Michael V said:

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes, your final sentence is exactly what I am saying.

It is hard to see how sharks with 150 years development could be much more productive of offspring growing to adulthood than say 50 years development.

Especially since the offspring have to survive for 3 x times longer before they start proceeding.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that this is evidence that God did it, or that the whole evolution theory might be wrong.

I’m just interested in how it works in this particular case.

Greenland sharks have an extremely low metabolic rate. A shark that grows to sexual maturity in 50 years will have a higher metabolism than the 150 years shark. Higher metabolism means it needs more food so it can grow its body quicker. In an environment where food is scarce that fast growing shark is at a disadvantage compared to the slow growing shark; the fast growing shark may quickly exhaust its food supply and starve whilst the slower growing one isn’t even hungry. The time taken to reach maturity isn’t really a factor in the case of these sharks. They have no predators, can survive temporary reductions in food supply etc – a newborn Greenland shark has a very high chance of making it to 150 years old adulthood.

Well explained. Good onya.

:)

Thanks, but bare in mind I’m probably very wrong. Just saw the Rev’s question, thought it was interesting and so went looking. I’d never even heard of this shark before this morning.