Megalodon: Fact or Fiction?

Megalodon: Fact or Fiction? The Truth About the Documentary That Questioned it All Barbies? Yea right. Doll Houses? Please. I was never the little girl who played with mini tea cups and pretended my stuffed animals were my fellow beauty-pageant friends. I was the girl outside shooting Nerf guns at the neighbor boys and exploring the deep ends of the woods in my backyard. I’m sure my mom was thrilled when I brought pet bugs home from school rather than glitter-filled artwork. Nonetheless my fascination for bugs, animals and anything living for that matter started from a very young age. To this day I find myself watching Discovery channel till wee hours of the night or researching the latest species found in the far corners of the Amazon. It was not until recently that I began indulging in my extreme captivation with sharks.

Although I would never want to find myself next to one of these sharp-toothed vigilante creatures, the fear and complete awe I feel every time I read, watch, or hear about them gives me an experience unlike any other animal I have studied. They are powerful, stealthy and the ultimate kings of the water. Many can swim up to 40 miles per hour and some can produce up to 20,000 teeth in their lifetime constantly replacing ones that fall out. However, no shark is as intimidating or interesting than the biggest shark that has ever existed…the MEGALODON. And yes, it was mega. This ancient beast was said to be up to 60 feet long and weighed about 77 tons. Just to give you an idea, that is the same mass as 7 school busses. Its size was almost 4 times as long and 15 times the mass of a modern great white shark. That’s big! The Megalodon usually preyed on blue whales and other large fish. In fact, the Megalodon had the jaw strength to crush a whale’s skull in the same way a human jaw can crush a grape. Imagine what it could do to a human skull. Yikes! It was by far the biggest predator in the seas at the time. Because the fossil record dates back 28 million years and is almost completely comprised of teeth, some scientists debate its size, its strength and even its existence. However what current researchers are still stumped with is answering the question, “Does Megalodon exist today?”

During shark week in the summer of 2013, the Discovery network aired “Megalodon: The Monster Shark that Lives.” On the program a group of researchers and Megalodon-enthusiasts analyzed a wide range of evidence claiming that Megalodon still exists. For shark lovers like me, the prospect of actually seeing glimpses of Megalodon was enough to get me hooked. On top of the shark fanatics, more than 4 million people tuned in nation-wide to watch the special with hopes of learning, seeing, and believing in a modern-day Megalodon. Boy were we wrong. Throughout the show the “researchers” presented photos of half eaten whales claiming only a shark as big as Megalodon could do such damage. They presented eye-witness testimonies of sightings, boat attacks, and big black blurs in the ocean of the supposed Megalodon skimming the surface of the water. The final spectacle showed the “scientists” dragging a huge model whale through the water as bait with hopes of the Megalodon resurfacing and attacking it.

And….it did! Sure enough there was a giant explosion, a blur past the camera, and in a second the “Megalodon” was gone. The only redeeming factor of this somewhat ridiculous ending was that the divers were able to tag the animal that surfaced. Despite everything else in the documentary being completely fake, this part was a glimpse of truth. The divers were able to tag an animal that dove from the surface to below 6000 feet in seconds, a behavior unlike any other shark or any other animal for that matter. In the middle of all the bogus Discovery chose to broadcast, they somehow still managed to instill the belief that Megalodon exists solely by placing hope in a tracking tag. In fact, over 3 million of their 4 million viewers believed in Megalodon after the documentary, including myself. Many marine biologists have clearly stated that Megalodon does not currently exist and went extinct about 2 million years ago before humans existed. There is no doubt in their minds that it is gone. In fact, many of them laugh and scoff at the fact that after showing such phony information, Discovery was still able to convince a large part of their viewers that Megalodon is alive. After much thinking and research I have come to my own conclusion. I do not believe that Megalodon is alive but I still hope it exists. While the documentary was full of misleading information, two unforgettable facts keep me hoping.

First, the tag proves that there is some kind of animal down there that is able to dive that deep that fast. Second, the fact that only 5% of our oceans have been explored leaves the other 95% up to our imagination.  Who knows what’s out there?  With that being said, is there hope that Megalodon still exists? In the minds of scientists the answer would be a cold solid NO. But in the minds of hopeful shark fans like myself, myth-lovers, and the curious general public, Megalodon may very well still be lurking at the bottom of the ocean in waters we may never be able to explore.

 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.