Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Monsters of the deep still undiscovered

Recommended Posts

UM-Bot

user posted image rGiven their size, you might assume they had all been found by now. But scientists believe the world's oceans are still hiding giant underwater creatures which have yet to be discovered.

Marine ecologists have predicted there could be as many as 18 unknown species, with body lengths greater than 1.8 metres, still swimming in the great expanses of unexplored sea.

news icon View: Full Article | Source: Sydney Morning Herald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Queen in the North

I like the idea of there being lots of undiscovered creatures out there, and I don't think they are meant to be found.

Stands to reason though with the oceans being so big that they could stay so elusive for so long, yes?

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ROGER

I am amazed that mankind has not put more effort in to exploring and commercializing the oceans. The scientific challenges are as great as Space Exploration for those who don't wish to leave the planet. Science Fiction has predicted underwater farming, mining, hunting. All in what is really an Alien Environment.

And We already know there is Water and Alien Life forms. But there just doesn't seem to be as much interest. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

While I'm ever hopeful for the discovery of unknown species, and the corresponding expansion of our understanding of the natural world, the original posting seems rather optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

It is possible that an undiscovered species or a few exist undetected by modern technology. But what a bunch of BS in that article!! The part that read - Marine ecologists have predicted there could be as many as 18 unknown species, with body lengths greater than 1.8 metres, still swimming in the great expanses of unexplored sea - is funny pages stuff if you ask me. Why not 20? Why not 17? I bet the marine ecologists that predicted this are the laughing stock of their profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sardukar

Does it really matter on the exact number? the point of the article is there are unknown large sized species still living in parts of the ocean we have yet to discover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
Does it really matter on the exact number? the point of the article is there are unknown large sized species still living in parts of the ocean we have yet to discover.

Not "are." Some of us are questioning the precision of the predictions of unknown species. 18? How the heck is the OP able to predict 18 unknown species?

From the OP, "Marine ecologists have predicted there could be as many as 18 unknown species, with body lengths greater than 1.8 metres, still swimming in the great expanses of unexplored sea."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian

If I remember right, we've only explored 1% of the deep sea floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
If I remember right, we've only explored 1% of the deep sea floor.

Very, very few large creatures are able to exist on the deep sea floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JonnyC
Very, very few large creatures are able to exist on the deep sea floor.

But if his percentile is correct, we don't know that.

Edited by JonnyC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
Does it really matter on the exact number? the point of the article is there are unknown large sized species still living in parts of the ocean we have yet to discover.

But what kind of seriousness can we give to an article that uses specific numbers to make their point? If we have no way of knowing then we have no way of knowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JonnyC
But what kind of seriousness can we give to an article that uses specific numbers to make their point? If we have no way of knowing then we have no way of knowing.

I agree, but maybe the article was projecting that figure based upon the number of oceanic, anomalous discoveries that have been made exponentially over the last few years. Maybe '18' is the predicted number based on the rate of incoming finds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Myles
I agree, but maybe the article was projecting that figure based upon the number of oceanic, anomalous discoveries that have been made exponentially over the last few years. Maybe '18' is the predicted number based on the rate of incoming finds.

I'm sure they based that number off of something, but It probably wasn't off of recent creatures with body lengths greater than 1.8 metres.

I bet they looked at a globe and pointed and counted aloud "1 here, 1 over here, maybe 2 here, 1 over here, 6 here because we haven't looked there much, a couple on this side".

By using the number 18, they lose all credibility. It's more wishfull thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TeraLink

I want a leviathan. Blow my mind.

TeraLink Was Here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
manticor225

I really don't see the big deal of throwing out a specific number for a guess. It's no different than when they estimate how many planets could have life, or how many of some endangered species is still left in the wild. I don't think all credibility is lost here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
I really don't see the big deal of throwing out a specific number for a guess. It's no different than when they estimate how many planets could have life, or how many of some endangered species is still left in the wild. I don't think all credibility is lost here.

Personally, I think there's 27 undiscovered large, deep-water species, and my number is just as compelling as the cited 18 figure.

See how silly that sounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

According to my research there could be as many as 2 undiscovered large deep water species with one eye and a long tail that give live birth after a 13 month period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoulFire
I am amazed that mankind has not put more effort in to exploring and commercializing the oceans. The scientific challenges are as great as Space Exploration for those who don't wish to leave the planet. Science Fiction has predicted underwater farming, mining, hunting. All in what is really an Alien Environment.

And We already know there is Water and Alien Life forms. But there just doesn't seem to be as much interest. <_<

i've been saying this for years. there's no telling what all is still undiscovered in our oceans & jungles. we seem more interested in what's on mars though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:
i've been saying this for years. there's no telling what all is still undiscovered in our oceans & jungles. we seem more interested in what's on mars though.

I suppose curiosity of the beyond is stonger than getting more intimate with our own planet. It's unfortunate. We still have a lot to learn and to evolve on how to be efficient caretakers of our home, before exploring another planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chasexc
I am amazed that mankind has not put more effort in to exploring and commercializing the oceans. The scientific challenges are as great as Space Exploration for those who don't wish to leave the planet. Science Fiction has predicted underwater farming, mining, hunting. All in what is really an Alien Environment.

And We already know there is Water and Alien Life forms. But there just doesn't seem to be as much interest. <_<

I know right, we seem to know less about our planet than we do about space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paracelse
I agree, but maybe the article was projecting that figure based upon the number of oceanic, anomalous discoveries that have been made exponentially over the last few years. Maybe '18' is the predicted number based on the rate of incoming finds.

If the number the scientist quoted is exponential in relation to the discovery of the past years, then it would have to be in reference to a certain number of years, if we exceed the number of years, then the discoveries will grow also... is there a new specie created in the sea every so many years???? :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paracelse
I know right, we seem to know less about our planet than we do about space

You should know the more we discover the less we know :D

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.