How Long Have Largemouth Bass Existed? 2024
BassAssassin726 reply :
I've searched the web and couldn't find a definitive answer. So how long have largemouth bass been in existance? Where did the originate from? How long ago? Or even "bass" in general?
NorcalBassin reply :
I think it may have been on the 7th day...
Team9nine reply :
Roughly 3.5 million years ago, though the entire Micropterus lineage goes back about 7-8 million years.
-T9
WRB reply :
As a sport bass fishing dates back to Dr Henshaw's book of Black Bass in 1881. As a species black bass date back to a period when the north American continent ecosystem could support thier existence; team9nine estimate sounds about in right.
Tom
jignfule reply :
God wasn't resting when He made these babiesOn 3/10/2012 at 11:37 AM, NorcalBassin said:I think it may have been on the 7th day...
Redlinerobert reply :
A bazillion years. Maybe more.
retiredbosn reply :
It was on the third day, in other words between 7-10 thousand years
Bassn Blvd reply :
My great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great , great, grandad wrote on his stone tablet about routinely catching 20 pound LMB.
Long Mike reply :
How long bass have been in existence is immaterial. Only after George Perry caught his world record twenty-two pound plus bass in 1932, did bass fishermen look up and take notice. It's been a contest ever since.
BassAssassin726 reply :
On 3/11/2012 at 10:31 AM, retiredbosn said:It was on the third day, in other words between 7-10 thousand years
On 3/11/2012 at 10:31 AM, retiredbosn said:It was on the third day, in other words between 7-10 thousand years
Youre kidding right? You dont really think the earth is that old do you?
POPRG reply :
just before marriage councilors were created..
InLikeFinz reply :
On 3/12/2012 at 2:19 AM, POPRG said:just before marriage councilors were created..
You too eh? High five if you've ever thought how many baits you could purchase for the price of "a visit". Ha!
BassAssassin726 reply :
Thanks for a good and reasonable answer Team9nine. I dont believe in god so all the "on this day" stuff is rediculous. lol
grimlin reply :
On 3/12/2012 at 5:16 AM, BassAssassin726 said:Thanks for a good and reasonable answer Team9nine. I dont believe in god so all the "on this day" stuff is rediculous. lol
They've been around longer than any of us on this board has been alive. Which pretty much proves they aren't going anywhere soon. Definitely a good question,but i don't think anybody has the exact answer for that one.
Marty reply :
I've known T9 (not personally) for about 10 years and when he talks, I listen. When he says 3.5 million years you can be confident that that's based on the best scientific information available.
bandsr4me20 reply :
when God made the world.
Ima Bass Ninja reply :
This looks like it is gonna turn into a religion vs evolution thread......But 3rd day sounds bout right to me. 
LgMouthGambler reply :
Well as far as religion, when I say "Im going to Church on Sunday morning", it means Im going fishing. Lets just be glad that they are here for us to enjoy.
salmicropterus reply :
I've been around 3,784,583 years.
Wayne P. reply :
They used to roam around on land and eat Tyrannosaurus rex for lunch. Then that comet thingy hit the earth off the coast of Mexico and killed most of them. The ones that survived evolved into marine animals and are on the way back to dominating the earth again. It may take a few million years though. That is why they are so agressive and put up such a struggle when caught. "That's my story and I'm sticking to it". LOL
Sam reply :
The sunfish species is in different parts of our planet with various species being more prevelant in certain geographical areas.
I believe archiologists have found bass fossils dating back many thousands of years. In fact, there was a post on the Forum about the find.
You may want to Google the proper scientific name for the bass you are interested in to try to locate a source for the age of the species.
Or see a local college biologist who may be able to give you some direction on finding your answer.
Raul reply :
On 3/10/2012 at 11:37 AM, NorcalBassin said:I think it may have been on the 7th day...
And on the 8th day the Lord said: "let there be bass fishin...." and the South was created
salmicropterus reply :
On 3/14/2012 at 3:32 AM, Sam said:The sunfish species is in different parts of our planet with various species being more prevelant in certain geographical areas.
I believe archiologists have found bass fossils dating back many thousands of years. In fact, there was a post on the Forum about the find.
You may want to Google the proper scientific name for the bass you are interested in to try to locate a source for the age of the species.
Or see a local college biologist who may be able to give you some direction on finding your answer.
Micropterus salmoides is the largemouth version of the Black Bass, which of course, is not a true bass at all, but of the Sunfish family which includes bluegill, crappie etc.
Dwight Hottle reply :
Since dirt, close enough.
5150bass reply :
This is a really good question. As a little bit of a side note: It is very interesting how there was no "first" largemouth bass or smallmouth bass or any species. Every largemouth bass had to have parents and those parents had to be of the same species as it. With the slow and gradual change of evolution you would have a pretty tough time saying when the first largmouth was on Earth even if you could see each generation. In the same way that you cannot say which day you stopped being a baby. There was no last day you were a baby or any first day you became a child. There is just slow and gradual change. In the same way that we change slightly each day, species change slightly each generation.
So if T9 says that they have been around for 3.5 million years, 4 million years ago there would have been a fish (the ancestor of largemouth bass) that was quite similar to the bass alive 3.5 million years ago.
To me, this gives me a further appreciation for the fish we catch. It is great that we live in a time in history when we know how all the animals got to be the way they are. We are the only animal on Earth that have any clue to these types of questions.
retiredbosn reply :
We are the only ones to ask these questions, and many times, (most) we come up with the wrong answer. To believe the world is young or old is just that a belief, all of my biology books in college had words like "we believe, could have, seems to" all are words of conjecture and belief. To believe in a big bang and billions of years without documented empirical data is as much a leap of faith as to not believe that way. If all matter came from the same source and started at the big bang there is evidence that must be challenged or ignored to make it work. Laws of physics come into play and some are completely absent, if everything came from one explosion. The law of angular momentum comes to mind, this law states that if a mass is spinning,(which it must have been: think about planet rotation and orbits) and explodes then all particles from the mass will continue to spin in that direction. Yet there are planets and moons that spin on their axis west to east instead of east to west. There are so many instances that are ignored to make the argument that things just happened by chance over eons of time. Just never close your mind to possibilities when it comes to our being, our planet and animal kingdom. Evolution is still just a theory, all of it takes belief.
5150bass reply :
retiredbosn I am sorry to have to say it but you could not be more wrong. 
We are the only ones to ask these questions, and many times, (most) we come up with the wrong answer.
We (science) comes up with the wrong answer most of the time? We still have a lot to learn for sure. We are incredibly far away from knowing everything but to say we come up with the wrong answer most of the time? This statement is just false. All I need to do is look around the world to see that everything we know (as sure as we can know anything) was discovered by science.
To believe the world is young or old is just that a belief, all of my biology books in college had words like "we believe, could have, seems to" all are words of conjecture and belief.
To believe that the world is young or old is not just a matter of opinion. I like vanilla and you like chocolate, who is to say which is better? Beliving that the world is young or old "just because" and believing that the world is young or old for reasons are two very different things. There is not one thing in the world that makes sense if you take the view that the world is "young" by any meaning of the word. The idea that the world is 4.5 billion years old is not just a matter of opinion or something the majority voted on. It is a fact as sure as any other fact documented hundreds and thousands of times.
To believe in a big bang and billions of years without documented empirical data is as much a leap of faith as to not believe that way.
The big bang is accepted by every scientist and physicist I've ever seen. The universe is still expanding since the big bang and accelerating. The red light shift from stars and galaxies prove this as sure as any fact. Everything is space is flying away from us. To be more clear: everything is flying away from everything else.
Evolution is still just a theory, all of it takes belief.
Science does not use the word theory in the way we do. I may say "I have a theory the bass might be shallow today". I mean to say that that is my hypothesis (A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.)
"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."
It is called the theory of evolution similar to the theory of gravity and the germ theory of disease. Someone who says that "Evolution is just a theory" has to realize that the idea that the earth is young doesn't even graduate to the level of a theory. It is just a hypothesis with no evidence to support it.
redboat reply :
10 years, coincides with the date I bought my first bass boat. Before that they were called 'catfish boats'.
retiredbosn reply :
my last post on this topic, don't want a flame war or contention in the ranks
4.5billion years for the earth??? Must be reliying on radiation type dating the only way to date rocks. The basalt field in Hualalai basalt, Hawaii, was made in 1800-1801, yet radiometric dating puts the new basalt at 1.7 million years, pretty neat for a rock that's only 200 years old. 
A million is a huge number, just to give a time frame it takes over 117 years for 1 million hours to pass, kind of amazing to think that most ppl won't even live 1 million hours.
I like redboats answer, sounds bout right, lol
Nitrofreak reply :
On 3/12/2012 at 8:07 PM, Ima Bass Ninja said:This looks like it is gonna turn into a religion vs evolution thread......But 3rd day sounds bout right to me.
It has to be the third day, on the seventh he rested, and went bass fishing...I wonder how big a deal it was back then.
Kimist reply :
Retiredbosn, the rocks you are talking about are well known to give inaccurate dates, and are well understood. No professional would make that mistake. The rocks were submitted for dating to purposely try to discredit the technique. In addition, many of the dating techniques used would indicate that the date was inaccurate.
lmoore reply :
On 3/15/2012 at 6:24 AM, Kimist said:Retiredbosn, the rocks you are talking about are well known to give inaccurate dates, and are well understood. No professional would make that mistake. The rocks were submitted for dating to purposely try to discredit the technique. In addition, many of the dating techniques used would indicate that the date was inaccurate.
An honest question here...if these rocks are "known to give inaccurate dates," then why should anyone believe the dating system which led to the belief of 4.5 billion years? In other words, if on error was discovered, how many are left undiscovered?
Kimist reply :
On 3/15/2012 at 6:35 AM, lmoore said:An honest question here...if these rocks are "known to give inaccurate dates," then why should anyone believe the dating system which led to the belief of 4.5 billion years? In other words, if on error was discovered, how many are left undiscovered?
To say it is an error is being generous. I'm trying hard not to offend. The age of a rock is the time since it was last melted. In this case, as in some others, people have submitted samples known to be xenoliths , which are usually inclusions of unmelted, older rock embedded in younger rock. That is, the Hawaii lava flow mentioned contains rocks which would be expected to be much older than the surrounding rock. A geologist would recognize that. In fact, that is what was done. These rocks were purposely chosen to try to discredit the technique. The fact that the fraud could be committed proves that it isn't a problem.
There is plenty of evidence to show that radiometric techniques work and give consistent results. I don't wish a long heated argument. My only desire was to correct some misinformation. There is plenty of information available on the subject if anyone wishes to google it.
lmoore reply :
On 3/15/2012 at 7:26 AM, Kimist said:
Thanks. I'm not nterested in an argument here either, but it peaked my interest.
I know 3 things without a doubt,
1) I was born
2) I will die
3) I'm gonna do a whole lot of bass fishing in between those 2.
After that, I have my beliefs and other people have their's. If people spent less time trying to change everyone else, they'd have a lot more time to spend fishing 
Catt reply :
Radiometric dating not give dates beyond 150,000 to 200,000 years peroid
5150bass reply :
I know 3 things without a doubt,
1) I was born
2) I will die
3) I'm gonna do a whole lot of bass fishing in between those 2.
We agree on all of the above!
I don't wish a long heated argument. My only desire was to correct some misinformation.
My sentiments exactly. If I spend all my time debating on here how am I supposed to spend all my money on fishing tackle on eBay?
Catt reply :
The misinformation in the dating method. The precision of a dating depends on the half-life of the radioactive isotopes involved. For instance, carbon-14 has half-life of 5,730 years. After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years so little cabon-14 is that accurate dating can be established. The next problem is contamination of parent or daughter product.
grampa1114 reply :
Yeah.....that's great.....I'm goin' fishin' now.......thanks....
Ratherbfishing reply :
Interesting question. We still haven't found the missing link yet. The fossil record indicates there were sabertooth bass and the wolly bass but those were distinct and separate species. There are cave paintings in France depicting fishermen drinking beer and clubbing bass (this was before catch and release-and before wine was invented) dating back some 100,000 years. These were the first bucket fishermen.
Nitrofreak reply :
On 3/16/2012 at 4:48 AM, Ratherbfishing said:Interesting question. We still haven't found the missing link yet. The fossil record indicates there were sabertooth bass and the wolly bass but those were distinct and separate species. There are cave paintings in France depicting fishermen drinking beer and clubbing bass (this was before catch and release-and before wine was invented) dating back some 100,000 years. These were the first bucket fishermen.
So what you are saying is that a bunch of drunk rednecks actually started the whole bass fishing thing, then someone invented wine and civilised the whole d**n thing.
grampa1114 reply :
Yup...that's right...by the way I caught a couple of fish...
Ratherbfishing reply :
On 3/16/2012 at 5:54 AM, Nitrofreak said:So what you are saying is that a bunch of drunk rednecks actually started the whole bass fishing thing, then someone invented wine and civilised the whole d**n thing.
No. This was a cave in France. If it were in Russia, they'd have been drinking vodka. And they'd have been clubbing sabertooth sturgeon.
Nitrofreak reply :
On 3/16/2012 at 10:30 AM, Ratherbfishing said:No. This was a cave in France. If it were in Russia, they'd have been drinking vodka. And they'd have been clubbing sabertooth sturgeon.
I'd still say it was us rednecks, we have been loving french women for a long time, just look at the proof it's painted on the cave wall, where there is beer there are rednecks, WEE !!
related General Bass Fishing Forum topic
previous topic
most viewed General Bass Fishing Forum topic
© 2024 - fishing.qciss.net. All Rights Reserved.