What startles me is how much we've changed their environment in that single individual's lifetime. That shark was the equivalent of a human teenager when the industrial revolution started.
Delusions of grandeur notwithstanding, not much it seems.
400-year-old Greenland shark ‘longest-living vertebrate’ (2016)
31–40 of 113 posts
Re: 400-year-old Greenland shark ‘longest-living vertebrate’ (2016)
#32"The sharks' livers were once used for machine oil, and they were killed in great numbers before a synthetic alternative was found and the demand fell"
Fascinating that the fate of these sharks depended on a completely unrelated technological advance.
Re: 400-year-old Greenland shark ‘longest-living vertebrate’ (2016)
#33"The sharks' livers were once used for machine oil, and they were killed in great numbers before a synthetic alternative was found and the demand fell" Fascinating that the fate of these sharks depended on a completely unrelated technological advance.
Whales were killed huge numbers for whale oil during the industrial revolution. The oil was oil lamps and to make soap. (over 10-20 million gallons per year during the peak)
Re: 400-year-old Greenland shark ‘longest-living vertebrate’ (2016)
#34Confirmation bias is a creepy thing sometimes. I was literally asking my Google Home last night what the longest living vertebrate was and it told me the Greenland shark. Had a whole conversation about it over dinner, arguing about how accurate we think these age-establishing methods are. Though the more interesting part of our conversation (I would say) was wondering how ages work out in practice. For example why do…
By far the most important reason dictating lifespan is evolvability - the ability to adapt genetically [0]. This has so great effect that it's easy to observe even in a simple computer simulations. If you don't adapt and the environment is changing, then you go extinct. Think about this sharks and how much their environment has changed since they were born. As a spices they will have a very hard time adapting to the…
I’m not educated on this topic at all, but wouldn’t birth rate be more relevant than aging? If this shark lives 400 years but has kids often, it could also go through 900 generations like the mice. Presumably if the environment isn’t favorable then the old members of the species would die off anyway.
Re: 400-year-old Greenland shark ‘longest-living vertebrate’ (2016)
#35> The team looked at 28 sharks, most of which had died after being caught in fishing nets as by-catch. Nice job- the shark had done just fine for ~400 years.
Inevitably they must die of something. Probably would be human related with no other predators.
Re: 400-year-old Greenland shark ‘longest-living vertebrate’ (2016)
#36Re: 400-year-old Greenland shark ‘longest-living vertebrate’ (2016)
#37Confirmation bias is a creepy thing sometimes. I was literally asking my Google Home last night what the longest living vertebrate was and it told me the Greenland shark. Had a whole conversation about it over dinner, arguing about how accurate we think these age-establishing methods are. Though the more interesting part of our conversation (I would say) was wondering how ages work out in practice. For example why do…
> For example why do the vast majority of animals not live beyond 20 years, even when we try to keep them alive as long as possible (dogs)? If the environment was different would longevity be different for all species, e.g more oxygen in the atmosphere or a longer day-night cycle? Etc.
A lot of animals just don't need to live longer than 1, 2, or 20 years to reproduce. There is no evolutionary pressure to do so. From our human perceptive life is valuable on its own merit, but nature doesn't see it that way. All it really cares about is replicating those precious DNA molecules, and different species have different strategies for that. For some species, it takes a long time to produce offspring. Whales, for example, live a long time as well. They're huge and it takes a long time for them to become fully grown, find mates, produce offspring, etc. There is a lot of evolutionary pressure to live long. Humans live comparatively long because it takes a long time for individuals to acquire the skills we use as a survival strategy.
Not too much is known about the lives of Greenland sharks, but there are probably some evolutionary pressures for them to live long lives.
Re: 400-year-old Greenland shark ‘longest-living vertebrate’ (2016)
#38The Ming clam the article refers to as comparison was not 508 years but 405 to 410 according to the linked reference. So I'd say that shark is definitely a strong contender for the overall title.
clams are invertebrates
Re: 400-year-old Greenland shark ‘longest-living vertebrate’ (2016)
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
By far the most important reason dictating lifespan is evolvability - the ability to adapt genetically [0]. This has so great effect that it's easy to observe even in a simple computer simulations. If you don't adapt and the environment is changing, then you go extinct. Think about this sharks and how much their environment has changed since they were born. As a spices they will have a very hard time adapting to the…
I’m not educated on this topic at all, but wouldn’t birth rate be more relevant than aging? If this shark lives 400 years but has kids often, it could also go through 900 generations like the mice. Presumably if the environment isn’t favorable then the old members of the species would die off anyway.
The older living sharks would use up resources that the younger ones need to thrive. So it’s way more efficient to get the older population out of the way sooner.
The longevity of the Greenland shark, humans and other long living animals, is in spite of evolutionary pressure to reproduce, raise the next generation and die.
Re: 400-year-old Greenland shark ‘longest-living vertebrate’ (2016)
#40Confirmation bias is a creepy thing sometimes. I was literally asking my Google Home last night what the longest living vertebrate was and it told me the Greenland shark. Had a whole conversation about it over dinner, arguing about how accurate we think these age-establishing methods are. Though the more interesting part of our conversation (I would say) was wondering how ages work out in practice. For example why do…
Lifespan is correlated with the time it takes to reproduce. If a species needs a lot of time to reproduce, then only the individuals who live longer will procreate, passing down the genes of long life. On the other hand, if it is too quick to reproduce, genes for short lifespan will abound, pressuring the shorter lifespans across the population.