If a mythical creature such as a griffin existed.....

On this planet, sure, but we are not the only life in the galaxy.Rather than a challenge to evolution, the discovery of such a thing would be a challenge to the view we are not being visited by aliens. We would know that some alien species was here and they brought the pet Knossos.

Except lions fit nicely within the nested hierarchy that we know for certain is a hallmark of evolution. We have no reason to suggest the lion is not a product of evolution. Knossos, however, is clearly outside the body plans we find on this planet and is outside the nested hierarchy.I am assuming from the OP that the griffin in question just showed up one day, like last Tuesday, all by its lonesome and requires explanation, not that it has been here all along.If the intent of the OP is that such an anomaly has been with us for quite some time, like millions of years, with ancestors, siblings and everything else that comes with being a product of this planet, then we would have a fossil record, a history of the body plan and a segment of the griffin nested hierarchy that would fit within the rest of the tree of life on this planet which would mean the griffin was not an anomaly outside evolution.Minus a whole bunch of details about how, where, when this griffin was discovered to exist we are open to all kinds of fun speculations.Edited by AZPaul3, : usual

I took the OP as strictly phenotype. But since you mentioned it, yeah, the magic stuff would be cause for concern until we get to study the feathers in the lab, find the proteins or whatever cures some types of blindness, bottle it, market it, and make a fortune.As far as the treasure guarding ... an RPG should take care of that. And then we can collect a whole slue of feathers to study after taking the treasure to the pawn shop.

If little Knossos just appeared one day in, say, Central Park then trying to fit the critter into our existing scheme in evolution would be much more than a mere pain in the ass. The conclusion would most probably come down to "it don't fit so it ain't from here."But if a population of griffins with evidence of multiple generations were found living successfully in, say, an isolated inaccessible wheat field in the middle of Kansas, then we might say our ideas of evolution were not complete, though we could not say they were entirely rejected. We would have to find a place, a way, some logical reason for the felidea and accipitridae to have crossed or find some evidence of evolutionary convergence.If griffins were from here then there would have to be a viable evolutionary explanation even if that means modifying some of our ideas within the umbrella of present evolution.If not ... then it ain't from here.

No. A single stark outlier would not negate an overwhelming robust body of work. Such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. A single griffin is not extraordinary evidence since other viable explanations could be made.

If it is the only one in existence, DNA or not, it is an outlier and would not crash all of TOE.I do not know what it might be but there would have to be a rational explanation for the thing. Throwing away TOE on one unstudied outlier would be foolish. That is not the way the universe works.

Exactly.But we could not discard the TOE on the strength of one griffin.If it was from here there would have to be a fit into Evolution somewhere, somehow. There is just no escaping this. Just because we cannot fathom what that fit might be at this moment does not collapse today's Evolution. And where and when we find that fit it will explain the griffin as well as all the other aspects of evolution we know of today including the nested hierarchy. We would probably slap our foreheads and cry, "Of course!"Finding such a wonderful thing would be an extraordinary find indeed, but it would not be extraordinary evidence against evolution.

An otherwise excellent analysis. This conclusion is where I think you stray.When the OPERA experiment on neutrinos first announced its results, other than the media and those who did not understand the strength of the theory, did any of you seriously think "We have to entertain grave doubts about relativity"? No.We had grave doubts about the reported results and were quite sure the details would eventually fit the theory.I submit this griffin thing is the same. It is not the theory that would be in jeopardy but, given the details yet to be determined, the nature of the griffin.Now if the OP is saying "If I come up with something to disprove evolution then is evolution disproved?" well then the mental masturbation is obvious, and frankly, inane.But if the OP is saying "This thing, this griffin, appears. Does this disprove evolution?" Given the strength of the theory, the body of evidence, the overwhelming facts ... no ... this thing has not disproved evolution. Frankly, it doesn't even give any serious challenge. No grave doubts. Like the OPERA example we would be confident that the eventual details would have to fit evolution. Either that or the thing is alien to this planet. No gods, no doubts. There are, realistically, no other choices.Yes, the theory is that strong. Keeping an open mind is one thing, but ... thank you Carl Sagan.

Until the fucking details were in, not a fucking thing. And I would have a great deal of fucking confidence that the fucking details would fit the fucking theory. Yeah, as a fact, it fucking is.

Oh, I thought that was your word. Really not much more to say. The body of evidence is exceptional. The theory is too strong. Any benefit of the doubt goes to the theory not the griffin. All copulatory events fornicate in a lascivious manner don't they?

Oh right. I forgot that.One of the reasons for the divorce. Now the situation has reversed.Happy days are here again. The skys above are clear again.