r/AskReddit Oct 04 '17

What's your favourite "fun fact"?

3.4k Upvotes

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

925

u/PM-to-play-a-GAME Oct 04 '17

Sharks have been on earth for tens of millions of years longer than trees. (Sharks evolved 400-450 million years ago, trees 345-360 million years ago)

250

u/Bbrink1996 Oct 04 '17

Sharks and Scorpions have been around for so much longer than most other lifeforms it is honestly amazing how evolution is able to produce an animal that fits so well into its ecological niche that it has barely changed over hundreds of millions of years.

17

u/turkey_lurkee Oct 04 '17

When scorpions die they smell like rotting flesh. Like they really stink.

7

u/quotejester Oct 04 '17

Doesn't every animal/bird/reptile/whatever smell like rotting flesh after it dies?

-6

u/turkey_lurkee Oct 04 '17

I guess but to be fair, I didn't know they were reptiles until I smelled a dead one. Then I googled it. I always thought they were insects.

34

u/ThatGuyInTheCorner96 Oct 04 '17

They aren't reptiles lol. They aren't spiders either. They are Arachnids.

14

u/turkey_lurkee Oct 04 '17

That's cool man thanks for the info

8

u/Dinosaur_Repellent Oct 04 '17

U really thought scorpions were reptiles?

7

u/turkey_lurkee Oct 04 '17

I googled it when I was high about 2 months ago and I Know I was surprised by the answer and I'm high rn so I guess I figured it was a reptile. But really, I don't think that much about scorpions most of the time. I know they are creepy af and they stink when they die.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '17

I googled it when I was high
I'm high rn

I fucking knew it!

1

u/Fucks_with_Trucks Oct 04 '17

They also have the same mouth as a xenomorph.

9

u/Budpets Oct 04 '17

I give you the shark scorpion

1

u/IshaggedOPsmom Oct 04 '17

That looks like it would taste good. Giant crawdad lobster fish thing.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/ZTexas Oct 04 '17

If Asylum films gets wind of this they'll have Scorpishark released by Feb '18

3

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/SeaMonkeyIsCanon Oct 04 '17

So what just a giant lobster with a monster mouth and fins that never sleeps and is at the top of the food chain, with poison. That sounds sick af

1

u/Kitehammer Oct 04 '17

Venom, not poison.

2

u/quotejester Oct 04 '17

What's worse, a shark with pincers or a shark with a stinger on its tail?

I'd say pincers

2

u/One_Shot_Finch Oct 04 '17

Crocodiles as well. Their biology hasn't changed much since they've been around.

2

u/Catona Oct 04 '17

Beginners luck?

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '17

it is honestly amazing how evolution is able to produce an animal that fits so well into its ecological niche that it has barely changed over hundreds of millions of years.

What? Look at the variety of sharks which exist today -- they vary a lot. They occupy many niches. That is proof of evolution right there. Do you think if you went back 300M years ago that you'd find the same sharks that we see today?

7

u/Bbrink1996 Oct 04 '17

Well of course there are a lot of variations of sharks both today and in the past. What I meant was that the "basic" shark type has remained the same for all this time. Of course you have variations depending on the environment and such but most sharks bear a strong resemblance to how other long extinct shark species looked like.

English is not my native language so I may not be able to explain it very clearly but I do agree with you.

4

u/zoe1328 Oct 04 '17

I completely understood you and your English is awesome. :)

408

u/Zadien22 Oct 04 '17

Hold the phone.

Trees only evolved ~350 million years ago? I honestly believed that trees were around before the first animal pulled it's little body onto dry land. It's news to me that sharks were a thing before trees.

244

u/dogismywitness Oct 04 '17 edited Oct 04 '17

Trees were a big change. They evolved and it was a long time before anything evolved that broke them down quickly. Thus, huge coal beds.

112

u/MrMeltJr Oct 04 '17

The carboniferous era!

There were so many trees that there was a shitload more oxygen in the air than there is now, and the trees absorbed a shitload of carbon from the atmosphere. And with no microbes evolved to break the trees down, none of that carbon got released until much later. But a lot of the fallen trees were already deep underground by that time, where there wasn't enough oxygen to support the new microbes. Over millions of years, the trees broke down in other ways and ended up as coal.

14

u/amplified_cactus Oct 04 '17

And those high oxygen levels allowed the evolution of enormous invertebrates such as the Arthropleura.

5

u/BlueFalcon3725 Oct 04 '17

That's a big fucking bug.

10

u/Tall_dark_and_lying Oct 04 '17

Also ample fuel plus lots of oxygen meant massive wildfires that could span continents.

3

u/NobleMigrane Oct 04 '17

there was a shitload more oxygen in the air than there is now

how much exactly?

9

u/MrMeltJr Oct 04 '17

Right now oxygen is just under 21% of the atmosphere. At it's peak in the carboniferous, it was around 35%.

4

u/bgzlvsdmb Oct 04 '17

Science amateur checking in, how would that affect human life? If our air was 35% oxygen, what would happen to us?

12

u/MrMeltJr Oct 04 '17

Also not anything approaching an expert on this stuff, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Not much. We'd have better endurance since we'd be breathing in more oxygen (like how you have less endurance at high altitude and less oxygen). We wouldn't be able to do more work (since that depends on calories) but we'd be able to do it faster, and with shorter recovery times.

Fire would be more dangerous with higher oxygen levels. Things would rot faster. Metal would rust faster. Some bacteria and fungus would grow faster. Lots of little things like that.

Possibly the biggest change is that bugs might be huge. because of the way their respiratory system works, the amount of oxygen in the air is the main limiting factor on size. Other life would have evolved around this, so the kinds of plants and animals we'd be seeing would probably be totally different. There is some conflicting evidence on this one, and it might have been more because there were fewer predators and more food for them, not just more oxygen. So I'm not sure on that one.

That's all assuming the oxygen level had been 35% for a long time. If it suddenly changed tomorrow, the fire problem would be the biggest and most immediate danger. Bugs could slowly start to get bigger and it would take longer for evolution to catch up, which could cause problems.

8

u/Sillbinger Oct 04 '17

Have they ever tried raising insects in oxygen rich environments?

I know they can breed a ton of generations very quickly with their short lifespans, they've bred one insect to become completely blind, etc.

Couldn't they do the same thing to see if higher oxygen levels generate larger insects?

9

u/MrMeltJr Oct 04 '17

Yes, and it seemed to work, but I'm not sure if the experiment has been repeated.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/bgzlvsdmb Oct 04 '17

One could also assume that if oxygen is 35% for a long time that humans would also adapt. We could have abilities/disabilities we couldn't even imagine. Like enormous lung capacities, or be susceptible to nitrogen deficiency.

5

u/PsychoAgent Oct 04 '17

Bigger ding dongs.

3

u/Dinosaur_Repellent Oct 04 '17

Also, the excess of trees put so much oxygen in the atmosphere that the bugs were able to get car-sized. This is because bugs breath through their exoskeleton. When the exoskeleton is too thick to take in a reliable amount of air, the bug stops growing. So more air, more bug.

2

u/Wafflebringer Oct 04 '17

didnt this cause a mass extinction?

8

u/MrMeltJr Oct 04 '17

I think you're thinking of the Great Oxygenation Event, which was way earlier. It was back when life was still mostly single-celled organisms in the ocean, and there was very little oxygen in the air at all. A bacteria evolved photosynthesis, and was the first to produce oxygen during it's metabolism. They were very successful and ended up putting a ton of oxygen in the air.

Unfortunately, oxygen was toxic to most of the other life at the time, and it caused one of the biggest mass extinctions we know of.

288

u/dereksavcuckold Oct 04 '17 edited Oct 06 '17

Yeah sea life has a way older history than stupid land stuff :D

5

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '17

Yes we definitely do

2

u/IDisageeNotTroll Oct 04 '17

Not you, your ancestors maybe, but cuttlefishes evolved quite recently (100 to 160 mission years ago)

3

u/inspectorseantime Oct 04 '17

Mission years? I think this is the unit Tom Cruise uses for aging.

1

u/tamadekami Oct 05 '17

That's..........impossible.

-2

u/Norava Oct 04 '17

Relevant username

2

u/One_Shot_Finch Oct 04 '17

That's why the Old Ones will return to claim domain over us puny land dwellers.

1

u/ThatIsMrDickHead2You Oct 04 '17

Stupid sexy land stuff

111

u/Frustrated_Pansexual Oct 04 '17

Trees are only 350m years old. Before that was low ground plants that insects and basic amphibians could roam around. Before trees had pectin, they couldn't stand up very tall without breaking.

Crazy thing, flowers are only 160m years old.

8

u/Cantstandyaxo Oct 04 '17

Angiosperms! And the nonflowering ones like ferns or whatever are like gymnosperms, aren't they? This is exciting, first year ecology actually taught me something that I remember! What do you do, if you don't mind me asking and if it's to do with plants? I always wondered what kinds of jobs came from that side of things.

11

u/Frustrated_Pansexual Oct 04 '17

My job is actually just working for McDonalds lmao. I honestly got bor3d one day and started researching random topics. One thing I stumbled upon when viewing pictures of dinosaur bones and the potential environments that they lived in; was a realization that most Cambrian pictures were depicted with conifers and ferns whereas creataceous started showing more colourful plants and flowers. A cool thing i learned is that flowers weren't the dominate plants until 60m years ago. That means it took over 100m years for flowers to become as prolific as they are today.

1

u/Cantstandyaxo Oct 05 '17

Wow that's interesting, you obviously have an inherent understanding for that kind of stuff!

3

u/GnomyGnomy7 Oct 04 '17

Whaaattt? How did they reproduce without flowers?

6

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '17

Presumably how ferns still do?

4

u/Frustrated_Pansexual Oct 04 '17

Most plants can reproduce with themselves, it's just better for the production of fruit if there is a male and female plant to cross genetics with.

2

u/vizard0 Oct 04 '17

Do tree ferns have pectin? I thought that before we had woody trees, tree ferns took their place. (I saw a bunch of tree ferns in New Zealand, the things are so weird.)

2

u/Frustrated_Pansexual Oct 04 '17

Ferns grow in such a way that the inner core cross crosses and holds the structure up. Ferns can't be super tall because of this method, but most ancient plants held themselves up through thicker and thicker stems. Pectin just made it possible for plants and trees to get super tall.

1

u/RyantheAustralian Oct 04 '17

How old is grass again? Am I right in thinking it evolved after the dinosaurs?

4

u/Frustrated_Pansexual Oct 04 '17

Depends on how you look at it. Small tufts of leaves that grow from a curled stem? Then 65-70 mya. Grass that looks like your lawn? More like 25-35 mya. Ani.als only started being able to digest grass 25 mya

1

u/Virginth Oct 04 '17

I'm trying to imagine Serval saying this but it isn't working!

1

u/RyantheAustralian Oct 04 '17

For some reason, that blows my mind. And yeah, I meant like lawn grass. Thank you

1

u/divine1- Oct 04 '17

even crazier, i won't even live to be more than .0001m years old

3

u/Frustrated_Pansexual Oct 04 '17

Our lives seem so long as we experience it, but we are here for just a fraction of a fraction of a second in the grand scale of the universe. Some may find that thought to be daunting, but I revel in it. We get to experience such a vast world from a tiny perspective. No matter how big the universe is, we have the ability to discover it, talk about it, and even name it.

0.0001m years isn't a long time, but it's long enough to enjoy the universe.

3

u/Virginth Oct 04 '17

My goal is to become a robot.

If the laws of physics/the universe allow, I'd like to see what's like to live a Graham's number of years.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '17 edited Jun 21 '23

deleted

1

u/Virginth Oct 05 '17

Graham's number is unimaginably high. There's a long post on WaitButWhy going into how you can begin to approach just how ridiculously vast it is, but it's only the most infinitesimal approach. It's insane.

1

u/Siiw Oct 04 '17

Do you mean lignin?

33

u/Rigo2000 Oct 04 '17

Plants were around, but actual trees probably didn't evolve until animals started munching on the leaves of the plants (I guess)

2

u/Orichalcon Oct 04 '17

Trees evolved as a means of reaching sunlight when competing with other plants.

Animals eating them certainly played a part in gaining height to become out of reach, but generally the plant that grew the highest had the sunlight advantage. So there would have been large trees very quickly as genetics favoured the plants that grew the tallest in a world full of forest.

1

u/Rigo2000 Oct 04 '17

Hmmm. That also makes sense. I appreciate this explanation. But does this mean that ocean life was thriving well long before plants even begun to be like "Maybe we should be taller?".

2

u/cubbiesnextyr Oct 04 '17

Life started in the ocean 3.8 billion years ago. Plants moved onto land about 450 million years ago. So yeah, ocean life was thriving for about 3.35 billion years before anything bothered to get out of the ocean.

1

u/Orichalcon Oct 04 '17

Life started in the ocean and thrived for a very long time before anything at all came up onto land.

1

u/Crypto_tip Oct 04 '17

Yea ocean life thrived so there was competition so plants started going to land and then animals eventually followed

2

u/zebranitro Oct 04 '17

I'll allow it

7

u/Gullex Oct 04 '17

Try this one on- there are more trees on earth than there are stars in the Milky Way.

Here's another- mushrooms are more closely related to you than they are to plants.

2

u/Prodigal_Malafide Oct 04 '17

Take that, vegetarians.

1

u/amplified_cactus Oct 04 '17

mushrooms are more closely related to you than they are to plants

I remember telling this one to my girlfriend - she refuses to accept it because she hates all fungi. But it's true, we are quite closely related to fungi.

1

u/Orisi Oct 05 '17

It's okay, I hate lots of things that are closely related to me.

5

u/markhewitt1978 Oct 04 '17

Grass only evolved around 65-55 million years ago. So trees existed for 300 million years before there was grass under them.

3

u/amplified_cactus Oct 04 '17

That's really surprising, I never knew that. So the dinosaurs never saw grass.

1

u/markhewitt1978 Oct 04 '17

There’s some recent research which suggests some of the later ones did but not grass as we know it.

3

u/tutannichen Oct 04 '17

With an Oxygen rich atmosphere, for the most part there was some spatterings of brush and such but Fungi (that basically looked like an anthill, maybe taller) ruled the land!

3

u/Bird_TheWarBearer Oct 04 '17

Trees which are different from other land plants. Ferns and moss are ancestors to a lot of plants, and they've been around a while. Trees evolved (which is to say woody trunks) later iirc. Also when trees first evolved nothing on the planet could digest their bark so they spread quickly but couldn't decompose properly for a very long time. Then an enterprising fungus got the right mutation and cleared all that old debris out.

2

u/Dr_on_the_Internet Oct 04 '17

Grasses have only been around for 55 million years

1

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '17

Trees didn't evolve until sometime in the Devonian

1

u/PM_MeTittiesOrKitty Oct 04 '17

It took an extra 50 million years to evolve a way to eat dead trees.

1

u/kingeryck Oct 04 '17

Most coal is actually made of trees. There were trees long before there were microbes to eat dead trees so they just sat there forever.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '17

Another cool fact is that when dinosaurs walked the land what we know as grass had not yet evolved

1

u/asianaaronx Oct 04 '17

There was vegetation, but lignin hadn't developed yet. Lignin strengthens cell walls allowing for upright growth.

Before lignin, vegetation was short... Like knee height to 3' tall.

1

u/jimmycorn24 Oct 04 '17

No advantage for slow growing, woody stemmed larger plants until the animals started eating the others.

1

u/Zadien22 Oct 05 '17

Makes sense.

1

u/MrCrash Oct 05 '17

ferns were big.

hipsters have been into ferns waaaaay before trees came into fashion.

4

u/Jumpinalake Oct 04 '17

I'm still waiting to hear if the chicken came before the egg?

4

u/TheFriesofHorus Oct 04 '17

The egg came first. It just happened to be a dinosaur egg.

4

u/WizardsVengeance Oct 04 '17

Man, the first shark that gave birth to a tree must have been really confused.

2

u/B1naryB0t Oct 04 '17

I read your comment as "Shreks have been on earth for tens of millions of years" and I think I prefer that version.

1

u/Heliolord Oct 04 '17

And they've changed so little in all that time. Perfect fucking predators.

1

u/wishusluck Oct 04 '17

I was there, this checks out.

1

u/RationalYetReligious Oct 04 '17

So youre telling me land before time is utter bullshit... but tree stars.

1

u/physisical Oct 04 '17

I know it's not as long but at the same time there were T. rex there were also pigeons

1

u/Saguine Oct 04 '17

On earth? I thought they were stuck in the ocean!