why do these things always end up with 2 dufuses argueing about God, there is god there is no God, Holy shit, grow up, its a big dead oceanic creature, the ocean is full of mysteries,
@waviehall you talk so much nonesense god did not create us there is no god just an incapability of the human mind to comprehend the enormity of time and existance and you can cling to your sad beliefs as fervently as you like what about all the other gods worshipped over the years where are they now? and awnser me this if a child was born and brought up on a remote island and had never heard of god all his life where would he go when he died ? id rather believe in proven fact than fiction
@thylacine666 I concur. Religion just proves the stupidity and internal blindness of our race over the centuries. We can send probes to Mars and make cursors move on a screen with our brains but we cannot make rational judgements on superstitions and nonsense....
you know if you see those drawings/pictures it kinda looks like the loch ness monster hahaha but i do believe that those kind of creatures exist i mean you cant know what has been in this world 100 of years before us
Has anyone seen a real rotting basking shark like they claim this creature to be? I'd like to see the pics side by side. Don't believe the people who' are so quick to dismiss nor believe those who are too quick to trust. Gather the info and decide for yourself.
@zzztubazzz Fake you say? yeah i bet you think Bigfoot is real huh? dude, the sea is bigger then our lands of all the earth, we have not even discovers a 4th of its depths, so you should think twice before saying something like this is fake, aliens? face, Bigfoot? fake, but not the lockness monster, you can't argue about that
If a Scientist who believes in evolution does all the tests to see if this is a basking shark or some sea monster (dinosaur)? he will surely say its a shark i guarantee you that 100%, just to make the theory of evolution true, cause if its a sea monster then that wont really comport with the theory of evolution.
THis is a dinosaur type creature. Of course, the scientists have to tell their stories to back up their lies about evolution. If we still have dinosaur type creatures living in the world of men there theory takes a huge kick in the pants so they will always pour scorn on any discovery that questions their weird world view. They will also crucify anyone who dares challange their dogma of fantasy.
@winterstellar , you are wrong, this case was never solved. This was never determined to be a whale or basking shark by scientist, those were only theories or educated guesses based on their knowledge of animals alive today. If you are going to post something as fact, make sure it is one. Yes the case was old (1977 I believe) but it was never closed
@baicha83 You are wrong, there were conclusive tests performed on the tissue samples, proving it was a basking shark, of course that took a backseat to the more sensational story of a "sea monster" being caught.
It is a pleseosaurus, but it is definitely not the last one. Ever seen pictures of the Loch Ness Monster? Compare pictures of a pleseosaurus with pictures and descriptions of the Loch Ness Monster. There have actually been many recorded sitings of pleseosaurus' all around the world, but sadly they are disregarded as crazy people simply because most people think they lived millions of years ago
Scientist preffer theory than fact, why because all their teachings about these creatures are theoretically 120,000,000 years ago, what they call myths are actually closer than any tube of rock they drill into the side of a cliff and take to the lab. Theres actual european adventurers that were in the amazon of brazil back in 1500 that sited 67foot serpants(monster). Scientist state as always teorethacally exsist a few 45,000 years ago, ((a few 45,000 years ago))
@colashanacogh The real question is why are you and the 30 stupid fucking trolls who gave a thumbs up to your post thought that a Japanese guy talking English was a voice act?
if you thnk thats strange a 20-35ft jellyfish killed 17 crew members when a wave knocked it on deck and it injured 10 people and killed 17 from the tentacales
i can see why people would instantly think its a plesiosaur or a similar prehistoric sea monster, when i first saw it i thought the same thing, until i searched some more and saw other known basking shark carcusses, its at least more likely a basking shark than anything else
@KoBrAmC2k8 It's a carcass. Not all carcasses will look intact. The easier explanation is that it's a carcass of a known animal. The wilder explanation is that it's a carcass of an animal we've never seen in the wild before.
@waviehall why dont you simply say that you dont believe in God? No it is not a basking shark! Dinosaurs are real, still until today. And because it is true, the evolutionTHEORY is false and therefore God is real and HE did create us and the universe. It is sin, what is between you and God. This is not about creationists or evolutionists! Get over it! Just accept what you see! God is real!
@diewahrheitistnochda I'm sorry diewah but evolution is a simple fact, Its the one thing in the world i can safely consider a fact. Does that mean there can't be a god? No. IF there is a god then he created all things in our universe including evolution. I respect anyone that believes in god, Its definately a better existence to believe in god but denying evolution is just not really possible. It's like denying the colour of the sky.
Its not a fish.. it was swamp gas that was refracting light off of Venus during a ball lightning freak occurence. DAMN GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT YOU TIN FOIL HAT WEARING FREAK.... (in case some of you are really that dense.. sarcasm is another free service I offer! ;)
i saw in a book about this , they concluded it was a basking shark... and it was convincing. but after looking at this video of it. im not so sure now.
youre right,not because wiki said its a shark,but i saw a documentation about this video,and they guess/think its the rotten body of a big shark without lower jaw ... whatever,its very interessting ;-)
The fossil record clearly shows all the stages one would suspect in the sequential development of differing modern bauplans, and all in geological order as one would expect.
Tell me what is missing for a sequence between the basal synapsida osteological bauplan and that of the first mammaliformes.
In other words, what should a transitional fossil look like between early mammals, and their "reptilian" ancestors according to evolutionary theory? Then explain to me what sequence is missing?
The fossill record is bunch of incomplete garbage. A fragment here and a fragment there. Nothing complete has ever been found that is a missing link. You are asking me what they should look like? That is the same question that I have been asking everyone else! Transitional species don't happen.
The fossil record is far from garbage. It is rather huge actually and one could study it until the day they died and they would not get close to knowing it all. Pointing at the idea that there are fragments denies the obvious far more complete examples we have...
Now again, what should a fossil look like as a transitional when it comes to the osteology of the animal?
So what, they didn't have any biologists research the creature to find out what it was? They just took pictures of it and made a painting? Thats nice.
Obviously a Plesiousaurus...Or a creature of similar origin. Just because the dinosaurs on land went extinct, a number prehistoric creatures which thrived in oceans most likely evaded the effects that lead to the land dinosaurs demise. Remember, we have only explored about 1% of the worlds oceans. So there are many places in which unknown sea creatures can thrive without us even knowing of their existance.
There was nothing like DNA sampling back then.. it wasnt invented yet. And btw this shit is real, theres a lot of seacreatures we havent seen yet, think about how fucking big and deep the ocean is?! 13 km in depth? And theres theories about up to several 100.000+ species lives under our lands/countries in big ass caves and tunnels.. i've read alot bout dis shiit
It can not be a plesiosaurus it lived 64-70 million years ago and has a evolutionary ancestor spieces tree that goes all the way from sea creature to land creature.
If thats a plesiosaurus it would define the theory of dinosaur evolution.
Yeah? The Coelacanth "died out" 50-60 million years ago until it was found again in the 1930s and it is still the same. Crocs, Alligators, sharks, Komodo Dragons, and others are basically the same after "millions of years." Evolution is a LIE!
Dont try to disprove evolution buddy ,evolutioion is as real as your computer in front of you. Those who think evolution is a lie are dogding the facts normaly because religion . Its the ultimate act of ignorance
You are the fucking dumb one. Nothing evolved into another species. If we came from monkeys and apes then why do we still have monkeys and apes? Where is the transitional species moron?
No competent taxonomist claims that we are descended from extant (living) species of great apes, but that we and they share a common ancestor. A 'species' changes all the time. As soon as one new individual is born, the gene pool of that species is altered. As for transitional forms, show me one species which is not a transitional form.
If you can prove a transitional form then you will be a millionare. A rubic cube, for example, is the gene pool of a dog. Mix it around and you get a Great Dane, Poodle, long hair, short hait, and whatever. It is still a dog. Nowhere in that cube is there a gene that will allow it to be become another species such as a bear!
Science isnt about proof. I love talking about the philosophy of science, so pm me if you want a detailed explanation of that point. Yes, with the rubix cube you will always get a different arrangement of what you started with, but that is because it is a rubix cube and not a living thing. Well known mutations can cause insertion or deletion of parts of genetic material, not merely rearrange existing material. And could you please show me one species which is not a transitional form?
Show me any barrier that would prevent a dog from becoming a different species as different as a bear is from a dog. Show me one difference that cannot happen based on our current understanding of genetics.
Next, the greater majority of dog breeds have all been developed in the past few hundred years, and there is no reason to believe we cannot drive the changes to a point where one could decided to call the newer example a different species. No one has cared to even try,,,
There isn't any proof that one species becomes another. Look at how quickly the generation interval of the common house fly moves. It has been studied it doesn't turn into something else.
House flies do not need to speciate as long as they are good at what they do. They have long since established their niche and it is extremely stable, Do flies speciate? Yes, we have fly species speciating all the time. Look into the Hawaiian drosophila studies.
How we define an animal is up to us. For example, is the fossil animal known as Thrinaxodon, a mammal? Or a Reptile? Give detailed reasons as to why you answer the way you do..
Simply because there are way too many "living fossils" out there that are basically the same as they were "million" of years ago. From the insects preserved in sap to the modern crocodiles. Don't say that they didn't need to change. I want a better argument then that. If a species died out then they died out. They didn't turn into something else.
There are 3 types of selective pressure according to Evolutionary theory. One is disruptive, another is directional, and the last is stabilizing...
As long as a niche is stable, animals within that group can stay relatively stable.
The problem is that we see several groups like crocs that change dramatically over time, and other animals filling the croc niche of today. We then see the croc-like niche animal die out, and crocs take their place becoming more like what we see in modern crocs...
Again, just so you do not get confused. Crocodiles do not just show up in the fossil record. There is an extremely wide branching bush of morphology to be found developing in separate directions in the fossil record, and you start to get animals accumulating, "crocodile-like" traits until we get to an arbitrary point where we decide to call these animals "true crocs," and even then you are not looking at modern crocs.
At one time there were other animals living the croc role, and no crocs were.
Yes they do. The fossils that have been found were huge. The ancient crocs were over 40 ft long. These wide ranging morphology branches are only speculation and not conclusive.
Sarcosuchus is not a modern croc. It is an extinct form that was selected for eating large lungfish from Northern Africa ~100mya. Again, these animals did not just show up. At one time we do not see a single modern croc family. Then, over time, you see animals that accumulate more and more modern like traits until you get modern families, and even then you do not have modern species until relatively late...
They say the Bonobo Ape is 98% identical to human genes and the dragonfly is 96% identical to human. Hmmm those few percents make quite a difference. If monkeys, apes, humans are so closely related then they should be able to hybridize. Guess what they can't.
Bovines should be about 85 % as we are extremely similar in physiology top to bottom as well as general morphology. That why we are both placed under placental mammals, who are all far more alike than we are dislike...
I will agree to that to a point. Pig organs are similar to humans and have been used in transplant purposes. A Vet I know had a pig valve put in a few years ago. Baboons have also had their organs used for human purposes. The point is they can't hybridize. If you could cross a human and a bovine then you would have a minotaur.
No one said we are supposed to be able to cross them. Chromosomal aberrations take hold in separated populations that can spread in local populations until their ability to cross with others is reduced. In horses and donkeys only a few regions have flipped but this has reduced their ability to interbreed long term...
The only way that I can see a new species arise from another is thru hyrbridization. The mating of two unrelated species to produce a new one. Look at the example of the rubic cube as the genes of a dog. There is only so much room for variation and survival. Horses and Donkeys are still equines. Some mules have been found to be fertile.
Now tell me, what morphological differences between modern horses and basal Hyracotheres from which they were derived, could not have been selected for based on what we know about modern genetics, to in time, give us Equus?
Next, tell me what differences there were between eumaniraptorian dinosaurs, and Archaeopteryx, that can not be accounted for by variation and selection?
The difference is that it isn't the same as a horse. It was its own species that died out. No, I'm not a biologist. I simply don't believe in macro evolution. Micro evolution exists and that has been proven. You aren't the first person to try and scientifically prove macro evolution to me. I really respect your opinions. I just don't agree with them.
Listen, right now I am working on about 100 fossil horses. The term horse is a generalized term, as they are not the same as modern horses at all, but, over time, the modern horse traits accumulate. This is what we see in the fossil record all the time. Modifications in teeth, skull structure, limbs and so on, can clearly be seen in a sequential manner starting off with a small animal that no one would mistake as a horse, and ending up with full Equus.
This has been flagged as spam show
why do these things always end up with 2 dufuses argueing about God, there is god there is no God, Holy shit, grow up, its a big dead oceanic creature, the ocean is full of mysteries,
this is hardly the place for a theology debate.
604maximus12 3 weeks ago
Its a dead decomposed whale! NOM NOM NOM NOM
homeypr 2 months ago
It's....a creature.
sinnertwin7 3 months ago
@waviehall you talk so much nonesense god did not create us there is no god just an incapability of the human mind to comprehend the enormity of time and existance and you can cling to your sad beliefs as fervently as you like what about all the other gods worshipped over the years where are they now? and awnser me this if a child was born and brought up on a remote island and had never heard of god all his life where would he go when he died ? id rather believe in proven fact than fiction
thylacine666 3 months ago 2
@thylacine666 I concur. Religion just proves the stupidity and internal blindness of our race over the centuries. We can send probes to Mars and make cursors move on a screen with our brains but we cannot make rational judgements on superstitions and nonsense....
WhoClippedMyWings 1 month ago
most likely this is a dead basking shark. Most ppl only say it's a plesiosaur cuz they're creationists. lol
We'll never know for sure though. I would hope plesiosaurs are still alive but there's no evidence. and with global warming, perhaps it's too late. :(
PahangDragonbird 6 months ago
oh no! Lugia is dead!
MrShapiroman 6 months ago 2
sorry guys but it was actuall =y a whale' or one of those big whale sharks's carcass read it from some books
SuperMechguy 9 months ago
it looks like a squid
AngelBeats120 10 months ago
terridactle
ko61280 10 months ago
its a rotting whale carcass...sorry to burst the bubble geeks.....
creepycryptkeeper 10 months ago
It is a moonbounce in dino form.
merkabah 11 months ago
it's sea monster
Brutal666MAN 11 months ago
It's nessie
shanghai1288 1 year ago
It's GODZILLA
gamer7916 1 year ago 3
It's a SHAAAAARK!
Caniswalensis 1 year ago
you know if you see those drawings/pictures it kinda looks like the loch ness monster hahaha but i do believe that those kind of creatures exist i mean you cant know what has been in this world 100 of years before us
xprincessxcherryx 1 year ago
Has anyone seen a real rotting basking shark like they claim this creature to be? I'd like to see the pics side by side. Don't believe the people who' are so quick to dismiss nor believe those who are too quick to trust. Gather the info and decide for yourself.
Prov1210 1 year ago
looks like whale shit to me
mellonsed 1 year ago
makes u wonder huh?
MRKIDKAOTIC 1 year ago
fake
zzztubazzz 1 year ago
@zzztubazzz Fake you say? yeah i bet you think Bigfoot is real huh? dude, the sea is bigger then our lands of all the earth, we have not even discovers a 4th of its depths, so you should think twice before saying something like this is fake, aliens? face, Bigfoot? fake, but not the lockness monster, you can't argue about that
junkyjoe11 1 year ago
it godzilla i say.
1234Colt 1 year ago
If a Scientist who believes in evolution does all the tests to see if this is a basking shark or some sea monster (dinosaur)? he will surely say its a shark i guarantee you that 100%, just to make the theory of evolution true, cause if its a sea monster then that wont really comport with the theory of evolution.
andreybigb2343 1 year ago
Is this a movie?
limbdarkening 1 year ago
look like a dragon
GrandNecro 1 year ago
oooooooooooooo ahhhhh lol
fungirl3232 1 year ago
appears be a dead whale the sunk down to the abyss, was partially eaten, and a bit rotten.
Alexanderisawsome 1 year ago
One man's religion is another man's belly laugh. [Robert Heinlein]
MrRB0000 1 year ago
THis is a dinosaur type creature. Of course, the scientists have to tell their stories to back up their lies about evolution. If we still have dinosaur type creatures living in the world of men there theory takes a huge kick in the pants so they will always pour scorn on any discovery that questions their weird world view. They will also crucify anyone who dares challange their dogma of fantasy.
Anaksbane2 1 year ago
@Anaksbane2 yup thats what scientists do. they just love to crucify people
szar333 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Anaksbane2 yup thats what scientists do. they just love to crucify people
szar333 1 year ago
basking shark carcass
Haqster 1 year ago
@winterstellar , you are wrong, this case was never solved. This was never determined to be a whale or basking shark by scientist, those were only theories or educated guesses based on their knowledge of animals alive today. If you are going to post something as fact, make sure it is one. Yes the case was old (1977 I believe) but it was never closed
baicha83 1 year ago
@baicha83 You are wrong, there were conclusive tests performed on the tissue samples, proving it was a basking shark, of course that took a backseat to the more sensational story of a "sea monster" being caught.
AAA4509 1 year ago
It is a pleseosaurus, but it is definitely not the last one. Ever seen pictures of the Loch Ness Monster? Compare pictures of a pleseosaurus with pictures and descriptions of the Loch Ness Monster. There have actually been many recorded sitings of pleseosaurus' all around the world, but sadly they are disregarded as crazy people simply because most people think they lived millions of years ago
baicha83 1 year ago
the last plesiosaurus
tmoney4show 1 year ago
whale thats bin dead for ages
sislacs 1 year ago
So that's where my lapris(a pok'emon) went
AsianDrugDeaLer 1 year ago
its a liopleurodon!!!
asshatnowhere159 1 year ago
At about ten Tirty
ShadyNJ 1 year ago
i tell you it was godzilla.
094644621 1 year ago
whale.
gem2000000 1 year ago
it a dead loch ness monster
Lilgooby2 1 year ago
it almost looks like a eotting corpse or a dinasor called a pleaseasoar
bmi9198 1 year ago
It's a shark. First thing that fall of is the lower jaw.
HeSandmo 1 year ago
Apparently a decomposed basking shark..
exmilitary85 1 year ago
omg is tht werre my mom put im dead gold fish
colinsoccerstar 1 year ago
i belive it`s not a whale, i`v seen a dead one on a beach in north norway. It`s something else...?
WritingMotor 1 year ago
Wow a fucking whale...
blackhawkwm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Scientist preffer theory than fact, why because all their teachings about these creatures are theoretically 120,000,000 years ago, what they call myths are actually closer than any tube of rock they drill into the side of a cliff and take to the lab. Theres actual european adventurers that were in the amazon of brazil back in 1500 that sited 67foot serpants(monster). Scientist state as always teorethacally exsist a few 45,000 years ago, ((a few 45,000 years ago))
xme71 1 year ago
it's a fake!
CoN0R115 1 year ago
why did they have to voice act the asian guy lol
colashanacogh 1 year ago 30
@colashanacogh Hopefully it was just a translator with an accent LOL!
Taricus 1 year ago
@colashanacogh probly becuase an asian guy can translate it?
furyofthestorm 1 year ago
@furyofthestorm well duh
colashanacogh 1 year ago
@colashanacogh you just answered ur own question. (Y)
furyofthestorm 1 year ago
@furyofthestorm it was a joke guy, some day you will understand.
colashanacogh 1 year ago
@colashanacogh search "katherine tate language translator"
merkabah 11 months ago
@colashanacogh It's japanese you dumb fuck! Is it really that hard!?
Horrorlord1 7 months ago
@colashanacogh The real question is why are you and the 30 stupid fucking trolls who gave a thumbs up to your post thought that a Japanese guy talking English was a voice act?
WhoClippedMyWings 1 month ago
how the hell does the skeleton look like a whale????
Howardboy98 1 year ago
Remains of a whale, they found out. It's a very old case.
winterstellar 1 year ago
a dead loch ness
nyciebeybe 1 year ago
its a Loch Ness!
Phantom3660 1 year ago
when he said "all the remaining evidence" i thought he was going to pull the monster out of his briefcase
smiffy992 1 year ago
if its a whale or a shark do you not think the scientists would know fuckin morons
MrPachenko 1 year ago
it's the rotting remains of a basking shark
Ultimategrid 1 year ago
it looks like a dragon mixed with shit
imthedog12 1 year ago
it wan dragon
TheCiobo666 1 year ago
if you thnk thats strange a 20-35ft jellyfish killed 17 crew members when a wave knocked it on deck and it injured 10 people and killed 17 from the tentacales
aaaaaa756 1 year ago
its decaying whale blubber you f***ing morons!
rabidpomeranians 1 year ago
It looks like some tormented whale D:
rainstar517 1 year ago
if it has a blood tissue the scientist can resurrect it..
bandalismizzztt 1 year ago
AAAHHHHHH GODZIRRA. Just kidding but thats pretty crazy that there's things out there we stilll dont know about
MrDoma420 1 year ago
look at it at .46. it has a head and long neck. its not a squid, and whales dont have necks, at least not like that.
GMCman82 1 year ago
maybe its a dinosaur that preserve at sea?
CurlyTopsRicoa 1 year ago
someone said it was the rotted carcass of a shark or a whale, if only they had kept some of it ..PFFT silly japanese.
crazyknight2008 1 year ago
@crazyknight2008 they probably threw it away because they couldnt eat it.
GMCman82 1 year ago
come to new zealand we have what you want to see
zam0an 1 year ago
they threw it back??? who throws something like that back into the sea???
lorrainewands 1 year ago
whale carcass
trav1971 1 year ago
left over flesh from a whale or squid
sharkfan2008 1 year ago
@sharkfan2008 Last time I checked, squid don't have bones just a beak.
Looks like a dead whale.
wonderboy2402 1 year ago
Чё это за хрень?
MrDrobodan 1 year ago
Le plus Beau dragon du monde,serait-il venu d'une autre dimenssion.
13VENDREDI75 1 year ago
its a basking shark. wikipedia told me.
vercygentix 1 year ago
@vercygentix any one can edit wiki
tranquilglass 1 year ago
now i'm thinking 2wice about hating japanese whalers coz if it wernt for dem we woudnt probly no bout this shark/creature...
Southxoss 1 year ago
Nah, that's not a shark. Look at the skeleton sketches.
R0gyo 1 year ago
@R0gyo Sry, it is a large shark - those sketches were DRAWINGS of men, weeks afterwords :P There was no unknown creature - sry x(
pinkjoey3 1 year ago
@pinkjoey3 That's no a shark.
R0gyo 1 year ago
@pinkjoey3 That's not a shark.
R0gyo 1 year ago
It looks more like a plesiosaur than anything else I've ever seen.
xavierspade666 1 year ago
i think it was left over flesh from a squid
tawinteamo 1 year ago
That Is not a shark!thats a sea monster and i think its true
bstbuds777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Gary Mckinnon
Gary Mckinnon hacked into NASA looking for evidence of ZPE (Zero Point Energy) and UFO coverups.
Currently, he is being extradited to the US for hacking into NASA and seeing files they photoshop so we don't see the alien crafts.
During his hacking adventures, he saw spreadsheets called "Non Terrestrial Officers" with names and military ranks.
IndraGami 1 year ago
i can see why people would instantly think its a plesiosaur or a similar prehistoric sea monster, when i first saw it i thought the same thing, until i searched some more and saw other known basking shark carcusses, its at least more likely a basking shark than anything else
waviehall 1 year ago 5
@waviehall
Experts would of been able to tell by the structure but it clearly is not a basking shark.
theshow2k8 1 year ago
@theshow2k8 im pretty sure experts have since able to tell that it was a basking shark from the photographs or at least most likely a basking shark?
waviehall 1 year ago
@waviehall im sorry but how in gods name does that even resemble a basking shark?
KoBrAmC2k8 1 year ago
@KoBrAmC2k8 It's a carcass. Not all carcasses will look intact. The easier explanation is that it's a carcass of a known animal. The wilder explanation is that it's a carcass of an animal we've never seen in the wild before.
DarkCylon 1 year ago
@waviehall it doesn't look like a basking shark.
rayballing 1 year ago
@waviehall basking sharks arent that big and they dont have fins that big
marocconit 7 months ago
@waviehall why dont you simply say that you dont believe in God? No it is not a basking shark! Dinosaurs are real, still until today. And because it is true, the evolutionTHEORY is false and therefore God is real and HE did create us and the universe. It is sin, what is between you and God. This is not about creationists or evolutionists! Get over it! Just accept what you see! God is real!
diewahrheitistnochda 6 months ago
@diewahrheitistnochda I'm sorry diewah but evolution is a simple fact, Its the one thing in the world i can safely consider a fact. Does that mean there can't be a god? No. IF there is a god then he created all things in our universe including evolution. I respect anyone that believes in god, Its definately a better existence to believe in god but denying evolution is just not really possible. It's like denying the colour of the sky.
waviehall 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow are all asians publicity hogs that need to lie about a dinosaur that existed 1 billion years ago
Miner40whiners 1 year ago
@Miner40whiners 1. A plesiosaur is not a dinosaur. 2. A billion years ago? Riiiigggghhhttt. And 3. Nice racism.
dav15351 1 year ago
You have to be retarded to think that's a fish.
R0gyo 1 year ago
Its not a fish.. it was swamp gas that was refracting light off of Venus during a ball lightning freak occurence. DAMN GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT YOU TIN FOIL HAT WEARING FREAK.... (in case some of you are really that dense.. sarcasm is another free service I offer! ;)
Hopllyte 1 year ago
i saw in a book about this , they concluded it was a basking shark... and it was convincing. but after looking at this video of it. im not so sure now.
codini2000 2 years ago
it was a shark big shark! " wikipedia"
cCcTURKcCc35 2 years ago
wikipedia is edited by anyone who signs up. That means it is full of opinions not facts. Sorry.
schlongwayhung 2 years ago
@cCcTURKcCc35
youre right,not because wiki said its a shark,but i saw a documentation about this video,and they guess/think its the rotten body of a big shark without lower jaw ... whatever,its very interessting ;-)
cydest23 1 year ago
It's a magical liopleurodon! I knew it existed! =)
09javcar 2 years ago
Wow really... This is proof that dinosaurs are still alive. Obviously that is not a fish and it's not evolving into a dinosaur.
R0gyo 2 years ago
Plesiosaurio.
rogeliosarambeta 2 years ago
its probly a carcass from a glacier that has melted
kimmy03061984 2 years ago
thats tru
cottenmouthkid 2 years ago
There is proof of micro evolution where there is a change within the species. There isn't any proof where one becomes another.
cowman1970 2 years ago
The fossil record clearly shows all the stages one would suspect in the sequential development of differing modern bauplans, and all in geological order as one would expect.
Tell me what is missing for a sequence between the basal synapsida osteological bauplan and that of the first mammaliformes.
In other words, what should a transitional fossil look like between early mammals, and their "reptilian" ancestors according to evolutionary theory? Then explain to me what sequence is missing?
Lagomort 2 years ago
The fossill record is bunch of incomplete garbage. A fragment here and a fragment there. Nothing complete has ever been found that is a missing link. You are asking me what they should look like? That is the same question that I have been asking everyone else! Transitional species don't happen.
cowman1970 2 years ago
The fossil record is far from garbage. It is rather huge actually and one could study it until the day they died and they would not get close to knowing it all. Pointing at the idea that there are fragments denies the obvious far more complete examples we have...
Now again, what should a fossil look like as a transitional when it comes to the osteology of the animal?
Lagomort 2 years ago
There's more proof of life on Mars than there is for the existence of God.
mullingman 2 years ago
"if we didnt have dumb people, there wouldnt be any religions"
ndragonx 2 years ago 2
If it was a whale that they could slaughter they would know what it was.
KaDe381 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fuckin Japanese are retarded...-_-...Honerable If Throw Back In Habitat..Yesh Very Honerable..
KingDProblem7 2 years ago
why do the asians get a person whose second language is english to do their translated voiceover..?
ror (raugh out roud)
tomlfrog 2 years ago
cuz the gov took it and locked it up in 51 dip shits
redbullsn1per 2 years ago
why did they throw it back to the sea -_-
Adell101 2 years ago 2
Because the hellish smell of rot.
woodsaver 2 years ago 2
why dont you all shut the fuck up
Buchhs 2 years ago
So what, they didn't have any biologists research the creature to find out what it was? They just took pictures of it and made a painting? Thats nice.
Trastlol 2 years ago
or it was an ancient fish that was able to stay in tact all these years
joemonster55 2 years ago
FUCKKKKKK UUUUUUUUUUU
qwertyuiop5236 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its called whales now GTFO of our waters stupid asian scientists
dextorcom 2 years ago
Some have said it is a dead Basking Shark.
cowman1970 2 years ago
WORLD has its own mysteries...
mebite98 2 years ago
could this be a decomposing whale? just takig a guess...
mariaevemarta 2 years ago 2
another weird video: watch?v=cO_Ei0Vehf4
MysteriousOklahoma 2 years ago
Obviously a Plesiousaurus...Or a creature of similar origin. Just because the dinosaurs on land went extinct, a number prehistoric creatures which thrived in oceans most likely evaded the effects that lead to the land dinosaurs demise. Remember, we have only explored about 1% of the worlds oceans. So there are many places in which unknown sea creatures can thrive without us even knowing of their existance.
TheCasualAssassin 2 years ago
well, Where there's one there must be others... They can't be breeding very fast.
XXTheRealMcCoyXX 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wat if it's just sea weed tangled in a lot of other things yall dumb fuckkin faggots
eckotagger2007 2 years ago
i know what it is....
the monster of Loch Ness!
kebabboy1000 2 years ago
well different water pressures and temperature do breed different creatures....
MARTINIxInSaNeKILLER 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its a whale u dumbfucks
thedarkallies 2 years ago
There was nothing like DNA sampling back then.. it wasnt invented yet. And btw this shit is real, theres a lot of seacreatures we havent seen yet, think about how fucking big and deep the ocean is?! 13 km in depth? And theres theories about up to several 100.000+ species lives under our lands/countries in big ass caves and tunnels.. i've read alot bout dis shiit
GreatDane3lite 2 years ago
yeah the world is a big and crazy place....... new species being found.........
halflifeh 2 years ago
maybe a plesiosaurus
leosibbing 2 years ago
It can not be a plesiosaurus it lived 64-70 million years ago and has a evolutionary ancestor spieces tree that goes all the way from sea creature to land creature.
If thats a plesiosaurus it would define the theory of dinosaur evolution.
skydreamerXIII 2 years ago
Yeah? The Coelacanth "died out" 50-60 million years ago until it was found again in the 1930s and it is still the same. Crocs, Alligators, sharks, Komodo Dragons, and others are basically the same after "millions of years." Evolution is a LIE!
cowman1970 2 years ago
Agreed. If evolution is real, why didnt the coelacanth or other living fossils evolve again?
nk208a 2 years ago 2
fuck religion !!!!
alexcondurache 2 years ago
Dont try to disprove evolution buddy ,evolutioion is as real as your computer in front of you. Those who think evolution is a lie are dogding the facts normaly because religion . Its the ultimate act of ignorance
dimetilldeath 2 years ago
You idiot, that's because their surroundings have not changed thus they have had no reason to evolve. How fucking dumb can some of you people get.
mullingman 2 years ago
You are the fucking dumb one. Nothing evolved into another species. If we came from monkeys and apes then why do we still have monkeys and apes? Where is the transitional species moron?
cowman1970 2 years ago
No competent taxonomist claims that we are descended from extant (living) species of great apes, but that we and they share a common ancestor. A 'species' changes all the time. As soon as one new individual is born, the gene pool of that species is altered. As for transitional forms, show me one species which is not a transitional form.
fightingtemeraire 2 years ago
If you can prove a transitional form then you will be a millionare. A rubic cube, for example, is the gene pool of a dog. Mix it around and you get a Great Dane, Poodle, long hair, short hait, and whatever. It is still a dog. Nowhere in that cube is there a gene that will allow it to be become another species such as a bear!
cowman1970 2 years ago
Science isnt about proof. I love talking about the philosophy of science, so pm me if you want a detailed explanation of that point. Yes, with the rubix cube you will always get a different arrangement of what you started with, but that is because it is a rubix cube and not a living thing. Well known mutations can cause insertion or deletion of parts of genetic material, not merely rearrange existing material. And could you please show me one species which is not a transitional form?
fightingtemeraire 2 years ago
Cowman...
Show me any barrier that would prevent a dog from becoming a different species as different as a bear is from a dog. Show me one difference that cannot happen based on our current understanding of genetics.
Next, the greater majority of dog breeds have all been developed in the past few hundred years, and there is no reason to believe we cannot drive the changes to a point where one could decided to call the newer example a different species. No one has cared to even try,,,
Lagomort 2 years ago
There isn't any proof that one species becomes another. Look at how quickly the generation interval of the common house fly moves. It has been studied it doesn't turn into something else.
cowman1970 2 years ago
House flies do not need to speciate as long as they are good at what they do. They have long since established their niche and it is extremely stable, Do flies speciate? Yes, we have fly species speciating all the time. Look into the Hawaiian drosophila studies.
Lagomort 2 years ago
Yes, but they are still flies!
cowman1970 2 years ago
So what?
How we define an animal is up to us. For example, is the fossil animal known as Thrinaxodon, a mammal? Or a Reptile? Give detailed reasons as to why you answer the way you do..
Lagomort 2 years ago
Simply because there are way too many "living fossils" out there that are basically the same as they were "million" of years ago. From the insects preserved in sap to the modern crocodiles. Don't say that they didn't need to change. I want a better argument then that. If a species died out then they died out. They didn't turn into something else.
cowman1970 2 years ago
There are 3 types of selective pressure according to Evolutionary theory. One is disruptive, another is directional, and the last is stabilizing...
As long as a niche is stable, animals within that group can stay relatively stable.
The problem is that we see several groups like crocs that change dramatically over time, and other animals filling the croc niche of today. We then see the croc-like niche animal die out, and crocs take their place becoming more like what we see in modern crocs...
Lagomort 2 years ago
Again, just so you do not get confused. Crocodiles do not just show up in the fossil record. There is an extremely wide branching bush of morphology to be found developing in separate directions in the fossil record, and you start to get animals accumulating, "crocodile-like" traits until we get to an arbitrary point where we decide to call these animals "true crocs," and even then you are not looking at modern crocs.
At one time there were other animals living the croc role, and no crocs were.
Lagomort 2 years ago
Yes they do. The fossils that have been found were huge. The ancient crocs were over 40 ft long. These wide ranging morphology branches are only speculation and not conclusive.
cowman1970 2 years ago
Sarcosuchus is not a modern croc. It is an extinct form that was selected for eating large lungfish from Northern Africa ~100mya. Again, these animals did not just show up. At one time we do not see a single modern croc family. Then, over time, you see animals that accumulate more and more modern like traits until you get modern families, and even then you do not have modern species until relatively late...
Lagomort 2 years ago
They say the Bonobo Ape is 98% identical to human genes and the dragonfly is 96% identical to human. Hmmm those few percents make quite a difference. If monkeys, apes, humans are so closely related then they should be able to hybridize. Guess what they can't.
cowman1970 2 years ago
No one says dragon flies are 96% identical to the human genome. Get me the scientific paper and journal that said any such thing..
Lagomort 2 years ago
Cripes! I think I read that ages ago. Don't ask me where! I remember 96% it could've even been 93%. Bovines are 85% identical to humans.
cowman1970 2 years ago
Bovines should be about 85 % as we are extremely similar in physiology top to bottom as well as general morphology. That why we are both placed under placental mammals, who are all far more alike than we are dislike...
This is what evolutionary theory predicts...
Lagomort 2 years ago
I will agree to that to a point. Pig organs are similar to humans and have been used in transplant purposes. A Vet I know had a pig valve put in a few years ago. Baboons have also had their organs used for human purposes. The point is they can't hybridize. If you could cross a human and a bovine then you would have a minotaur.
cowman1970 2 years ago
No one said we are supposed to be able to cross them. Chromosomal aberrations take hold in separated populations that can spread in local populations until their ability to cross with others is reduced. In horses and donkeys only a few regions have flipped but this has reduced their ability to interbreed long term...
Lagomort 2 years ago
The only way that I can see a new species arise from another is thru hyrbridization. The mating of two unrelated species to produce a new one. Look at the example of the rubic cube as the genes of a dog. There is only so much room for variation and survival. Horses and Donkeys are still equines. Some mules have been found to be fertile.
cowman1970 2 years ago
I am going to assume you are not a biologist, hm?
Now tell me, what morphological differences between modern horses and basal Hyracotheres from which they were derived, could not have been selected for based on what we know about modern genetics, to in time, give us Equus?
Next, tell me what differences there were between eumaniraptorian dinosaurs, and Archaeopteryx, that can not be accounted for by variation and selection?
Lagomort 2 years ago
The difference is that it isn't the same as a horse. It was its own species that died out. No, I'm not a biologist. I simply don't believe in macro evolution. Micro evolution exists and that has been proven. You aren't the first person to try and scientifically prove macro evolution to me. I really respect your opinions. I just don't agree with them.
cowman1970 2 years ago
Listen, right now I am working on about 100 fossil horses. The term horse is a generalized term, as they are not the same as modern horses at all, but, over time, the modern horse traits accumulate. This is what we see in the fossil record all the time. Modifications in teeth, skull structure, limbs and so on, can clearly be seen in a sequential manner starting off with a small animal that no one would mistake as a horse, and ending up with full Equus.
I can go over everydetail if you'd like?
Lagomort 2 years ago