I wish they'd explain a little more about the 'almost overnight' theory. A individual mutant became a new species, and had to immediately adapt new hunting techniques to live?

That just seems a little... contrary to everything I've ever learned about evolution.

The narrator wasn't pullin' any punches with those insults, damn.

Is that Ian Holm?

Only one possible way to explain the existence of Hammerheads if scientists can't... Jesus.

I was more annoyed that nothing was said of the 'evidence' as to why this is. I mean, what is the reasoning behind thinking that they didn't evolve slowly? If we don't have fossil records, then what has made them believe that it was a mutation?

"But the latest genetic evidence has turned this theory upside down" ... What latest evidence you moron. What's the point of saying that if you're not going to explain it. The description of this video is misleading. It shouldn't say "explaining the theory why" when there is no explaining

>> ^nanrod:

"But the latest genetic evidence has turned this theory upside down" ... What latest evidence you moron. What's the point of saying that if you're not going to explain it. The description of this video is misleading. It shouldn't say "explaining the theory why" when there is no explaining


I replaced the "explaining" with "stating"

>> ^spoco2:

I was more annoyed that nothing was said of the 'evidence' as to why this is. I mean, what is the reasoning behind thinking that they didn't evolve slowly? If we don't have fossil records, then what has made them believe that it was a mutation?

I believe it's simply that they can't find any 'missing links' and that as far back as they can go the crazy nutters still have giant hammer heads, so therefore they're starting to think there was no intermediate phase.
>> ^Mammaltron:

I wish they'd explain a little more about the 'almost overnight' theory. A individual mutant became a new species, and had to immediately adapt new hunting techniques to live?
That just seems a little... contrary to everything I've ever learned about evolution.

Exactly. It's crazy hence the debate. A baby shark comes out all twisted and has to scurry off elesewhere to try and get by.. and makes it so well its kids are doing gangbusters 40 million years later.
They say that spreading its sensory gear across a wider face helps with triangulating prey. Wikipedia also says they have 360 vision which contradicts this film. Easy enough to test tho..any marine biologists on the sift?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
It's controversial. But intuitively I think that the rate of change of species is far from constant -- some changes are rapid, some are gradual. Although "rapid" might still many many generations.

The idea of a mutation in a SINGLE individual starting a new species is fascinating, if true.

I'm not a marine biologist, but it is possible that punctuated equilibrium could lead to a new diverging lineage. If that were true, perhaps the genetic evidence to which they refer in the film has to do with the evolutionary history of hammerheads - in that the modern hammerhead appears to be much more genetically similar to other sharks (more recent) than it would if it had taken the millions of years to slowly evolve the hammerhead shape in the common path of evolution with which we're familiar.

In regards to some earlier comments, the hunting techniques would only have to be refined, not created from anew as almost all sharks have a lateral line system and other electrochemical sensing abilities that let them sense prey in the water without having to use vision.

Not sure if they have 360 degrees vision.. I'm no ichthyologist...

>> ^Mammaltron:

I wish they'd explain a little more about the 'almost overnight' theory. A individual mutant became a new species, and had to immediately adapt new hunting techniques to live?
That just seems a little... contrary to everything I've ever learned about evolution.


Haven't you heard Sir. Patrick Stewart's intro to X-Men?

That explains Arizonians too.