Comments on: Nessie: Pachyderm, Plesiosaur or Pinniped?

By: kamoeba

kamoeba — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:03:52 +0000

“In order for evolution to occur, information must be gained, but that DEFIES LOGIC!”

That statement itself defies logic. Even if God did magically create every living thing a mere 6,000 years ago, evolution has still taken place. Do you really think that all the animals that are living today are exactly like their ancestors of 6,000 years ago? Wouldn’t that basically be cloning? Don’t you look even slightly different than your parents and grandparents? I find it fascinating that these “creationists” who reject science as some kind of black magic mumbo jumbo have no problem benefitting from it (i.e. medicine and pretty much every other technological advancement). If these people are so certain that science is a bunch of baloney, they ought to put away their cell phones and ipods, ditch the luxury of running water, and go live in caves. Don’t worry, God will take care of you!

And speaking of the fossil record, yes of course there are holes in it. Fossilization is an incredibly slow process that occurs only under strict conditions. Do you really think that God, while making the earth, just thought he’d throw in a few thousand fake fossils for no reason? Now that defies logic!

By: Rillo777

Rillo777 — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:11:14 +0000

DWA, you are assuming that there has been a vast amount of time. There is only speculation on that because it fits evolutionary theory. Sort of a circular argument. Mayo, an evolutionist, even said that there is a limit to which a creature can be forced to change. After that, it either becomes sterile or reverts to the original form. He called it Homeostasis, if I am correct. Nessie may not have evolved but merely adapted. This does not change the fundamental design of the creature but merely its ability to function in its environment. Adaptation is NOT evolution. People in higher altitudes have larger lung capacities than those at sea level, but they are still human. Bacteria adapt to anti-bacterial soap, for example, but they are still the same bacteria. Mutations happen frequently even in the simplest of creatures but they inevitably are malign, not passed on, or render the creature sterile. In layman’s terms Newton’s second law says everything deteriorates it doesn’t get better. And the fossil record only backs up evolution if you’ve already decided it does. Otherwise it is only a record of what once lived and that’s all.

By: shineyegal

shineyegal — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:46:46 +0000

Without people expressing their opinions, and believing in something whether it be scientifically proven, and scienitfically explained or not, this field would not exist, neither would this website. We do not know if nessie exists, and i don’t know about anyone else, but thats exactly what i like about it. I don’t claim to be a scientist, and yes maybe i am a fantacist, but when there are such scientifically knowledgeful people as JRC out there, i’m happy to fall into the category of someone who just hopes. If i am damaging the field by doing so i apologise.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:00:46 +0000

Also, I used to live in an area of Japan where there were supposedly “tanuki”, or raccon dogs roaming about. Everybody talked about them and saw tham but never once did I witness one. Yes, they are real creatures so this may be a bad example, but my point is that just because you don’t see wnything doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:37:16 +0000

In my opinion, the testimony of witnesses over hundreds of years should not be simply written off. People have been seeing something in the lake and I don’t tend to believe they were all kooks or mistook what they saw. Writing off this testimony to fit into a theory that Nessie can’t exist for whatever reasons is just as irresponsible as the people that cling to whatever they can to keep the hope alive that it exists. I would normally be skeptical myself because of some of the above mentioned reasons and being a scientific minded person, I find a plethora of reasons why it is improbable a large undiscovered creature exists in the loch. But hundreds of eyewitness reports, some by credible witnesses begs me to keep an open mind and search for possible explainations.

By: InvernessTours

InvernessTours — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 10:06:14 +0000

I still find it amazing that anyone can propose an air-breathing creature for the Loch Ness Monster.

I live overlooking loch ness and have done for the past twenty-eight years. If there was an air breathing monster in the loch I would have expected to see it on a daily, or at least weekly, basis. Yet I have had just one sighting of something in those twenty-eight years.

Air breather, Nessie can not be in my view and because of my view.

By: cor2879

cor2879 — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:42:12 +0000

As discussed in an earlier blog, it is possible that ‘Nessie’ is not confined to Loch Ness at all. There are sightings that have taken place on land and similar aquatic sightings that take place in nearby lakes. I doubt that Nessie is a reptile of any kind, but a mammal (or perhaps even a large amphibian?) yes I think this is a good possibility.

By: Nessie-Chaser

Nessie-Chaser — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:31:36 +0000

Holes in the fossil record? How do you know there are holes in the fossil record?

Did you see the trasitionary animal before it died?

Were you there to see the laying of the foundations of the earth?

Or are you just assuming this because it fits into the theory?

If an animal must evolve to defend its self from predators, then what happens in the mean-time?

What happens between the time it is defenseless and the time that it is safe?

Dead animals don’t evolve, and the ones that survive don’t have to.

DNA Fact: Information is NEVER gained. It is always LOST when a change occurs!

In order for evolution to occur, information must be gained, but that DEFIES LOGIC!

If no one can understand the most obvious of logic, then grant God the honor of being more learned than yourselves!

I realize that this line of thought is mocked and ridiculed in this society, but I prefer to know that my notions of reality are supported by pure science, than to blind myself to a position of granduer among lies.

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 20:02:50 +0000

Um, wow. Let’s do some controversy. Hard to tell where to begin here.

1. “Holes” in evolutionary theory are holes in the fossil record. Which can be very easily explained: fossilization almost NEVER happens. It is a fabulously rare process. (You will NOT be a fossil. Don’t worry; I’d bet a year’s income on it, and I don’t bet.) We have evidence of a tiny fraction of the number of prehistoric animal and plant species there were, precisely because of that. We think there are tons and tons and tons of fossils. Over the vast sweep of time we are talking about, however, there are virtually none. This requires some thought to properly grasp. The absence of such thought accounts for so-called intelligent design theory. Which ain’t. (Intelligent, I mean.) Evolutionary theory accounts for much of modern scientific “knowledge” (which is, it is true, almost all intelligent speculation, not true knowledge); and contrary to what people may think, no theory has held together better than evolution has — or even anywhere nearly as well — to explain fossil finds and what they mean and where they fit into the big picture of life.

2. Loch Ness is too tiny to support anything like The Loch Ness Monster. (Whatever that might be.) I think that the sasquatch and the yeti, at the very least, may very well exist. I’m even sorely tempted at times to bet on it. There’s too much evidence for them for science not to take at least a better look there. But those guys have room to roam, and attention can’t be focused on the totality of their habitat the way it can on the Loch. Sturgeon, eel, maybe one or so unknown fish species, maybe. But the latter of those three is the coolest anyone should expect from Loch Ness.

3. I can’t get over how unscientific science can be. Look, plesiosaurs can’t raise their heads, ergo no Loch Ness Monster? Poo. LEEEEEZE. There are better ways to get your point across, ways that would, you know, make you look less, um, stoooopid.

By: JRC

JRC — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:15:00 +0000

shineyegal Says:
“I think that for so many people, now and for the past few decades to have witnessed something unrecognizable to themselves, there must be some truth behind the legend of Nessie, there must be something there, whatever it is.”

I agree that there is something there. There are a lot of somethings in the lake. Sturgeon, salmon, etc… People believe what they want to believe and people see what they want to see.

“Mammals adapt and evolve, (and yes i do know this takes a very long time), but lets face it, if it is a plesiosaur, it has had plenty of time to adapt, maybe it no longer needs to come to the surface as much.”

This makes zero sense scientifically and evolutionarily. Things evolve to keep up with changing environment, prey, and adaptive needs. There would be no reason for a creature that was once an air breather to devolve in the way you describe. There is nothing in or around Loch Ness that would influence such an adaptation. You cannot simply speculate outside the realm of scientific facts in order to hold on to your fondest dreams.

“People like having something to believe in, whether Nessie is actually in loch ness or not, it still exists, it exists in the hearts of the people who believe in it.”

This is exactly the type of pie in the sky dreaming that has held back this field for so long. A creature either exists or it doesn’t. This isn’t Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. It is not enough for it to “exist in the hearts of the people who believe in it”. I’m sorry but that it just ridiculous. If that’s the case then why should people like Loren even try to investigate and prove the existence of any cryptid? People can believe in anything they want to but there is no room for such childishness in science.

“The only real way to know if Nessie does exist is to completely drain the loch, until then all we can do is speculate!”

Yes and the only way to prove the existence of Sasquatch is to burn the Pacific Northwest to ashes and then hoover up the remains. This is the worst kind of argument because it says to others that you will refuse to stop believing. Ever. Even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary OR even without any evidence to support your position. Wow.

I don’t mean to pick on you but your post illustrates everything that is currently wrong with Cryptozoology in my opinion. The wild nonsensical theories, the unfounded and unwavering hope, and finally the unwillingness to be swayed by logic and facts.