Just because you can’t prove something exists, does that mean it doesn’t exist? It does not. Improbable is not the same as impossible, only less likely. In the last hundred-plus years the existence of hundreds of formerly improbable creatures has now become commonplace. Many of them: Gorillas; Pandas; Okapi.; Komodo Dragons; and more can be seen in zoos around the world. Hundreds more improbable creatures are discovered every year. Most of them are unexciting small species like insects and beetles, but every now and then big exciting ones show up. The Giant Squid, long considered legend, has now been photographed and measured at forty-three feet. Some may be much larger.
Improbable creatures are called cryptid, until they are proven to exist.
Cryptids come in two categories - those thought extinct – and those thought impossible. Those thought extinct, but later discovered as living, are properly referred to as: Lazarus taxon. Fabulous beasts, no matter how spectacular, become less interesting after they’re discovered to be real. We are fascinated less by the beasts than by the unknown.
There was a time in the late 1800’s when there was some talk of closing the U.S. Patent Office because everything had already been discovered. Possibly apocryphal, but the story does reflect a notion then common. Some of that notion is still with us. We are fascinated by tales of monsters, even while we scoff at the possibility science might not know about them.
There is a lot that science doesn’t know about - as every real scientist will agree.
Nearly seventy-five percent of the planet is ocean. Science knows a great deal about the few hundred fathoms just below the surface. Much less is known about the vasty deep below which runs to thousands of fathoms. What unknown Leviathans might lurk in those unknown expansive depths? No one knows – yet.
The twenty-five percent of planet that isn’t ocean is largely uninhabited. Vast mountain ranges, tundra’s, deserts, jungles, swamps, and dense forests account for most of the dry land. That leaves only a skimpy amount remaining for human habitation.
Nonetheless humans do make occasional forays into the wilderness beyond their homes.
Whether for camping trip, or serious exploration, we never stay long. How often do we miss seeing creatures that would rather not be seen?
Some humans do stay long; those that live in remote places around the world. What the wider world regards as cyprid they regard as rarely seen, but well-known local fauna. Are they foolishly gullible or are they better informed than the experts who only pop up now-and-then for brief field trips? The indigenous may have it wrong, even though they’ve given the matter generations of consideration. I’m inclined to listen to what they have to say.
When it comes to the improbability of improbable beasts – I’m skeptical.
Some few of those creatures thought 100% extinct seem closer to 50/50. I have seen recent video of an animal that looks very much like a Thylacine. I have seen the same for what appears to be an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Both have been listed as extinct since the early part of the twentieth century. The videos for both were shot from far away but even at distance, they look quite a lot like what they’re presumed to be: Lazarus Taxon – maybe soon to be verified as, not extinct.
With so many people carrying smartphones everywhere, and taking photos where photos couldn’t be taken easily before, the evidentiary process will likely become faster.
Even so, photos don’t conclusively prove anything. Flesh & bone are required, or better yet, DNA. That will take longer; maybe never. None of which should inhibit belief. Science demands hard evidence. Non-scientists are content with common-sense probability.
Which is more likely, The Loch Ness Monster, or Sasquatch?
The Loch Ness Monster is supported by, ambiguous photos, uncertain eye-witness accounts, folk-history, and the interesting coincidence of similar Lake Monsters being reported in large lakes around the world – all in the same latitude. That’s not compellingly convincing. Neither does it definitively rule out the possibility.
Biologists have said there is not enough food in any of those lakes to feed a breeding population of Lake Monsters. That’s hard to get around, unless the Lake Monsters can somehow get to open ocean, or walk on the land to bring home the bacon. Some believe that is what they do. The absence of pathways to the sea, and tracks on land make this doubtful.
What did all those people - over all those years - see that made them believe in the Loch Ness Monster, and all its cousins
in large lakes at similar latitude? Did they see nothing? That’s even harder to believe than the Monsters. I think some creature, someday, will be discovered as the source. It might not be as impressive as Nessie. It might be fully as interesting.
Sasquatch is a cryptid more likely to be real.
Sasquatch, and creatures like it, have been reported worldwide for centuries. The names are various; the described appearance is much the same: hairy; humanoid huge; and bipedal. The behavior described runs from shy to ferocious, but mostly, shy.
The earliest example might be Enkidu, who’s role in the Epic of Gilgamesh was inscribed in cuneiform on a clay tablet found amidst the ruins of ancient Sumer (4500 BC-1900 BC). A few thousand years later, another creature with similar profile, Grendel, shows up in the heroic saga of Beowulf. Does Enkidu and Grendel belong to the same species? Did they ever really exist? No way to know. They do have a lot in common.
There is a real animal that fits the general description – Gigantopithecus.
Gigantopithecus is thought to have gone extinct 300,000 years ago. Humans were around 300,000 years ago. They certainly ran into their large neighbors from time-to-time. That might be the original inspiration for all the many tales of giant hairy bipeds. Maybe Gigantopithecus didn’t go extinct at all. Maybe Gigantopithecus is still around, doing its best to avoid contact with its smaller annoying human relatives.
So far, Plaster casts of footprints offer the best physical evidence. Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum (Professor of Anthropology & Anatomy at Idaho State University) is about the only real scientist who has studied them. Dr, Meldrum’s expertise is foot morphology and locomotion in monkeys, apes, and hominoids.
Some of the foot casts he’s examined are clearly fake. Significantly more are not. Some carry clear impressions of dermal ridges (the foot equivalent of a fingerprint). These convince Dr. Meldrum that they were made by large, living, bipedal, hominoids - of an unknown species. So far, that’s all he’s willing to claim, scientifically.
He thinks that’s enough to warrant serious study.
His peers do not. Neither do the suzerains who control study grants.
That’s not surprising. Established authority is stodgy and
ill at ease with anything that might change paradigms to which they’ve become comfortable. Moreover, what if nothing came
of such study? Would they be blamed for wasting grant money?
Best not take the chance.
That’s why any cryptid discovered is so rarely discovered by science.
Discovering cryptids to be real animals is mostly done by enthusiastic amateurs. These are those rare and often odd people willing to spend their own money, time, and energy to pursue what institutional science dismisses as chimeras.
The role of institutions is to certify, not to discover. What’s true of institutional science is also true of any institution, from University to the Smithsonian. They are devoted to “acceptable” ideas. They tend to dismiss challenges to established orthodoxy.
This should be kept in mind, whether in classroom texts
or when viewing the many TV shows about history, science, and nature. Current presumptions frequently mislead students and viewers into believing unlikely synonymous with untrue.
The effect is to shut down challenges to authority.
I think challenging authority more interesting than unquestioning compliance.
Individualists and eccentrics have historically been the major pathfinders to discovery. Bless them all. The past several decades have been increasingly intolerant of intellectual curiosity. The oldest institution of science - The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, (founded in 1660) was willing to explore anything. The Institutions of today seem less enthusiastic. Perhaps my impression reflects my old-fashioned expectations.
A friend of mine once accused me of being an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. He was making a benign insult about my unlikely existence in modern times. Shouldn’t people who thought like me be as extinct as the aforementioned woodpecker? I didn’t contest his remark. He was probably right. It might account for my interest in creatures presumed extinct or cryptid.
If I’m still around, maybe they are, too.