Do Prehistoric Serpents Really Exist Around Vancouver Island?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ai52487963
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around skepticism regarding the existence of legendary lake creatures, specifically the ancient lake serpent in Lake Okanagan and the purported "caborasaurus" near Vancouver Island. Key points include the geologic contradiction of these creatures existing before the lake's formation due to glacial melt. Participants express doubt about the viability of sustaining populations of such large creatures, citing studies from Loch Ness that indicate insufficient resources to support them. The conversation highlights the importance of evidence, noting that anecdotal accounts and grainy footage do not constitute proof. The need for a breeding population to sustain a species is emphasized, suggesting that if these creatures existed, there would likely be more sightings or physical evidence. Overall, while the allure of these myths is acknowledged, the lack of scientific backing and biological feasibility leads to a consensus of skepticism.
Ai52487963
Messages
111
Reaction score
0
Watching a program on the travel channel (not the most scientifically renown station on the planet, I know), they started describing this ancient lake serpent in Lake Okanagan, but if its existed there for so long, how did it exist prior to the lake's formation from glacial melt?! Sigh.

Now they're going on about ca...bora...saurus? Or something. Anyway, they're claiming its supposed to be in and around the area of Vancouver Island and the Straight of Juan de Fuca, right where I live!

People I know buy into this stuff worse than Black Friday sales, is there any obvious evidence against this silliness aside from geologic contradiction in the first example?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ai52487963 said:
Watching a program on the travel channel (not the most scientifically renown station on the planet, I know), they started describing this ancient lake serpent in Lake Okanagan, but if its existed there for so long, how did it exist prior to the lake's formation from glacial melt?! Sigh.
I think you're just supposed to look at the grainy footage and conflicting anecdotal accounts and say "My God! Proof of dinosaurs!" :wink:
Thinking kinda destroys their entire idea eh?


...is there any obvious evidence against this silliness aside from geologic contradiction in the first example?

I've heard of some studies on Loch Ness that concluded there is simply not enough living in the water to support a community of large creatures such as 'Nessie'. Don't know how well this applies to other such beasties.
 
There was some very good video of the alleged critter called "Champ", in Lake Champlain.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=111844

It is important to not confuse interpretations of evidence, with raw evidence. Geologic arguments say nothing about the existence of an unknown or temporarily unidentified species. Intead these objections speak to the interpretations of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
As someone else on the page has mentioned, and as one might deduce by reading the posts in this forum, the video linked at the link above is not correct. In the original video, the thing can be seen coming up right alongside their boat.

I tried to spot it at YouTube but didn't see it.

However, I did spot this one: :smile::smile::smile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nXIt0Fihk8&feature=related
 
unfortunately a lot of these "creatures" defy a lot of biological laws. Regarding the sea serpent Champ, it is hard to believe a creature that was extinct several thousand years before the lake was created would appear there. From what I have learned thus far, for something to be considered alive and be a prosperous species it would need to reproduce. Wouldn't that mean there would be more than one Nessie or Champ, thus by statistics alone making at least ONE of them likely to be spotted with scientific backing? It's fun to believe in, and I love to read the books and watch the shows! Nothing is more exciting than the thought of new, groundbreaking science! :)
 
Pierce258 said:
unfortunately a lot of these "creatures" defy a lot of biological laws. Regarding the sea serpent Champ, it is hard to believe a creature that was extinct several thousand years before the lake was created would appear there.

That is not a required assumption. That is just a popular opinion among believers. Also, who says that it [if it exists] actually lives in the lake? It is hard to make assumptions about what something might be when we don't really have any good evidence by which to describe it.

From what I have learned thus far, for something to be considered alive and be a prosperous species it would need to reproduce. Wouldn't that mean there would be more than one Nessie or Champ, thus by statistics alone making at least ONE of them likely to be spotted with scientific backing? It's fun to believe in, and I love to read the books and watch the shows! Nothing is more exciting than the thought of new, groundbreaking science! :)

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. But this really comes down to a question of how many sightings are misidentifications, biological anomalies, or hoaxes. The video in the link above [not the joke but the original one] was compelling in that the creature looked very strange, and people who know the area were allegedly perplexed, but whether people are actually seeing something unknown to science is impossible to say. Could 100% of these sightings be false alarms? It wouldn't surprise me. Is it possible that there are a few unknown creatures running around that could account for these claims? It wouldn't surprise me. Does it have to be a prehistoric beast in order to exist? I don't see why. I think that argument is a red herring. And I can at least imagine ways that a creature might be so rare as to create this controversy, but I have never seen anything suggesting that this is likely true.
 
Last edited:
matthyaouw said:
I think you're just supposed to look at the grainy footage and conflicting anecdotal accounts and say "My God! Proof of dinosaurs!" :wink:
Thinking kinda destroys their entire idea eh?




I've heard of some studies on Loch Ness that concluded there is simply not enough living in the water to support a community of large creatures such as 'Nessie'. Don't know how well this applies to other such beasties.

For a sustaining population you need a minimum of ten creatures. The food chain requires that the mass of the predators be at most 10% of the mass of the prey. Supposing that Nessie feeds on fish it could not weight more than 300 kg (there is around 30 tons of fish in the lake).
I don't know the numbers for Lake Okanagan, but the reasoning applies.
 
Uh, not to be disrespectful of people's beliefs, or anything, but I'll believe in it when I get evidence. That could be a captured specimen, or even a skin scraping with DNA that can be analyzed and compared with other species.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top