I came here to question whether that claim is true, saw your post, and thought something like "well, that settles that." Then I scrolled down and saw neatchee's (great username) post and now my whole world is uncertain.
This is only sort of true, unfortunately. Polaris is a two-star system: Polaris Aa and Polaris B.
Polaris B is much older than sharks, by several billion years.
Polaris Aa appears to be younger than sharks, at a measley 50 million years old, compared to sharks' 420 million years
HOWEVER it is unclear whether Polaris Aa is actually that young. Scientists believe that, based on some contradictory findings, that measurement may be inaccurate if Polaris Aa is formed from two different stars that merged. In that scenario, the model we use to calculate star age would no longer work and could give wildly inaccurate estimates of the star's true age
In my opinion Polaris B and Polaris Ab (it's actually a three star system!) don't count as 'The North Star' because they contribute almost nothing to the visible light seen without a telescope. Without Aa there's just no north pole star at the moment.
But that's interesting about the age being uncertain. I'd use the age of the merger as the age of the star anyway unless it didn't add much mass (but in that case it would have been a short lived giant anyway...) which would still likely put it under the 420 million years mark.
The interesting scenario re: Polaris A's age would be if a larger, younger original star merged with a smaller, much older star. You'd have a small amount of late-stage byproducts in an otherwise relatively early-stage star. That would definitely make any age models 'confused' heh
I could imagine a scenario where the math works out such that the star appears a lot younger than it is despite being the product of a merger of two older stars, based on the masses and ages of the contributing objects and the amount of different material contributed by each
Ehhhh they're younger than some mountains though. There are ranges that are over a billion years old, but the Himalayas are "only" some 40-70 million years old, depending on when you start counting (40-50 if you actually start from being mountains, 70 if you start from "ground moves up")
But the Appalachians were started much earlier: "The geologic processes that led to the formation of the Appalachian Mountains started 1.1 billion years ago." They were basically finished growing by the time bones existed: "Around 480 million years ago, geologic processes began that led to three distinct orogenic eras that created much of the surface structure seen in today's Appalachians. [d] During this period, mountains once reached elevations similar to those of the Alps and the Rockies" Since then, it's just been wearing down. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Mountains
Nah, they just swam East/West or South. At one point they just collected into a pile at the South Pole and waited patiently for the Polaris to come into existence.