- 2 weeks ago
Category
✨
PeopleTranscript
00:00Megalodon, the giant predatory fish of nightmares, was undoubtedly a magnificently terrifying
00:05creature. This animal had a distribution that stretched all across the prehistoric world,
00:09and it pretty much preyed on whatever it came across. Megalodon has also been the target
00:14of many claims that suggest it could still be alive today, lurking somewhere in our modern
00:18oceans, and that, in fact, it never became extinct. A lot of the current support for
00:23this idea can be attributed to a 2013 documentary, aired by Discovery for that year's Shark
00:28Week, which was a complete fake, yet mostly presented itself as fact, apart from some
00:32brief disclaimers, and subsequently managed to spread a great deal of misinformation.
00:37Whether inspired by this or not, there seems to be a lot of people on the internet that
00:40remained convinced that this awesome prehistoric shark could still exist in modern times, and
00:45so here I'll be reviewing the arguments that have been made in favour of Megalodon's late
00:49survival, and we'll see if it is indeed possible that the monster shark lives.
00:55Let's start with a fairly common argument for Megalodon's late survival that I've
01:00seen around. The claim that since other supposedly extinct animals have been rediscovered, this
01:05means Megalodon could still be out there too. The prime example used in this argument is that
01:09of the coelacanth. I'm sure many of you will have heard of this remarkable story. A kind
01:14of fish, known only from fossils and therefore assumed to be extinct, was in fact discovered
01:19to be living off the coast of East Africa. These animals were found alive back in 1938, and
01:24since then, a second population has even been discovered to inhabit waters around Indonesia.
01:29And coelacanths are not small fish. Some individuals have been known to reach lengths of about 2 metres
01:35or even more. So there's proof that large bodied fish, once considered extinct, can actually
01:40turn out to still be very much extant. Therefore, Megalodon still exists too, right?
01:46The problem with this argument is that one species' late survival does not in any way mean
01:50that another species could also still be alive. It's not a good argument to make, as there's
01:55nothing to say that one fish species being around for longer than we expected has any
01:59implications for a completely different fish species, especially with this particular case,
02:04since coelacanths are a much smaller animal than the estimated sizes for Megalodon, so would
02:09therefore be far more able to avoid our detection for so long, and the two animals are adapted to
02:14very different lifestyles anyway, making it unwise to compare their situations.
02:22Another argument that is sometimes put forward is the discovery of the Megamouth shark proving
02:26that large marine animals are still being uncovered in relatively recent years. The Megamouth shark,
02:31a deep sea filter feeder that can reach lengths of over 5 metres, was first discovered in November
02:37of 1976 when an individual was found tangled with a US Navy anchor. It is undoubtedly a remarkable
02:44thing that such a big shark species was discovered as recently as the 70s, but using this animal's
02:49discovery as proof that Megalodon could be in a similar situation is deeply flawed. The Megamouth shark
02:55lives in the mesopelagic zone of the ocean, the area that stretches from 200 metres down to 1000 metres,
03:01and it filter feeds on small organisms such as krill. This is very different to how we know Megalodon lived,
03:07we'll look at Megalodon's ecology in more detail later, but for now understand that Megalodon was
03:11certainly not a specially adapted mesopelagic filter feeder. Megamouths also migrate up and down the
03:17water column, following the movement of their prey, staying at lower depths during the day,
03:21and then moving upwards to shallower regions at night. Because of this elusive behaviour and its habitat
03:27of deep waters, the very nature of the Megamouth shark quickly explains why it remained undiscovered for
03:32such a length of time. In addition to this, the animals would not have been encountered
03:36by fishing vessels either, since they are planktivores and so would have no reason to
03:41be attracted to bait. Megamouth sharks also possess numerous evolutionary innovations that
03:46allow them to live in the fashion they do, at depths in the nutrient deficient regions of the ocean.
03:50The animals have a special adaptation of the gills called gill rakers, in order to capture and retain
03:55the tiny krill and other planktonic organisms they feed on, and their skeletons are particularly poorly
04:00calcified, also possessing flabby bodies in order to help them survive better at depth. As well as
04:05all this, they are highly inactive animals, even less active than the other filter feeding shark species.
04:11From what we can tell about the behaviour and ecology of Megalodon, this is nothing like how
04:15that animal lived, and therefore the Megamouth argument is not an effective one to make in favour
04:20of Megalodon's late survival. These are two very different sharks, and the adaptations that the
04:26Megamouth has are incredibly specialised developments that would have taken a long time to evolve,
04:31so they aren't something that Megalodon could have evolved in the last two million years.
04:37Now we come to another very common line of discussion in support of a contemporary Megalodon,
04:42that the oceans are so vastly unexplored and we have no idea what could be lurking down in the depths,
04:47so surely Megalodon could have avoided our detection so far? Well, as I've just explained,
04:52this is not the kind of animal that we know Megalodon to have been. Though there probably
04:56would be enough food available for a large macro-predatory shark such as Megalodon to feed
05:00on at great depths in the ocean, for example by hunting giant squid like sperm whales do,
05:05that's not the issue with this suggestion. The issue is that, as I said before, this is not the
05:09niche that Megalodon filled. Not only would it need multiple specialised adaptations that it almost
05:14certainly did not possess in order to live a depth, but evidence from the fossil record indicates to us
05:19exactly how these animals actually lived and behaved. And as I just mentioned, suggesting
05:24that Megalodon, a shark very specialised for one niche, has somehow evolved all the specialisations
05:29needed to become adapted to living in the deep sea in under two million years, is not a feasible
05:34claim to make. All the evidence shows us that Megalodon was an inhabitant of shallow, warm tropical
05:39seas near coasts. Megalodon was adapted to being a fast, active predator of large animals such as
05:44prehistoric whales, and any other marine mammals it came across, not to living in the nutrient-poor,
05:49cold regions of the deep ocean. So if it was still alive, people would be witnessing the animal
05:54all the time, near the surface in shallow coastal seas where it would be in plain sight of humans.
05:59How do we know where the animal lived? Fossilised Megalodon teeth are uncovered
06:03from rocks that represent shallow, warm sea environments, for example the Calvert Formation in
06:07Maryland. And evidence of bite marks on prehistoric whale skeletons indicate they inhabited the same
06:13areas as coastal whale species. Interestingly, there's also evidence to suggest that the sharks
06:18used nursery grounds situated in even shallower coastal regions, as collections of small megalodon
06:23teeth have been recovered from sites in Panama and South Carolina. It's possible that juvenile
06:28megalodons remained in these areas to mature in the absence of other predators that could pose a
06:33threat to them, before moving out into waters with larger prey available. This discovery just goes
06:37to show that these sharks were not always the brutal, bloodthirsty monsters some people like to make
06:42them out to be. They were actually real animals that were vulnerable as small neonates. Having said
06:47that though, I'd now like to mention the hunting strategies that these animals employed, which were
06:51fairly brutal and bloodthirsty. Megalodon may have had a similar hunting strategy to the modern great
06:56white shark, although it differed in that it seems megalodon targeted the bony areas of its prey,
07:02instead of the soft underbelly like a great white does. By attacking these tougher regions on the whales,
07:07such as the ribs, megalodon would have been able to puncture their internal organs, causing them to
07:12quickly bleed out. The teeth of the giant sharks were perfectly suited to crushing through bone, causing
07:17incredible amounts of damage to the unfortunate cetaceans that got in their way. The sharks also frequently
07:22targeted the flippers of their mammalian prey, ripping them off or damaging them beyond use to stop the
07:27animals from getting away, before swiftly ending the lives of the poor whales. What does this have to do with
07:33megalodon's late survival? Well, we can clearly see the evidence of this kind of predation on the
07:38fossilised bones of prehistoric whales, other mammals and even sea turtles, indicated by the
07:43presence of large gouges that match the shape of megalodon teeth. There are also a few fossil finds
07:48where megalodon teeth were preserved embedded in the fossil vertebrae of cetaceans, all of this proving
07:53with absolute certainty that this is what megalodon fed on and how it hunted. So, if it still exists today,
07:59we would see these animals hunting modern whales and other marine mammals in shallow coastal waters,
08:04or at least evidence of bite marks from giant sharks on whale carcasses. However,
08:09there is no evidence from any whale specimens that indicates attacks by giant sharks as large
08:14as megalodon, and no preserved bones with gouges from megalodon teeth younger than the estimated
08:18time of the creature's extinction. Not to mention that the actual structure of the ocean's ecosystems
08:23would be very different if a huge super predator like megalodon were still present, and the impacts
08:28a population of such animals would have on the trophic levels below them.
08:35Not only would we be finding evidence of predation on cetaceans, but we'd also be finding shed,
08:40unfossilised megalodon teeth that were from modern times. All sharks frequently lose teeth,
08:45and we can quite easily find the structures washed up on beaches along regions where the animals live.
08:49So if megalodon was actually still alive, and had somehow avoided our direct detection,
08:54we would find their teeth anyway, allowing us to confirm their late survival that way. However,
08:59no modern unfossilised megalodon teeth have ever been found, despite certain claims. Megalodon teeth
09:05are especially unique and easy to identify, so there's no doubt that if any modern ones were found,
09:10we would know immediately what they had come from. Regardless of this fact, there are myths that have
09:15managed to find their way into the literature about unfossilised megalodon teeth being discovered.
09:20This misunderstanding seems to have come from the way these certain teeth were described.
09:24The specimens were collected when an oceanographic survey vessel dredged the teeth up from the seafloor,
09:29and were covered in layers of a mineral called manganese dioxide, which precipitates from the
09:34water over the course of many thousands of years. Once the specimens are cleaned of this mineral,
09:38the underlying quality of preservation is so good that sometimes the teeth appear like they have
09:43come from a live shark, occasionally even being coloured slightly white, due to chemical variations in
09:48the mineral coverings. A publication from the 50s documented teeth in such a condition,
09:53but failed to specify that they were fossilised, and so the myth of fresh megalodon teeth has
09:58infiltrated the cryptozoological literature. But, this is not the only misconception when it comes
10:03to megalodon teeth and the argument for late survival. Some supporters of megalodon's contemporaneous
10:08existence have pointed to a 1959 study that used the rate of deposition of the previously mentioned
10:13manganese dioxide to calculate the age of two megalodon teeth recovered from the South Pacific.
10:19This study found the teeth to be between 11,000 and 24,000 years old, a significantly shorter time
10:25ago compared to the generally accepted date of extinction of 2.6 million years ago. Some people
10:31have therefore argued that this favours megalodon still being alive today. Nevertheless, it turns out
10:36that the rate of deposition of manganese dioxide is highly variable, and fluctuations in iron ions and other
10:42elements in the water can greatly alter how much of the mineral is precipitated in a certain amount of
10:47time. The huge ranges of variation in estimates once all this is taken into account, therefore makes
10:52dating from manganese dioxide deposition rates far too unreliable to be trusted. There are also some
10:57different claims of megalodon teeth from rocks younger than 2.6 million years, but they are all
11:02now confirmed to have been specimens that have been eroded from older rocks and subsequently
11:06redeposited in younger sediments.
11:11I'll just quickly reiterate here what I mentioned at the start of the video. The 2013 Shark Week,
11:16er, documentary, was fake. There were brief disclaimers in the actual thing that confirmed
11:21this, and it got a lot of negative media attention for spreading misinformation. Nothing about it supports
11:26megalodon's late survival in any way. Also, apparently there was a video posted on a Facebook page back
11:31in 2016 that allegedly showed footage of a 50-foot megalodon at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
11:37Unsurprisingly, it did not show a megalodon. It was a reposted video of a 22-foot sleeper shark off
11:42the coast of Japan.
11:46Alright, eyewitness accounts then. Well, eyewitness accounts are infamously untrustworthy,
11:51but we'll have a look at some anyway. One of the most commonly brought up eyewitness tales is that
11:56of a group of Australian fishermen in the year 1918. The story goes that these experienced fishers
12:01witnessed a large shark take their crayfish pots, and the sight of this creature frightened them
12:06so much that they refused to go back to the area for several days. They described the animal as being
12:11completely white in colour, and said that it was between 150 to 300 feet in length. Hmm. Seems
12:18plausible. Clearly this length has been tremendously over-exaggerated, likely due to the men's state of
12:23shock, and the very fact that this is an anecdotal, unverified story means it cannot serve as particularly
12:29convincing evidence. In addition to this, the description of a white colouration contradicts
12:33the animal's identity as a megalodon. Since megalodon operated in a similar way to the great white,
12:38near the surface, it would almost certainly have had the same dorsal ventral countershading of grey
12:43on the upper surface and white on the underbelly, which makes the animal harder for prey to detect
12:48when viewed from above or below. And, even if megalodon had somehow adapted to living in the deep
12:53ocean in modern times, which it certainly wouldn't have, this doesn't explain the white colour,
12:58as deep ocean sharks possess dark colourations. So, this eyewitness account is a fairly useless one,
13:04with no way of confidently confirming or discrediting it, but several red flags when it comes to how
13:09reliable of an observation it may have been. Therefore, most likely a made up tale.
13:14Alright, next to count. In 1927 or 28, author and fisher Zane Grey was in the South Pacific Ocean when he
13:21saw a large shark next to his boat that was yellow and green and had a square head, immense pectoral
13:27fins and a few white spots. Well, that pretty much sounds like a whale shark. The size he claims for
13:33the creature exactly matches a whale shark and, despite his insistence that it wasn't a whale shark,
13:38these animals do also have white spots, a squarish head and large pectoral fins. It seems far more likely
13:44that all he saw was a glimpse of a large whale shark than a megalodon, but was distracted by fear
13:49into convincing himself that it wasn't a whale shark. Right then, last eyewitness account we'll
13:54mention. This one, perhaps slightly suspiciously made by Zane Grey's son Lauren, is from 1933,
14:00again in the same area in the South Pacific Ocean. Once again, he looked over the side of his boat and
14:05saw a large shark next to the vessel, and again, the size he gave fits with a whale shark. He described
14:11the animal as yellowish and as possessing a huge round head, and then goes on to give a completely
14:17inaccurate description of what a whale shark looks like, saying that what he saw didn't look like
14:21that. Grey wrote that, the whale shark has a distinctive white-purplish-green appearance with
14:26large brown spots and a much narrower head. However, whale sharks are usually grey on their backs with
14:32white or yellowish spots, and have wide, squarish but rounded heads, so it seems like that's exactly
14:38what he saw. Again, there's no definitive way to prove or disprove these accounts, and so they're
14:43not particularly helpful in establishing whether Megalodon is still alive. We won't look at any
14:47more eyewitness stories, even though there are some others, as hopefully you can tell by now that
14:52they're pretty unreliable and cannot be used as good, solid evidence of Megalodon's late survival.
14:57Eyewitnesses are liable to exaggerate details and recall things they didn't really see,
15:01all from memories of glimpses they may have only had for a few seconds, and end up attributing what they
15:06saw to pre-existing ideas of giant prehistoric sharks. Finally, let's briefly entertain the
15:14possibility of a ridiculous scientific cover-up, as some people have suggested. It doesn't make
15:19any sense at all for this to be the case, as scientists work independently to analyse discoveries
15:24and evidence before coming to their own conclusions. It's not like there's some massive group of all
15:29the scientists in the world that decides on one conclusion. Many people have all independently
15:33examined the evidence and come to the same logical verdict that Megalodon is not still with us.
15:39Besides, I doubt it would be a very successful cover-up, since the potential value of Megalodon
15:43meat to fishing companies would ensure that it would be being sold off all the time to people
15:48all over the world at incredible prices. As one source points out, with the current price of a pound
15:53of Mako shark meat going for $30, an average Megalodon could be sold for around $3 million.
15:59So there we have it, an overwhelming amount of data and evidence that points to Megalodon being long
16:06dead. Before we end this video, let me just make something clear. There's nothing wrong with
16:11fantasising about prehistoric creatures still being alive today. It's fun to think about and,
16:15for the most part, fairly harmless. The harm comes when you start to completely disregard the evidence
16:20that contradicts the late survival of such creatures, and instead cherry-pick the evidence you
16:25find favourable and in support of an extinct animal's continued presence. Or, even worse,
16:29completely make up evidence and turn it into a documentary.
16:33Anyway, personally, I don't think we need Megalodon to still be alive for the oceans to
16:37be a mysterious or fascinating place. They already are. The organisms that currently inhabit our oceans
16:43are some of the most incredible beings to ever have existed on this planet, and there are already
16:48some truly terrifying animals that lurk in these modern waters. Yes, Megalodon was a wonderful,
16:53fearsome predator and it would be awe-inspiring to witness a living one, but we should still
16:57appreciate the animals we can actually see, especially when they desperately need our help.
17:03Apologies if I've left any specific cases of sightings or other lines of argument out of this
17:07video, though I doubt there's anything that could significantly weigh against the overwhelming
17:11evidence that opposes this animal's proposed survival into modern times. Well, I've tried to
17:16keep this video as objective as possible, and hopefully it can serve as a decent review of the reasons
17:21why this animal does not still exist today. Though, I seem to have recollections of the
17:26last time I attempted to explain claims of late surviving prehistoric animals and the kinds of
17:30people and comments it attracted. I suspect a similar thing may occur here, so I'm sure the comments
17:35of this video will be an entertaining, if not slightly depressing read. I can almost see the
17:40like to dislike ratio now. I'd also like to dedicate this video to a certain member of my geology class,
17:45who has been encouraging me to make this video for a long time. I hope it was worth the wait.
17:51Thank you for watching this video, I really hope you enjoyed it and learned something new.
17:55Hopefully you've also enjoyed all the videos we've made for Shark Week this year. It's certainly been
17:59fun for me doing this research and learning new things about such a fantastic group of animals.
18:03If you enjoyed it, let us know and we'll do it again next year, perhaps with less megalodon though.
18:08I've heard there are a few other prehistoric sharks. If you'd like to learn more about our world,
18:13its history and the wonderful life that surrounds us all, please feel free to subscribe to the channel
18:18if you think we deserve it, and if you would like to see more from us.
Be the first to comment