Is the Loch Ness Monster proof against evolution?

Originally posted by no1smootha
I didn't know whether to post this here in cryptozoology or conspiracy in religion, but I recently read that a textbook written by the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum is claiming that the Loch Ness is a pleisaur, and therefore is proof the dinosaurs and man exist on the earth at the same time thus disproving evolution. I am amazed at the great lengths that people will go to prove or disprove their cherished beliefs. Now, I don't know whether Nessie exists or not, I was fascinated with the story as a child but as an adult I must see evidence that it exists before I will accept it as proof of anything. By evidence, I mean cadaver or skeletal remains.

No offense to any true believers out there, but I am curious...What is your take on this?

The Loch Ness monster, in a science textbook

edit on 28-6-2012 by no1smootha because: (no reason given)

A Christian perspective:

I am both a true believer in Nessie (I'd love to think she exists; both Nessie and any number of other cryptids, e.g. Mkole-Mbembe, Pterosaurs in South America, etc.), and in Christ.

I do not, however, think that Nessie can be claimed to be proof of ANYTHING, particularly given that we don't have any concrete proof of Nessie herself. It's a bit ridiculous, in my opinion.


Now, I don't believe in evolution (and by that, I mean the genetic process that generates new genetic information via a variety of processes, leading to creatures of less complexity mutating into creatures of greater complexity over countless generations - I do not dispute natural selection, but I believe this process to be a destructive, rather than constructive force (in genetic terms))...

but I think that, particularly as a Christian, if you're going to argue against something like evolution, you'd better be pretty polished in terms of your facts. The Bible expresses this pretty clearly... Christians are told to be "always ready to give an answer, in season and out of season"... and if you don't have an answer, or don't have the intelligence or the knowledge to defend your position, then for the love of all that is good, just admit that and be done with it... don't go drawing on Nessie to defend your position, you just make the rest of us look stupid.

reply to post by Ookie


spoil sport thanks for ruining that for me. maybe i should stop leaving cookies and milk out for santa too eh?

For the Loch Ness Monster to be proof of something, its existence must first be confirmed among the masses. However, I too have heard the belief that it is a plesiosaur that has somehow survived. Yet, further exploration is needed regarding underwater cave systems.

Funniest thread title ever!!

The "proof" they have to try and disprove evolution with is the loch ness monster?

Do they even know how that sounds? It's not helping their case for intelligent design at all.

reply to post by DrHammondStoat


Thing is though that the Coelacanth DID keep on evolving, just not enough to change it so drastically that they couldn't recognize it when they caught one. Sharks are a great example of this phenomenon, they've been around for millions of years and though they have changed in size and shape most of those changes have been subtle. Most prehistoric sharks are still recognizable as sharks but because they're in a comfortable evolutionary niche their evolution hasn't been as drastically altering as, say, the transition from theropod dinosaurs into birds.

As for the OP, if a surviving population pleisosaur were found it wouldn't disprove evolution. It would certainly be a remarkable and surprising discovery but we'd need years of study to determine how much Nessie had in common with ancient fossil pleisosaurs and how much Nessie had changed. Evolution has been directly observed, it's a biological fact as well as a well established theory.

Edit to Add:

On a rather embarrassing note I am a former old earth creationist. When I was a teenager I was very fascinated by cryptozoology and believed that dinosaurs might have survived relatively unchanged for millions of years and have co-existed with man. This idea was bolstered by numerous creationists websites, hoaxes (such as the Ica stones), and supposed accounts of dinosaurs from jungles (mokele mbembe). I can see why the creationists would want to put this in textbooks, most kids are fascinated by dinosaurs, who wouldn't want to find out that they might still be around somewhere? Tying that idea into their religion, when the Bible makes no mention of dinosaurs during creation or anywhere else, is deceptive indeed.

New photographic evidence from a Scottish sailor suggests that Nessie is not a Pleisaur but something mote contemporary like a manatee. If so that sure screws up biology classes for Fall semester.

New nhoto of Nessie

Been up the the area lots of times, have plenty of friends that stay in the area and I've never seen anything convincing and my friends all say its a tourist thing, zero credibility.
Was a nice fairytale when I was a kid though.