Comments on: Fossil Dwarf Buffalo Discovered

By: kittenz

kittenz — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:56:05 +0000

I agree, shumway10973. There could be fossils languishing in a drawer somewhere, or sitting in someone’s bookshelf, that hold the key to our knowledge of some creature’s existence.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:34:36 +0000

In defense of paleontologists, there is much that can be inferred by a trained, experienced scientist, from a single tooth or scrap of bone. Many prehistoric animals are known, at least at first, from such meager finds alone. Sometimes the initial conclusions drawn from such fossils are later proven wrong after more fossils of the same type come to light. Often the fossils are fought over for years by scientists whose viewpoints differ.

The difference in those fossil animals and cryptids is that the fossils are available and they are known to be fossils of an animal that actually existed… hard physical evidence, no matter what its interpretation by experts, for further study. The material is unquestionably (in most cases) a fossil of SOMETHING.

For most cryptids, the evidence may be there in sometimes almost overwhelming quantity, but the quality of the evidence still leaves much to be desired. There are a lot of sightings and other anecdotal accounts, but most of the physical evidence has not held up to close scrutiny, or else it is so ambiguous in nature that it cannot be used to conclusively say, “This is definite evidence that this creature exists”.

All animals, cryptids included, leave their mark on the environment, of course, and sooner or later those traces will come to light. It’s true also that evidence left by animals can go unrecognized in some cases. I beleve that there is a strong possibility that many currently cryptid species will be proven to exist beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If a creature doesn’t exist, it just doesn’t exist, and no amount of wishing will change that. But it’s a mistake to say that a creature does not exist just because the evidence for its existence is flimsy. The next spectacular find may be right around the corner.

By: Jeremy_Wells

Jeremy_Wells — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:57:06 +0000

skunkape_hunter,
Interesting observation. I’ve often wondered about that myself, the fact that “real” scientists will infer amazing things from a single jaw bone or tooth or ankle, but discount cryptids for a “lack of evidence”.

By: joppa

joppa — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:11:51 +0000

I think giganto ate the dwarf buffalos. They were easier to catch.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:28:28 +0000

Every time some scientist says “That animal could not have those features because … (fill in the blank)”, some new find turns up and proves that statement wrong.

You’d think they’d learn to never say never.