Prehistoric Shark found in Japan

[TheSequelOfDisney]

I saw this in my Science class today, on a video that is. Here's a link, pretty scary:

http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environmen ... d-in-japan

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

I've seen it on TV! How cool is this! There are species we are not aware of still existing. Unfortunately, he died after a little while. I hope he was not the last one left!

[Escapay]

I've seen it on TV! How cool is this! There are species we are not aware of still existing. Unfortunately, he died after a little while. I hope he was not the last one left!

Well, if there is a he, he probably could be the last one left as the one found was a she!

Read about this too and saw the video. It looks rather odd with its mouth open all the time, and those large round protruding gills. Still, that's pretty cool that there's another species out there that's just been discovered by humans.

Escapay

[slave2moonlight]

While I agree that there are probably things in the ocean (and even on land), even BIG things, that people believe to be extinct or don't even know about yet, I saw a report on this on CNN, and they didn't say anything about this being a new discovery or something thought extinct. It was just unusual to see one in such shallow water as they found it in. Apparently, it was captured and taken to a sea park or something like that, where it later died. Really cool looking thing, that's for sure!

An interesting point was brought up here though, about creatures being the last of their kind. It makes me think of all those bigfoot documentaries, and the ones that simply try to debunk the whole phenomena. They always have scientists say, "If there's one, there must be hundreds." They say that about Loch Ness too. Whether you believe in these things or not, they don't seem to be taking into account that, when a creature is dying out, they eventually do have to get down to the point where there are only 2 or three left. And, eventually just one, before extinction.

[Siren]

Here is a clear and educational video of the shark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mneDhOtVEQw


About mysterious animals...look up crytozoology. It is often called a psudeo-science...yet cases like this prove that the effort in trying to find unknown and thought to be extinct creatures can pay off. The okapi, mountain gorilla, and panda were only discovered in the past century. So finding this shark doesn't suprise me, but it does delight me. Unfortunatly, our world governments would rather spend billions of going into space and virtually completely ignore our vast inner-space to see what fantastic lifeforms we have down there.

[disneyboy20022]

This in my opinion my might restore a little faith of The Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot... I belive Bigfoot or something like it exists today that has not be "officially" discovered but then I came across this story... A long time ago about the time frame Mulan takes place Panda Bears were thought to be hoaxes and were "Fake Mythological Creatures" But then one was captured and now we see them in zoo's all the time... Now I am not saying that little Leprechans or things such as and the Tooth Fairy exist or anything but If The Panda Bear was once the same status of what Sasquatch or Bigfoot Yeti etc is today perhaps there is some things that are yet to be discovered on this earth...

[slave2moonlight]

Well, the ToothFairy is a different kinda deal, but as for Leprechauns, ha... Well, I haven't researched their history or anything, but they did recently find the remains of those so-called "Hobbit" people. Who knows if there weren't some very tiny people living in various places throughout the world that ideas like Leprechauns and Fairies, etc, might have come from.
I saw an interesting film tonight called "Beowulf(sp?) and Grendel" which took a realistic stance on the classic story. In this story, Grendel was referred to as a troll, but was basically made out to be what seemed like a leftover primitive man. Troll was the people's name for such men. Now, they screwed up the realism of this with the character of Grendel's mother, which was some sort of sea-nymph or something, but the idea about Grendel was really neat, and I've seen it used in other films to great effect.

I still suspect that "dragons" DID exist, we just call them something else today: dinosaurs. Perhaps they were just bones of dinosaurs that ancient people saw and thought had died recently. Some have suggested this. But, maybe not. Perhaps they were the last of their kind. Scientists tend to act like everything they have figured out, even though much of it is theory based upon theory, based upon theory, based upon theory, is fact. However, from time to time they come out and say they were wrong about stuff. Besides that, there's no way to confirm their theories about the past without a time machine. Who really knows if it was as long ago as they say when dinosaurs last roamed the Earth? There are a few scientists with very different theories.


Now, don't get me wrong, though I have many beliefs and interests myself that are considered supernatural or superstitious by the majority of people today (always loved Cryptozoology too), I still believe everything has a scientific explaination. After all, that just means that things can be broken down logically and naturally. I believe all things can, even such things as ghosts, spirits, etc..., but we just don't have all the information about how the natural universe works yet. It's absurd to act like we do. The scientific community today, in general anyway, tends to act like they know all there is to know about how the universe works when subjects like ghosts, bigfoot, etc... come up. Even God and how everything first got started. I think a lot of it stems from resenting the very mention of subjects that are usually written off as superstitious/supernatural and fantastic. The word "supernatural" itself is a terrible, stigmatic label to apply to a variety of interesting subjects and beliefs that have countless believers and witnesses. Of course, it doesn't help that the believers themselves label such things as "supernatural." My belief is that all these things can exist, though many just as well may not, but if they do, then they are quite "natural" and CAN be scientifically eplained. Perhaps ghosts, for example, are quite real, and we just don't know how they "work" yet. I know it was posted on the internet last Halloween that some scientist confirmed that they simply couldn't exist, because they couldn't pass through walls AND walk on floors. To be able to do both makes no sense. Supposedly, this was considered proof that ghosts couldn't exist, and it was even shown on the national news. Sorry, but it's a big assumption to say that there is no way such a thing is possible scientifically.

[Siren]

I believe "dragons" existed alongside man.

Saying people found fossils of dinosaurs does not support the dragon myth.

Fossils don't tell us the animals had scales and breathe fire. And few dinosaurs had the gift of flight. Also science in the dark ages wasn't even in its infancy. So how could they tell the difference between reptilian, mammal, and bird bones. Afterall, dinosaurs have more in common with birds then reptiles. So why is it that EVERY major culture in this world has the SAME dragon myths.
Every dragon flies, breathes fire/smoke/acid, and has scales? Why do all dragon myths consist of dragons enjoying shiny things like gems and gold?

How is it that cultures who have had NO CONTACT with reptiles decribe a reptile-like creature the same way as cultures do in tropical regions. Inuit Indian's descriptions of dragons sound very much like those of warmer regions. And explaining away that that native people confused the komodo dragon, crocodiles, etc for dragons is ignorant. Check their mythology. They have names for and stories about birds, crocodiles, elephants, whales, and all the other creatures scientists say they mix them up with. How is it then that native people who know the creatures so well they live alongside would simply just create a creature and treat it like that. Another animal. A few cultures revere it as a god, but most, see it as another animal. Native people don't generally get confused over what a dragon looks like and what a bird looks like.

I personally believe there was SOMETHING alive alongside man that came to be known as a dragon. I think it probably was grossly exaggerated in a few aspects, but the general description is always the same. I think it might have been smaller then dragons are usually described to me.

On Loch Ness...I believe something is there too. However, I do not believe it is prehistoric or even an undiscovered species. If you want to know my theory, I suggest you read The Loch by Steve Alten, it is the only theory that to me, makes perfect sense.

Bigfoot. I believe its possible. A few years ago, some hikers discovered a GIANT WATERFALL that has been there for millions of years, and yet no one found it. They didn't find this waterfall in the Congo, they found it in the Northwest...Bigfoot country. So if a waterfall, which is stationary can go unnoticed by the human eye and our technology for 1000s a years and its right here in the USA, what else is undiscovered out there. A waterfall is a hell of a lot bigger then a Bigfoot.

[slave2moonlight]

I believe "dragons" existed alongside man.

If I didn't make it clear, so do I. What I mean is, I believe dinosaurs, at least a few remnants anyway, existed alongside of man. And that shouldn't be so surprising when we still have things like alligators today.

Saying people found fossils of dinosaurs does not support the dragon myth.

Well, it does if you factor in the exaggeration quotient. Personally, as I said, I don't believe this was what happened, but one popular theory is that ancient people coming across bones of prehistoric animals may have thought they had just recently died. It's a pretty good theory. The idea of dinosaurs and dragons being the same thing makes perfect sense. Dragons are not always described as looking the same. They don't always fly, either, and breathing fire is an easy exaggeration to make, even consistently among different people, who, by the way, all come from the same place if you go back far enough (though I'm not saying breathing fire or something looking similar, is impossible, but, with as little as we know about dinosaurs, some of THEM might have breathed fire). And, all it takes is one flying dino to start the idea of flying dragons. Suppose all the other dinosaurs died out before the flying ones, which is not a bad theory either. All man comes to know are flying dinos. Even if there are only one or two kinds left, there might be a lot of them.

Also science in the dark ages wasn't even in its infancy. So how could they tell the difference between reptilian, mammal, and bird
bones. Afterall, dinosaurs have more in common with birds then reptiles.

Well, advanced science is not necessary to make that distinction. People who are familiar with living alongside animals and seeing their bones, as ancient people were, shouldn't have a problem telling the difference most of the time. They're usually fairly distinct. Ancient people were more intelligent than they are often given credit for today. As you stated yourself, "Native people don't generally get confused over what a dragon looks like and what a bird looks like."

So why is it that EVERY major culture in this world has the SAME dragon myths.
Every dragon flies, breathes fire/smoke/acid, and has scales? Why do all dragon myths consist of dragons enjoying shiny things like gems and gold?
How is it that cultures who have had NO CONTACT with reptiles decribe a reptile-like creature the same way as cultures do in tropical regions. Inuit Indian's descriptions of dragons sound very much like those of warmer regions.

Well, SAME is a strong word. However, and I'm just playing devil's advocate here, because, as I said, I do believe dragons existed alongside man (but that they were dinosaurs, not something else), keep in mind that it is popularly believed that all people originally came from a warmer climate (yeah, you'd need a time machine to know for sure, and I don't believe time travel is possible for certain reasons, but...).

And explaining away that native people confused the komodo dragon, crocodiles, etc for dragons is ignorant. Check their mythology. They have names for and stories about birds, crocodiles, elephants, whales, and all the other creatures scientists say they mix them up with. How is it then that native people who know the creatures so well they live alongside would simply just create a creature and treat it like that. Another animal. A few cultures revere it as a god, but most, see it as another animal.

This is also often used to defend bigfoot, and it's a good defense that I like.

Bigfoot. I believe its possible. A few years ago, some hikers discovered a GIANT WATERFALL that has been there for millions of years, and yet no one found it. They didn't find this waterfall in the Congo, they found it in the Northwest...Bigfoot country. So if a waterfall, which is stationary can go unnoticed by the human eye and our technology for 1000s a years and its right here in the USA, what else is undiscovered out there. A waterfall is a hell of a lot bigger then a Bigfoot.

For me, one of the best supports of the existence of Bigfoot is the discovery of Gigantopithecus, a supposedly extinct ape that looks VERY much like bigfoot. Whether or not there are any left now, I don't know, but maybe the last ones WERE still walking around in the sixties and seventies, when Bigfoot fever was going full blast.

[Hades]

that shark is awesome if they get her pregant can she give birth to her species

[TheSequelOfDisney]

that shark is awesome if they get her pregant can she give birth to her species

That would be most difficult. The shark is no longer living.