Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,425 Year: 3,682/9,624 Month: 553/974 Week: 166/276 Day: 6/34 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cryptozoology
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 5 of 24 (21483)
11-04-2002 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NimLore
11-02-2002 4:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by NimLore:
I am wondering what positive feedback anyone has on this subject..
Do you believe that dinosaurs or other creatures that should be extinct are still alive?
What evidence do you have to support this?

Hi Nim,
I concur with what Schraf said, with one clarification. She mentioned that "Well, it is certainly possible that some species which have been believed to have recently gone extinct could be hanging on somewhere, particularly if their habitats were very wild or remote and not very-well explored." Recently may not necessarily be accurate, unless you consider "recently" to be equal to "within the last 100 million years". Basically, all that is required is for a relictual population of some organism to find a nice, quiet place where they can remain relatively unseen until someone stumbles across them. There are a LOT of organisms alive today that have no recent fossil ancestry for instance, principally because of the gappiness of the fossil record, so finding something that was thought to be extinct a long time ago isn't all that difficult. In addition, 3/4ths of the planet is virtually unexplored, leaving a lot of territory for remnants to hide out in - witness the coelocanth, among others. Finally, at a rough estimate, a dozen new species (especially arthropods) are being discovered every year; about once a decade (at least for the last 100 years) someone finds a representative of a new phylum! This is one of the things that makes biology so exciting: take a walk through undisturbed cloud forest, and whether you know it or not, you're likely to encounter at least one species of something that is undocumented, unregistered, or completely unknown on any given day.
I would, however, be cautious about accepting journalists' claims of "living fossils", etc. That designation might sell papers, but is basically meaningless. Which brings me to your original question. "Cryptozoology", in the sense of "finding a living brachiosaur" or something like bigfoot, etc, is highly unlikely on land - we do know most of the out of the way corners well enough that some evidence would have been forthcoming for a species of megafauna. A new small primate, a new species of deer, a tree species that was thought extinct, etc might quite easily be hidden out. A chupacabra that preys on humans or people's livestock OTOH, because it is in contact with man (if you believe the stories), is VERY unlikely. And of course, the oceans may hide quite a few things like the coelocanth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NimLore, posted 11-02-2002 4:51 PM NimLore has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-04-2002 4:55 AM Quetzal has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 24 (25727)
12-06-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NimLore
11-02-2002 4:51 PM


It is a sad, sad day for cryptozoologists everywhere. The great Ray Wallace, originator and prime contractor for the 45-year-long Bigfoot hoax has died. His family now reveals the truth: the whole thing was a put up. Here's his tell-all obituary. Ah well, there's always the movie rights...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NimLore, posted 11-02-2002 4:51 PM NimLore has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2003 10:25 PM Quetzal has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 24 (62507)
10-24-2003 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
10-23-2003 10:25 PM


Hey Crash.
I'm not sure how to respond to this, primarily because I'm not sure what you're saying (I think the phrasing might be confusing). After all, we infer the existence of many things from inanimate objects. Stonehenge being an example. Firepits in caves are another. Sometimes we can't really tell whether what we're looking at belongs to the class of "formerly animate or caused by animate" things vs "wholly deterministic or inanimate". For how many centuries did people think fossils were just really weird rocks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2003 10:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2003 6:00 PM Quetzal has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024