Yeah, I know what they were trying to say. The whole thing reads like a middle school research essay though, it’s completely full of errors and very strange word choice. That wasn’t even the only error in that one sentence I quoted. Regardless, it’s a very cool topic, just the source (the website, not the research) is a bit questionable.
Granted, I’m usually too critical this early in the morning.
This is really cool, but I’m not so sure about the source.
Choice quote: “Previously, scientists used the size of the animal to determine their length.”
That and snopes debunked it: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/512-year-old-shark/
Between 272 and 512 years old. Still freaking old.
Surely the age of the animal was similarly determined from the age.
You can tell that it’s a Greenland shark because of the way it is.
From context it’s quite clear that “length” was supposed to say “age”. Seems more like an accidental mix up of words rather than bad source material.
Yeah, I know what they were trying to say. The whole thing reads like a middle school research essay though, it’s completely full of errors and very strange word choice. That wasn’t even the only error in that one sentence I quoted. Regardless, it’s a very cool topic, just the source (the website, not the research) is a bit questionable.
Granted, I’m usually too critical this early in the morning.
Never mind, they have right-click protection on their site. Very questionable indeed.
Well, to be clear, analyzing an animals size is one way to determine its length.
I read that part three times to make sure it wasn’t me miss reading.
Oi’ll tell ye, when me miss is readin’ oi steer well clear of 'er.