Shark swims and lands on beach in New Jersey

I don't mean to get in the way of the evolution discussion here, but saying that this is 'like a scene from Jaws' is a bit much, no?

I've always believed many of the compulsive whale beachings can be explained by a primal instinct to get onto land. Y'know, when it isn't an accident or from dying then washing ashore.

Let's talk about whales some more.

StayDead wrote:

Skarjo wrote:You're suggesting that this shark coming up onto land is evidence of evolutionary spirit and 'against instinct' thinking that could, over time, build up into evolutionary biological change. However, that's not how our or any other previously sea-dwelling organisms transition to land proceeded, is also not how evolution works at a base level and that this is nothing more than evidence of a really ******* stupid shark who was undoubtedly ridiculed by all his shark friends in the shark pub drinking shark beer that night.

So, were we around then this last set of sea to land evolution took place? Because, we seem to know alot about something we never saw ourselves.

Evolution takes forever - think geographical time-scales. It is also occurring all the time in (arguably) every species on the planet, just at a ridiculously slow pace. So ridiculously slow, in fact, that we can't see it ourselves as individuals. In the same way that your granddad never says how he remembers back in the old days when America and Africa were the same country (they just don't make huge world-encompassing land masses like they used to), no population of sentient beings on Earth has ever witnessed an evolutionary step like sea dwelling animals evolving into land dwelling ones.

Fish to land animals wasn't a case of sharks going 'against their instincts' and hopping up onto the beach every so often. Over generations and generations (and generations) fish would have been born that were ever so slightly better adapted to living in environments ever so slightly closer to the shoreline, eventually (over a phenomenal number of standard human generations) resulting in an animal that could be considered more of a land lubber than a fisherman's friend. If you catch my drift (which is, incidentally, something that the shark in the OP is quite good at doing).

This thread reminds me of a book called The Aquatic Ape (can't remember the author) that theorised that humans are evolved from animals that came out of the sea, evolved into apes, and then went back in again before coming out for a final time. It's quite persuasive and it helps to explain some of the weirder differences between humans and other primates, such as our neonates' ability to swim and our thin layer of downy hair.

Like some kind of Land Sea Monkey?

StayDead wrote:So, were we around then this last set of sea to land evolution took place? Because, we seem to know alot about something we never saw ourselves.

It's called the fossil record, mate.

Cuttooth wrote:Like some kind of Land Sea Monkey?

Yeah, except it's much harder for an entire colony of humans to be accidentally spilled all over the coffee table.

JK wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:Like some kind of Land Sea Monkey?

Yeah, except it's much harder for an entire colony of humans to be accidentally spilled all over the coffee table.

That depends, how well "developed" are these humans?

JK, if I bought a tank of Sea Monkeys and left them for say 100 years, would they turn into proper fish?

Dual wrote:JK, if I bought a tank of Sea Monkeys and left them for say 100 years, would they turn into proper fish?

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:If we start from the basis that evolution happens in stages and that it takes place over millions and millions of years. Evolution involves the instincts of animals changing to suit their environment and to survive. So, this shark that decided to venture out into the water could have gone against its instincts in doing so. I'm not suggesting that all sharks are going to jump out of the water and bask in the New Jersey sun; rather I am saying that it could be that this animal went against its own natural-script (instinct) to leave the sea and go onto land. It could be that the shark does this quite often, we just don't often see it. So over a period of millions and millions of years of continued instinctive changes, this kind of fish could change its behaviour to involve the land/coast/beach/whatever in its own way to survive.

Excuse me if this has already been addressed; I'm just catching up with this thread.

But that is by far and away the most retarded thing I have ever read.

Cuttooth wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:You do realise Whales evolved from land animals, that went back into the sea.

Cetacean evolution is messed up. They've still got their strawberry floating digits, man.

They used to have hooves and everything. Weird.

Caliban wrote:

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:If we start from the basis that evolution happens in stages and that it takes place over millions and millions of years. Evolution involves the instincts of animals changing to suit their environment and to survive. So, this shark that decided to venture out into the water could have gone against its instincts in doing so. I'm not suggesting that all sharks are going to jump out of the water and bask in the New Jersey sun; rather I am saying that it could be that this animal went against its own natural-script (instinct) to leave the sea and go onto land. It could be that the shark does this quite often, we just don't often see it. So over a period of millions and millions of years of continued instinctive changes, this kind of fish could change its behaviour to involve the land/coast/beach/whatever in its own way to survive.

Excuse me if this has already been addressed; I'm just catching up with this thread.

But that is by far and away the most retarded thing I have ever read.

Really? Have you read any of DBlocks posts?

Moggy wrote:

Caliban wrote:

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:If we start from the basis that evolution happens in stages and that it takes place over millions and millions of years. Evolution involves the instincts of animals changing to suit their environment and to survive. So, this shark that decided to venture out into the water could have gone against its instincts in doing so. I'm not suggesting that all sharks are going to jump out of the water and bask in the New Jersey sun; rather I am saying that it could be that this animal went against its own natural-script (instinct) to leave the sea and go onto land. It could be that the shark does this quite often, we just don't often see it. So over a period of millions and millions of years of continued instinctive changes, this kind of fish could change its behaviour to involve the land/coast/beach/whatever in its own way to survive.

Excuse me if this has already been addressed; I'm just catching up with this thread.

But that is by far and away the most retarded thing I have ever read.

Really? Have you read any of DBlocks posts?

No, but I just got to this beauty

StayDead wrote:

Skarjo wrote:You're suggesting that this shark coming up onto land is evidence of evolutionary spirit and 'against instinct' thinking that could, over time, build up into evolutionary biological change. However, that's not how our or any other previously sea-dwelling organisms transition to land proceeded, is also not how evolution works at a base level and that this is nothing more than evidence of a really strawberry floating stupid shark who was undoubtedly ridiculed by all his shark friends in the shark pub drinking shark beer that night.

So, were we around then this last set of sea to land evolution took place? Because, we seem to know alot about something we never saw ourselves.

and I now think it's a bit of a toss-up.

Lands?

At some of the posts in here.

People actually believe in evolution?

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:volution involves the instincts of animals changing to suit their environment and to survive.

No. It really, really doesn't. Evolution is the novelisation (mutation) of a particular gene. To put it in brief terms, the novelisation means that a different protein is coded for, which may have one of several million consequences, mostly ending with the mutuation being useless and the novel gene being lost. However once in a while it's actually beneficial to the animal in it's niche and the new gene survives because it increases the fitness (survival) of the animal/the gene. It has strawberry float all to do with a magical instinct.

So, this shark that decided to venture out into the water could have gone against its instincts in doing so. I'm not suggesting that all sharks are
going to jump out of the water and bask in the New Jersey sun; rather I am saying that it could be that this animal went against its own natural-script (instinct) to leave the sea and go onto land. It
could be that the shark does this quite often, we just don't often see it. So over a period of millions and millions of years of continued instinctive changes, this kind of fish could change its behaviour
to involve the land/coast/beach/whatever in its own way to survive.

Firstly, niggling point but a shark isn't a fish.

1) It would go against it's insticts only if it had been behaviourally coded to do so, which is perfectly possible. However, if it did this, it would have ended up all corpsey. The novel mutation would have been useless as the animal would have died and the genetic material would have died with it, meaning that others would not have been exhibiting the same behaviour (unless there was a separate mutation - highly unlikely, and even if it occured, this would have ended with the same result).

2) I have no idea why you've decided to believe that "instinct" is a giant Deus Ex Machina to explain why an animal would do something suicidal, and then try and fob it off as something to do with evolution. See above: Instinct is an ecological phenomenon, not a method for changing how your DNA codes itself.

3) This isn't a criticism, but if you want a better explanation then head to the library and pick up a copy of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker is also pretty good). You seem to think some people are trolling you for airing your views without realising how utterly ridiculous they are.

I thought sharks were fish?

I'm not falling into that trap, you sexy evil genius.

Lol for the first time in this thread I was being serious. I was always led to believe that sharks were a type of fish.

Nope. They are reptiles.