Sharks Pre-Date the Grand Canyon: Community Debates Deep Time vs. Foundational Physics

Post date: April 17, 2026 · Discovered: April 17, 2026 · 3 posts, 257 comments

Sharks, according to consensus, predate major geological markers like the Grand Canyon and the Himalayas. Bacteria, too, are cited as existing before modern trees evolved. The discussion frequently touches on profound scientific concepts, ranging from astronomical scales, such as the number of hydrogen atoms in water compared to stars in the solar system, to abstract physics like entropy.

Arguments are split between accepting established, complex scientific models and questioning the fundamentals of those models. Users like corsicanguppy assert sharks predate fire due to insufficient atmospheric oxygen. Deconceptualist explores abstract physics concepts, detailing the 'snap, crackle, and pop' sequence from jerk. Conversely, other threads question the basic assumptions of facts, challenging definitions like 'species' boundaries or the structure of glass.

The core tension lies between accepting deep-time, high-concept scientific data—like the cyclical nature of information preservation in black holes—and scrutinizing the very definitions used in that science. The field is split between factual recitation and deep philosophical interrogation of scientific axioms.

Key Points

SUPPORT

Sharks predating major geological features.

The general consensus posits sharks existed before features like the Grand Canyon.

MIXED

Debate over physical concepts being 'real'.

One group accepts advanced math/physics; another questions basic assumptions, challenging things like 'species' definitions.

SUPPORT

Entropy as a record of all history.

Objection advanced the idea that information enters black holes but is never destroyed, only scrambled.

SUPPORT

Sharks existed before fire.

corsicanguppy argued this because oxygen levels were too low for fire to sustain early life.

SUPPORT

The mechanical process of 'pop' after 'crackle' and 'snap'.

Deconceptualist detailed this progression as a consequence of analyzing the rate of change in acceleration.

Source Discussions (3)

This report was synthesized from the following Lemmy discussions, ranked by community score.

196
points
What's a scientific fact that sounds made up but is 100% real?
[email protected]·252 comments·4/16/2026·by claim_arguably
155
points
What's a scientific fact that sounds made up but is 100% real?
[email protected]·176 comments·4/16/2026·by claim_arguably
14
points
What's a scientific fact that sounds 100% real but is made up?
[email protected]·54 comments·4/17/2026·by BussyGyatt