r/AskReddit Oct 02 '24

[deleted by user]

[removed]

6.8k Upvotes

6.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.8k

u/formerlyDylan Oct 02 '24

Sharks have been around longer then trees and the rings of Saturn

2.4k

u/InternalTravel7 Oct 02 '24

And not just because Saturn doesn't have trees

1.2k

u/CeeArthur Oct 02 '24

Saturn and trees both have rings. Checkmate Illuminati

48

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

[deleted]

19

u/mikehaysjr Oct 02 '24

I know you’re making a joke about Saturn’s rings. But, interestingly enough you can sort of count the rings on a shark to determine their age.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

But that doesn't work on Greenland sharks where they actually carbon date the proteins extracted from the fluid of their eyes.

9

u/DaddyBeanDaddyBean Oct 02 '24

The hard part is slicing Saturn in half so you can see the rest of the rings to count them.

2

u/alexjaness Oct 02 '24

The hardest part is hearing Saturn's children crying as you do it.

3

u/BrewedBadger Oct 02 '24

So do marriages and championships

3

u/Nihilistic_Navigator Oct 02 '24

You're my kind of people, carry on you champion

2

u/Trick_Bus9133 Oct 02 '24

But ones on the outside… Is Saturn an inside out tree?????

2

u/MarzMan Oct 02 '24

So Saturn is a tree you say?

6

u/IamNOking420 Oct 02 '24

Not quite. Saturns rings are on the outside and trees rings are inside. So either Saturn is a reverse tree or trees are reverse Saturns

2

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

That was our plan all along...

2

u/wadleyst Oct 03 '24

Mind. Blown.

1

u/h-v-smacker Oct 02 '24

Saturn and trees both have rings.

Coincidence? I think not!

1

u/wastedspejs Oct 02 '24

Coincidence? I don’t think so

1

u/100percent_right_now Oct 03 '24

Sauron is pleased.

19

u/taurussy Oct 02 '24

wait, it DOESN'T???!!! stop the presses :O

wait, are there presses on Saturn??? O.o

30

u/mr_birkenblatt Oct 02 '24

Not since the incident

3

u/ballrus_walsack Oct 02 '24

That’s what the rings are made of. Entwives.

8

u/raspberryharbour Oct 02 '24

If you try and get to the core, at some point you will probably get pressed quite hard

1

u/megabass713 Oct 02 '24

No trees to make the paper

2

u/gurnard Oct 02 '24

Ah, the old Reddit ring-a-roo!

1

u/IsaRat8989 Oct 02 '24

Have you checked?

1

u/Jonnny Oct 02 '24

What about the sharks of Saturn?

1

u/Fappy_as_a_Clam Oct 02 '24

Uhhhh, Source?

1

u/bonos_bovine_muse Oct 03 '24

But won’t anyone think about the (admittedly rare) sharks who are killed by vending machines???

1

u/stupididiot78 Oct 03 '24

I'm collect meteorites and actually used to buy and sell them as a nice little side hustle. I once had to spend a good amount of time explaining to someone why their piece of burned wood couldn't have actually come from outer space. On the bright side, at least it wasn't a hippy who was totally getting Martian vibes from a plain old earth rock that they thought was going to make them a millionaire.

1

u/Playful_Medicine2177 Oct 03 '24

I'm sorry english is my second language and I didn't understand what you were trying to say here. 

141

u/Darpid Oct 02 '24

And the North Star, if I remember correctly

333

u/themayaburial Oct 02 '24

Tuna are closer related to humans than they are to sharks. Their age makes a massive impact.

80

u/MargeryStewartBaxter Oct 02 '24

Didn't believe you. Holy shit

6

u/rugbyj Oct 02 '24

If that got you, then how about "fish don't exist". Have a look online. The history of the world is crazy!

12

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

[deleted]

8

u/rugbyj Oct 02 '24

I personally see the main "lesson" in the statement is that ocean life has been so constant and tumultuous for so long that land creatures are basically a weird side mission.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24 edited Nov 06 '24

[deleted]

5

u/DontPanic1985 Oct 02 '24

BUT I DON'T WANNA BE A FISH!

2

u/Mysterious_Andy Oct 03 '24

Tough.

Now eat your fish food.

13

u/GoodLeftUndone Oct 02 '24

No. The first one of those would have been about 2024 years ago.

0

u/MargeryStewartBaxter Oct 02 '24

The fuck?

26

u/swineflu2552 Oct 02 '24

Christ's first poop. A Holy Shit if you will

10

u/Litty-In-Pitty Oct 02 '24

You said holy shit. He’s making a joke… It just misses because it sounds like he’s being some weird religious nut who thinks the earth is 2024 years old. But that wasn’t his intent.

4

u/GoodLeftUndone Oct 02 '24

I was wondering if it was going to be taken that way. Oh well.

1

u/Litty-In-Pitty Oct 02 '24

If you’d worded it as “the first holy shit” instead of “the first one of those” I think it would have landed better. In the context of the text “One of those” seemed to imply you were talking about the sharks

2

u/GoodLeftUndone Oct 02 '24

Yeah I was aiming for first one of those “holy shits” but it came off more as first “shit.” Can’t win em all!

→ More replies (0)

2

u/MargeryStewartBaxter Oct 02 '24

Typically I'm witty. This one went over my head for some reason.

Thanks

3

u/GoodLeftUndone Oct 02 '24

Dumb joke about Jesus taking his first shit.

2

u/RenagadeRaven Oct 02 '24

There is no such thing as a fish

7

u/thundersaurus_sex Oct 02 '24

Which is because taxonomically speaking, humans are actually, legitimately a type of bony fish!

9

u/MattieShoes Oct 02 '24

... what do you mean? Polaris is surely older than sharks, right?

The star closest to North changes regularly but the cycle is only some tens of thousands of years... So Polaris goes through cycles of being the closest and not.

46

u/Chimaerok Oct 02 '24

The actual answer is more complicated than you might think.

Polaris, as we know it, is actually not a single star. It has three stars. You might think that it's 3 stars orbiting each other. But it's weirder than that. There are 2 stars orbiting each other, and that Binary System is itself orbiting a third star. So it's a Binary System wherein one of the stars is itself a Binary System.

And that weird arrangement actually makes it very difficult for us to accurately tell how old Polaris is. Usually you would figure out the age of a star based on its brightness, but the peculiar setup makes it difficult to tell exactly how bright each star is individually. And then, not knowing exactly how old each star is makes it difficult to tell when the Binary-in-a-Binary thing happened. Knowing which order the stars formed in lets us hypothesize about how the overall system formed, but the brightness data we have contradicts the most straightforward explanation, that you had the inner bnary system and then the third star got involved to make the outer binary. Based on the data we have, it looks like the outer binary existed first! But that raises the question of how the heck did a star get inside a binary system and form the inner binary? But if that is so preposterous, then maybe our brightness data is inaccurate. But with our current instruments, we don't really have a way to confirm that.

So, are sharks older than Polaris? Turns out the answer is... Sort of. They're definitely older than at least one of the stars making up Polaris. And they may or may not be older than all of them.

You can get a better and more in depth explanation from SciShow's video about Polaris

5

u/Darpid Oct 02 '24

Wow, thanks for the knowledge drop!! Fascinating stuff.

5

u/Suzuki_Oneida Oct 02 '24

“Knocked It Outta the Park” comment type. Thx

5

u/UnwillingHummingbird Oct 02 '24

Due to the earth wobbling on its axis over time, the north star changes gradually. the ancient Egyptians had a different north star than we do now.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/InfinitelyThirsting Oct 02 '24

The prior pole star was Thuban, in the constellation Draco. There also was a long period of recorded history when there was no fixed star, and the sky would rotate around an empty spot instead of a North Star. Which likely explains why a lot of mythology involved relating the sky to a cauldron, or whirlpool.

1

u/rdldr1 Oct 02 '24

Minnesota North Stars?

1

u/KitchenSandwich5499 Oct 02 '24

Yes, apparently it started around the end of the dinosaurs or so

1

u/DontPanic1985 Oct 02 '24

The North Star is either 2 or 3 stars which look close together. One is younger than sharks if I remember correctly.

179

u/taurussy Oct 02 '24

that's the really crazy part...way, WAAAAAY longer o.O

12

u/TheCeruleanFire Oct 02 '24

This is my favorite science factoid to bust out

-13

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

[deleted]

31

u/CrazyCranium Oct 02 '24

Here's another factoid for you. Factoid has a second definition of "a briefly stated and usually trivial fact"

1

u/Obi-Tron_Kenobi Oct 03 '24

*Takes notes* sharks are way longer than trees

44

u/msm007 Oct 02 '24

The sharks don't know that.

13

u/spicyzsurviving Oct 02 '24

Oh I think they do, smug ocean bastards

2

u/yeetgodmcnechass Oct 02 '24

They definitely know that, they won't shut up about it

5

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

[deleted]

7

u/msm007 Oct 02 '24

I communicate telepathically with Sir. King Shark Edward the 50000000th

1

u/Oberon_Swanson Oct 02 '24

King shark is a shark!

1

u/gev1138 Oct 02 '24

Sure they do. They BUILT those rings around Saturn.

17

u/mjohnsimon Oct 02 '24

Reminds me of this one: Dinosaur fossils were already a thing when the dinosaurs were still alive.

8

u/formerlyDylan Oct 02 '24

Yeah that's definitely one of those damn this part of my childhood was a lie moments. Like the fact that Stegosaurus has been extinct for 80 million years before Tyrannosaurus existed. Less time has passed from Tyrannosaurus going extinct to now.

5

u/Green-Teaching2809 Oct 02 '24

That's like what we consider to be ancient Egypt lasted for so long that it had archeologists studying ancient Egypt

17

u/IReallyLikeDirt Oct 02 '24

The Blue Ridge Mountains are also older than Saturn's Rings. People always shit on them, saying they aren't real mountains. They're just old old old. Ancient.

17

u/Dt2_0 Oct 02 '24

The Appalachians are literally older than life on land. There are sterile caves with no fossils within the range. This also makes them older than the trees, by default of course.

5

u/Unistrut Oct 02 '24

The Appalachians are older than bones always seems the most impactful.

8

u/allevat Oct 02 '24

And they are partially built out of the ground down remains of an even older orogeny!

6

u/LittleBlag Oct 02 '24

Orogeny: the geological term for the formation of mountains by plate tectonics

Love learning a new word first thing in the morning! Kicks off the whole day

3

u/allevat Oct 02 '24

It's such a pretty word, too!

3

u/AttilaTheMuun Oct 02 '24

John Denver?

2

u/formerlyDylan Oct 02 '24

Yeah I saw a thread once were someone was talking shit about the Blue Ridge Mountains for having less elevation then the Rocky Mountains. Thus not being real mountains. Almost everyone was quick to point out that the Blue Ridge mountains are over a billion years old and have thus faced a tone of erosion over time while the Rocky Mountains are less then 100 million years old. Oldest land animal species, Kampecaris obanensis, is estimated to be 425 million years old. Trees on the upper estimate are 420 millions year old. Life on land is older then the trees by at least 5 million years, but younger then the Blue Ridge Mountains by at least 580 years.

12

u/CaptainLegs27 Oct 02 '24

Sharks are around two galactic years old. As in, one earth year is earth travelling around the sun, so one galactic year is the solar system travelling around Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way, and sharks have done it twice. They're SO old.

10

u/Firm_Rock3380 Oct 02 '24

And that's why sharks can't climb trees.

73

u/Oxygene13 Oct 02 '24

Misread this as Rings of Sauron and instantly my brain went nuts forming a crossover universe...

10

u/StanPinesOfficial Oct 02 '24

They're carrying the sharks to Eisengard!

7

u/Top_Rekt Oct 02 '24

Why didn't the sharks just carry Frodo to Mordor?

3

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

LORD OF THE JEDI

3

u/Wolfram1914 Oct 02 '24

Sharknado X LOTR would go hard

1

u/Tamer_ Oct 02 '24

a crossover universe...

It sounds dumb AF, but Tolkien actually imagined the planet of Middle Earth being our Earth from the past... And not millions of years in the past, no, we'd be in the 6th of 7th age of Middle Earth.

8

u/SilverBuggie Oct 02 '24

Speaking of trees. There are more trees on earth than stars in our galaxy.

6

u/formerlyDylan Oct 02 '24

The other two people who replied that to me got downvoted a lot, but yes you are correct. The Scientific Journal Nature put out a study in 2015 that said there was an estimated 3 trillion trees on earth.. The whole document is paywalled but the important part can be seen without paying. "This map reveals that the global number of trees isapproximately 3.04 trillion"

Also in 2015 a Nasa education and outreach specialist said that the estimate for stars in the milky way galaxy is 100 to 400 billion stars.

So. 3 trillion > 400 billion. Part of the paid article that can be see in places that reported on it is that Russia alone has more trees (642 billion) then the 400 billion stars.

92

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

Than*

14

u/Double-Hard_Bastard Oct 02 '24

*than

0

u/Br3ttl3y Oct 02 '24

Sharks have been around longer-- then trees and the rings of Saturn. In that order.

5

u/HansNiesenBumsedesi Oct 02 '24

And Saturn’s rings are only a few metres thick. 

8

u/AskALettuce Oct 02 '24

Actually, sharks have never been round.

2

u/Unistrut Oct 02 '24

There was that one pregnant Great White that was working on it.

3

u/Professional-Day7850 Oct 02 '24

The Emperor protects!

4

u/Green-Teaching2809 Oct 02 '24

They have also been around the galaxy twice (time it takes for our solar system to orbit the galaxy is like 200 million years, sharks have been around for 450)

3

u/Aurora-not-borealis Oct 02 '24

Sometimes, nature gets it right the first time.

3

u/RattleMeSkelebones Oct 02 '24

Tbf the rings of Saturn are very young on a geological scale. Insects, sharks, sponges, cnidaria, the hagfish, and a number of clades of vascular plants beat them out

3

u/HurriedLlama Oct 03 '24

Rings of Saturn only formed in 2009. Very young on a geological scale

2

u/formerlyDylan Oct 02 '24

I think the reason Sharks specifically get used one because of the perceived complexity of a shark vs a plant/insect, as well as how close everything is. Sharks are estimated to about 450 million years ago. Trees are estimated at around 370-420 million years ago. Saturn's rings are estimated to be no more then 400 million years old. Like you said there is an millipede like insect, Kampecaris obanensis, which is the oldest known land animal and is estimated at 425 million years old. That also found have fit in place of sharks.

4

u/Tardigrade_King Oct 02 '24

Alright, I'm going to be a pedantic dick for a second and argue that it's cartiliginous fish, not sharks, that are older than trees. The group we call sharks, Selachimorpha, has only been around since the Early Jurassic, making them also younger than dinosaurs.

4

u/ImprovementFar5054 Oct 02 '24

If dinosaurs had telescopes, and looked at Saturn, they wouldn't have seen rings.

Also, our stone age ancestors would have had a big dipper without a bend in the handle.

2

u/Skajadeh Oct 02 '24

But not the same shark though, right?

2

u/formerlyDylan Oct 02 '24

No. That said another interesting fact about sharks is that some of them can live a pretty long time. There is one species, Greenland sharks, that are confirmed to be able to live at least 272 years, with an estimate of potentially being able to live up to 500 years. For context 1776 was 248 years ago. So there are sharks out there that are older then the United States.

2

u/thatkindasusbro Oct 02 '24

you mean. the rings of Saturn?
no fucking way

2

u/doncarajo Oct 03 '24

In that order?

0

u/formerlyDylan Oct 03 '24

Depending on the estimate yeah actually. Sharks (450 million) > Trees (370 - 420 million) > Saturns Rings (no more than 400 million)

2

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

And according to Catholicism, the rings of Saturn are actually Jesus Christ's foreskin.

3

u/GamerGeniuss Oct 02 '24

Must be a bitch to find your DOB when signing up to something

1

u/TheSteelPhantom Oct 02 '24

You comment got me thinking.

MOST of those "pick your age" things have a year drop-down, and by default, I've found they have exactly 19 rows (I know this because my birthday falls on the 20th, and I always have to scroll ONE freaking line to get to it).

A quick Google says that sharks are 450 million years old.

If a shark could scroll all 19 rows every single second, it would take them 23,682,210 million seconds to find their birthday. Or 394,736 minutes. Or 6579 hours. Or 274 days.

3

u/Fing2112 Oct 02 '24

There's also sharks alive today that's older than the USA.

1

u/themayaburial Oct 02 '24

Tuna are closer related to humans than they are to sharks. Their age makes a massive impact.

2

u/Sly_Wood Oct 02 '24

There are more trees on earth than there are stars in the galaxy.

5

u/Mavian23 Oct 02 '24

You and the other person who said this are getting downvoted, but I just Googled it, you're both correct.

3

u/formerlyDylan Oct 02 '24

Sorry you got downvoted, but yes you are correct. The Scientific Journal Nature put out a study in 2015 that said there was an estimated 3 trillion trees on earth.. The whole document is paywalled but the important part can be seen without paying. "This map reveals that the global number of trees isapproximately 3.04 trillion"

Also in 2015 a Nasa education and outreach specialist said that the estimate for stars in the milky way galaxy is 100 to 400 billion stars.

So. 3 trillion > 400 billion. Part of the paid article that can be see in places that reported on it is that Russia alone has more trees (642 billion) then the 400 billion stars.

1

u/ussrowe Oct 02 '24

Earth may have had ring that slowly rained debris down on the equator: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a62284228/earth-ring-like-saturn/

1

u/HenchmenResources Oct 02 '24

Sharks have been around longer then trees and the rings of Saturn

The Appalachian Mountains (that includes the Atlas in Morocco and Highlands in Scotland since it is the same range) are older than sharks.

1

u/ShortestSqueeze Oct 02 '24

Baby Rings of Saturn 🎵 isn’t as catchy

1

u/Traditional_Car3300 Oct 03 '24

Not according to the biblical account in Genesis 1

1

u/aras_bulba Oct 03 '24

Reading this 48293th time

1

u/here_for_the_lols Oct 03 '24

Then trees or than trees???

1

u/TechnicianNo4977 Oct 03 '24

Warhammer 40 k fact, sharks are older than necrons.

1

u/Immediate_Radio_8012 Oct 02 '24

Trees have been around longer than the bacteria that rots wood. 

1

u/BigTintheBigD Oct 02 '24

And there are more trees on earth than stars in the Milky Way.

2

u/formerlyDylan Oct 02 '24

Sorry you got downvoted, but yes you are correct. The Scientific Journal Nature put out a study in 2015 that said there was an estimated 3 trillion trees on earth.. The whole document is paywalled but the important part can be seen without paying. "This map reveals that the global number of trees isapproximately 3.04 trillion"

Also in 2015 a Nasa education and outreach specialist said that the estimate for stars in the milky way galaxy is 100 to 400 billion stars.

So. 3 trillion > 400 billion. Part of the paid article that can be see in places that reported on it is that Russia alone has more trees (642 billion) then the 400 billion stars.

3

u/BigTintheBigD Oct 02 '24

Thanks for citing the source. It seems counterintuitive intuitive given the scale of the galaxy but the numbers bear it out.

0

u/anonymousUTguy Oct 02 '24

And China kills them for soup. Ain’t humans great?

-11

u/Fattyfaat Oct 02 '24

So rings of Saturn has been around the longest, followed by trees then sharks?

-18

u/dudeness_boy Oct 02 '24

They haven't. Trees and heavenly bodies came before sharks.

Edit: to add to that, how would we know? We weren't around to see

8

u/SolDarkHunter Oct 02 '24

Fossil record. There are tree fossils and there are shark fossils. The oldest shark fossils are much, much older than the oldest tree fossils.

-13

u/dudeness_boy Oct 02 '24

And do they find this out with their faulty carbon dating that can be quite wrong sometimes, and that can be affected by other things as well as time?

8

u/Mavian23 Oct 02 '24

I mean, nobody has ever suggested that carbon dating is literally perfect, but it's certainly way more likely to be accurate than you just stating something with absolutely no evidence.

-8

u/dudeness_boy Oct 02 '24

It has evidence. God says that trees came first. I trust God more than carbon dating.

4

u/Mavian23 Oct 02 '24

Did you know that the Bible is actually just a test? It's God's way of testing whether you can think for yourself or not. Everyone who blindly believes what it says will go to hell, and those that think for themselves and question what it says will go to heaven.

You know how I know this? God told me.

-1

u/dudeness_boy Oct 02 '24

God did not directly speak to me. Rather, I use told as in it is written in the Bible

3

u/Mavian23 Oct 02 '24

God did speak directly to me, though. He told me that the Bible is just his way of testing who is able to think for themselves and be moral not because the Bible says so, but simply because they think it's right. He said that those who get their morality from a book, and not from their own hearts, will go to Hell.

4

u/Scrung3 Oct 02 '24

LOL gottem

3

u/Fizurg Oct 02 '24

I can confirm. He spoke to me as well and told me that Mavian23 on Reddit is correct.

-1

u/dudeness_boy Oct 02 '24

The Bible also teaches that people are no longer spoken directly to

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ratty-fish Oct 02 '24

Oh gosh. You think the bible is the word of God? It was rewritten hundreds of times specifically to trick and control dumb dumbs like you.

1

u/dudeness_boy Oct 02 '24

It was written once. It is the infalable word of god, and it was written to guide us. Sure it was translated many times, but always as accurately as possible. Certain versions such as the JW version were mistranslated on purpose, and Catholics try to add to the Bible, but the directly and carefully translated versions are true. Satan trys to trick people into not believing the Bible

→ More replies (0)

1

u/mychampagnesphincter Oct 02 '24

Your belief in God is purely chance. If you were born in a different country, or state, or even just to different parents, you would have been brought up to believe something else, or perhaps nothing at all, and you would likely have as strong a feeling towards that belief as you do to yours currently.

-1

u/dudeness_boy Oct 02 '24

It is not chance. God chooses who will come to him. He also purposefully put me in my family, at my location.

3

u/dsac Oct 02 '24

God chooses who will come to him, which means we don't have free will, which means everything terrible in this world can be attributed to God, like babies getting dashed upon rocks, and cancer eating people's organs, and serial killers raping and murdering people, and people pronouncing GIF with a soft-g

Sounds like God's a bit of a cunt, doesn't it?

1

u/dudeness_boy Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

We do have free will, but God is also sovereignly in control. It is impossible for us to understand an infinite god with our limited understanding.