbivore creature. Also, another point is that the bones cannot give you the whole picture about a long dead animal and can often be very deceiving.

And now I am going to point out some issues with the developed skeleton of this creature:

1) The skull of Falcarius is incomplete, thus making it difficult to properly identify the features of the animal.
2) The skeleton of this animal was formed by using bones that belong to several specimens, which makes the reconstruction of the skeleton less reliable.


Some teeth of this animal have already been found and fossilized evidences have revealed that the characteristics of this animal are similar to that of the current Giant Panda with only major difference being in the case of size.

Check this link for more information: Click!

FACT: Pandas are not carnivores but they are actually omnivores. Though their main diet is bamboo.


Morphology! Right?


One thing that you need to recognize yet about Giant Panda is that it is indeed actually an omnivorous animal, though it mostly feasts on bamboo. But still remains of other animals including fish have been found inside their stomachs, which clearly gives an indication of the predatory or scavengery behavior of this animal. And they do that because they can eat meat. A simple hint is that the Giant Panda actually have teeth in its mouth and stong muscular jaws, which can also help it in chewing meat and not just bamboo.

Check these sources for verification:

Link 1: Click!
Link 2: Click!
Link 3: Click!

Another thing that you need to note about omnivorous animals is that they can survive by just eating plants. They do not necessarily have to eat meat as well. This case also applies to us humans.


Have you seen pure herbivores creatures like Giraffe and Deers eating meat?

Only omnivorous animals eat both plants and meat because they have got teeth that are good enough for chewing both kinds of food.


I do not fully disprove evolution. I agree with some aspects of it but not all because of a few special reasons.

And one reason is the existance of "holes" and "gaps" in several cases of this theory.

Now regarding the case of Whales and Sharks, I will give you a few hints:

1) Lack of discovery of the true ancestor of Baleen Whales.
2) Lack of discovery of the true ancestor of modern planktivore sharks.

I will debate on the remaining portion of your post later on.

I already know this. You don't have teach me these things.

Here is an old quote of mine from an early Meg thread for reference:



Note following:

- Megalodon and Great White are two different species of sharks.
- Great White Shark belongs to "Order Lamniforme." (also termed as Mackerels)
- Genus of Great White Shark is "Charcharodon."
- The family of Great White shark is "Lamnidae."
- The family of Megalodon shark is "Otodontidae."
- Genus of Megalodon is "Charcharocles" because it has a different ancestor.

>Whatever taxonomical status you assume for "megalodon", that wasn't quite clear in your above post; never mind.


CU, W.

Guy you are hardly an expert on anything. Let me paint the picture for you. Falcarius utahensis was an omnivore, no one is disputing that. Its lineage is from solely carnivorous dinosaurs though. We also a skeleton that is 95% complete, thats hardly "making it difficult to identify proper features of the animal".







Kirkland, James, et al. "A primitive therizinosauroid dinosaur." Nature 435(2005): 84-87.



Zanno, Lindsay. "THE PECTORAL GIRDLE AND FORELIMB OF THE PRIMITIVE THERIZINOSAUROID FALCARIUS UTAHENSIS (THEROPODA, MANIRAPTORA): ANALYZING EVOLUTIONARY TRENDS WITHIN THERIZINOSAUROIDEA." Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26(2006): 636–650

It was an omnivore alright, coming straight from carnivores on its way to becoming a herbivore.
Oh and thanks for the "source" link, Ill stick with published literature over your softpedia "research articles"





No subsistence.



Hardly, another "internet educated expert". The internet is a great place to start for research but it hardly trumps formal education.



Why do I need to recognize its an omnivore when biologists and zoologists classify it as a herbivore? Clearly again, you don't know what you are talking about.


Dierenfeld, E.S, H.F. Hintz, and J.B. Robertson. "Utilization of Bamboo by the Giant Panda." The Journal of Nurtrion


The Smithsonian


TAYLOR, A., and Q. ZISHENG. "Bamboo regeneration after flowering in the wolong Giant Panda reserve, China." Biological conservation 63(1993): 231-234.


Sacco, Tyson, and Blaire Van Valkenburgh. "Ecomorphological indicators of feeding behaviour in the bears." Journal of Zoology 263(2004): 41-54.

But what do they know, your an expert correct?






Another statement you have no idea about. My advice is to seriously enroll in college and major in physiology if you wish to have "FACTS".

Omnivores in their natural habitat need to eat both animal derived proteins and plant ones. This is because we (even us humans) have lost the ability to manufacture all of our biological components. We call these missing components "essential nutrients". The only reason people today can get by with being vegans is because of modified foods and wide abundance of foods. If you lived in say, Alabama, in the 18th century and attempted to be a vegan you would die. Bears such as the grizzly, are omnivores. When they don't get essential animal fats, they die.





Evolution is a fact of life, there is nothing to disagree over but the mechanism. I'll say it again, there are no substantial gaps in whale evolution, phone your local university and ask to be transfered to paleobiology department and take it up with them. They are going to tell you the same thing I did.





Theres hardly a debate, what I posted on was corrections to your statements. You can do 1 of 2 things. Accept that you don't know everything and learn from what I posted, Continue your rigid belief you are a foremost expert on Megalodons, biology, physiology etc.

I have studied Evolution in great detail and I don't need any lectures from you regarding how it works. What you are mentioning here can all be read on the internet and I already know the details. The skeleton of this animal is made of bones from many individuals and the skull is incomplete, so the credibility of the theory of this animal can be questioned.


You know what? I don't give two sh**s about what evolutionists are trying to claim from observations of an imperfect skeleton of an herbivorous dinosaur.

The case of this dinosaur has already been filled with mistakes in the past. You can continue to post theories regarding it but the fact is that we will never know the whole truth. And there is no need to mention these theories here because I have already read them.


Yeah right? You were there to witness this kind of change!

Let me give you a real life example: Look at the Whaleshark. Its appearance is similar to that of a Whale but this does not changes the fact that it is actually a shark. The point is that the appearance of a species of an animal can often be very deceiving, which you evolutionists will never understand.


The news however did debunked your silly claim regarding the ancestor of Panda. The name of the source is hardly relevant in this regard. We should focus more on what is mentioned in the source and not focus so much on its name.

And you totally ignored the case of the Giant Panda being an omnivorous creature. This shows that how smart you really are.


Do you know that Morphology actually points to 3 basic dietary groupings among animals?

The relation of subsistence is hardly relevant in this case.


We can continue to learn throughout our lives and yet what we learn is never sufficient. You are hardly an authority to judge the intellect of any person.

Your points are often wrong and yet you refuse to recognize them. So you too also hardly seem to be an expert in any case.


You just mentioned a source that suits your mentality. I have mentioned 3 that contradict yours.


And I already know that Pandas are specialized in eating bamboo.


A quote from a source that suits your point of view. And yet there are sources that contradict this claim.

Do you know that Pandas in captivity are given different kinds of food and not just bamboo? I bet that you forgot this.


And this still does not changes the fact that it is still an omnivorous animal.


No. The sources that I have mentioned actually say something different.


Thanks for your advice but physiology is not a subject of my interest.


And if they don't then they become pure herbivores? Right? FUNNY

Your point is fully flawed. There are many advantages of being a pure vegetarian, specially for humans. Check this link for example: Click!

It shows one thing and it is that you need to stop portraying yourself as an all knowning person.


If it is really a fact of life, why it is still called "Theory"? Anyways! You believe in what you want to believe but that will not change my perception. There are some strong reasons that influence my perceptions.


You have only tried to play smart and nothing else. I know most of the things that you have mentioned here but what I choose to believe is not something that you can control.

Regarding my knowledge of sharks. It is indeed formidable, though I do not intend to show you.

You do not even know that how deep a Great White Shark can go and what is the minimum tolerance level of that creature and you claim to be educating me by posting things that I do not need to know because I already know about them. But don't worry!

Here are some Facts:

- Great Whites have been known to dive down to the maximum depth of 2040 feet.
- They can tolerate minimum temperature of 4.8 degrees C. The waters at the depth of 2000 feet are this cool.
- Great Whites are often termed as "semi warm blooded" because they are endothermic but still lack endurance of pure warm blooded marine mammals.

And I have decided that I will not discuss further on the case of extinction of Megalodons with you, though I had perpared a formidable reply but I will not waste my time.

Simply read these sources and make up your own mind:

Link 1: Click! [Paleocology of Megalodon and Great White]
Link 2: Click! [Extinction of Megalodon]

Hey if you want to believe the skeleton is incomplete cause that makes your views of evolution better be my guest, there is no arguing with faith. The problem is though, when you attempt to pass your blabbing off for scientific fact.

Firstly, I dont see a link to your "debunking" story, secondly I'll stay take the word of hundreds of paleontologists over the awe powerful debunking of the media.



Thats the beautiful thing about studying physiology, biology, paleobiology, you dont have to witness to the animal to infer a great deal about it.




That is the best example you could come up with? A whale shark is similar to a whale? Because they are big, for no other reason are they similar (The whole fin orientation and hair things?) Developing and having omnivorous teeth and other characteristics of herbivores is hardly deceiving. The only thing "us evolutionists" will never understand is how uneducated people like you go around claiming to be experts on anything.




.......What the hell, do you get off on being ignorant and pretending to be in the know?
How did I ignore the case of the panda, I addressed them, but lets take a closer look at your sources shall we.

1. Your first link there says "The new fossil proves that pandas' dietary preference for bamboo evolved quite early. The panda lineage has been evolving for several million years totally separated from their traditional bear ancestry," said Ciochon."

Meaning, the panda evolved from its bear ancestors who were strict carnivores then eventually omnivores then eventually developed a specialized thumb just for eating plants.
"It is very much needed to eat bamboo. If this was a committed bamboo eater early on, one would expect [the false thumb] adaptation was evolving."

Were talking about the evolution of from omnivore or carnivore to herbivore.

2. Your second link, says nothing about them being omnivores, it does say though that they are known to scavenge meat on occasion. As I said, that does not disqualify you as an herbivore.
Your 3rd and 4th links do state the panda is an omnivore, though they are to a giant-pandas.com and someones geocities page. Hardly scientific. You can ignore it all you want, that is not going to change the classification of pandas, they are herbivores according to zoologists, taxonomists, biologists etc. I am hardly in the minority on this.





Funny you should say that, here you have an opportunity to learn something, but since you believe your internet obtained knowledge exceeds academia you judge yourself more worthy. Hardly the case. I can judge when someone does not know what they are talking about and going around spouting out terms like "warm blooded" is strike against your "scientific" knowledge.





Well, 2 that directly contradict mine, and they are peoples private web-pages. Sorry you don't seem to have access to credible scientific information, maybe apply for a scholarship to get your proper education?




Apparently, reading comprehension is not in high demand. If you go back and read the quote, slowly, maybe out loud, you would notice that the scientists indirectly call pandas herbivores.




Like rice cereal, carrots, apples, and sweet potatoes? Cause that sure makes them omnivores. Spend some more time with your google button there bud.





If you want to believe they are the decedents of fuzzy pink bunnies thats fine, its your belief, here in reality we call them herbivores. Clearly physiology is not a subject of your interest if it were maybe you wouldnt go around flinging "warm blooded" around like it actually means something.





Man you have elite mastery of reading there. Again lets replay the conversation shall we.

I think I said......

Now as per your website link


Notice the important part about eating a wide variety of foods? IN A NATURAL HABITAT THIS VARIETY DOES NOT EXSIST. OMNIVORES NEED TO EAT BOTH ANIMAL AND PLANT BASED PROTEINS/LIPIDS/CARBOHYDRATES. The only reason people in modern times can be vegans is because of access to wide variety of foods to supplement their diet. And this still is not the case all the time, many vegans get sick a lot or have other health problems if they are not eating a wide enough variety of foods. Also, if you live in a country where access to wide variety of plant foods is nonexistent you will surely get malnourished.

You can choose, to ignore this, I think at this point we have established your "FACTS" or should we say beliefs.






I am hardly portraying myself as an all-knowing person, that you feel that way indicates your lack of knowledge. I am not making this stuff up it is pretty easy stuff to understand in biology. Your right about one thing though, I can't change your beliefs, but thats all they are, your beliefs. Because you believe something hardly makes it real.




I am just going to laugh to myself, you can hang onto your "formidable knowledge" bubba.

How about you guys stop flaming each other, huh. How about that.

I'm sure you both have reasonable arguements and rebuttals, and can discuss this properly, and like gentleman(or ladies). This thread has already had one warning about flamming, but it has been ignored. I don't want to see anymore of this.

Joel.

probably just an abnormably large great white, just my opinion and frankly, im scared of being in open water