Does The Loch-ness Monster Exist?

[Invader Xan]

Sadly, I almost feel like I'm flogging a dead horse here, but could we possibly discuss the concept of how such an animal could exist, in hopes of making something more interesting out of this thread? I want to stress -- this is a quick hypothesis on theoretical evolutionary biology in an isolated aquatic environment. Please don't view this as an argument for the existence of "Nessie", because that is not it's intent.


Consider Foster's Rule. This evolutionary biology principle states that organisms will become larger or smaller over generations, dependant upon resources available in their local ecosystem. An effect of this principle is the phenomenon of Island Gigantism, where the size of a given species progressively increases, often dramatically, over time. Island gigantism is effectively natural selection that takes place, given the removal of constraints -- ie: where normally, large size in animals can be an evolutionary disadvantage (especially lower in the food chain), with an absence of natural predators this is no longer a problem. The phonemon of island gigantism has been documented extensively and the most widely recognised example is the Galapogos giant tortoise Geochelone nigra (though similar tortoises exist, for instance, in the Seychelles; a different species Dipsochelys hololissa). The effect has been observed in a number of organisms including birds, mammals and insects.

Further, another principle stemming from Foster's Rule is that of Abyssal Gigantism; where deep sea dwelling animals grow to massive proportions. The reasons behind this are not entirely understood. It has been posited that it could be to do with adaption to scarcer food resources or improved body temperature regulation (such effects are typically more notable in invertebrates, eg: the Collossal Squid M. hamiltoni, the giant isopod genus Bathynomus).

NB: "Gigantism" is defined in this case as any animal which is significantly larger than it's evolutionary ancestors. It doesn't literally mean these are "giant creatures".

Now consider an isolated body of water -- and I'm using Loch Ness as an example only.
Loch Ness, together with other interconnected bodies of water in the Scottish Highlands is potentially a sizeable (and notably very deep) ecosystem which has been isolated from other major ecosystems for long enough that evolution could have taken place in such a way. In terms of aquatic life, such a system could be considered effectively an island system. Logically then, Foster's Rule could come into play with respect to any deep dwelling animals in the loch, especially given that even natural predators which may be present are at a significant disadvantage due to the extremely low visibility in the loch.

Given these observed mechanisms, one could deduce that it is possible for a given organism in an isolated body of water to evolve to anomalously large sizes as a result of their evolutionary pressures or lack thereof. Furthermore, considering that there are such lakes across the world (Tasik Chini in Malaysia, for instance) where so-called "monsters" are traditionally rumoured to live, it is conceivable that in some of these cases, the rumour could have been originally initiated by an observed example of Island Gigantism applied to an aquatic ecosystem.


I'm hoping this is more along the lines of what this forum was intended for.
As I previously stated. I'm not saying that such a creature exists, though I am saying that it is not an impossibility for such a creature to exist. As is often stated in conversations concerning astrobiology, "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."
Please do pick at flaws in my argument -- especially if you happen to be an evolutionary biologist. I appreciate any responses.

 

[Bignose]

OK, Xan, I'll play along at least a tiny bit here. Why has it been so hard to find any conclusive proof then? Loch Ness isn't exactly ocean sized. How long has the legend of Nessie been around? The modern interest was sparked by that photo in 1933, so Nessie has to be at least 74 years old now. It had to have had a mother and a father, which means that it is exceptionally unlikely that this is really the last one -- which means that there should have been others out there, which means that having eluded detection for this long is even more unlikely. Finally, then, what is Nessie? Its described behavior matches no known animal either alive today or in the fossil record, chances are exceptionally slim that it is completely unique and nothing similar has ever been found. Lots of open questions, Xan.

p.s. I've got more, but I'd like to see truly plausible answers to those above, first.

 

[kribensis12]

I think they said Nessi might be a pleasiasourous( sp). A amphibian like dinasour of some kind.

 

[Invader Xan]

Please don't view this as an argument for the existence of "Nessie", because that is not it's intent.

As I said, I was speaking purely hypothetically and citing Loch Ness as a potential example environment and not a case study. Being as I have no observational data to back up my claims, it would not be possible for me to argue the case for Loch Ness.

With all due respect, your questions are slightly missing the point I was presenting. My discourse was in theoretical evolutionary biology, not observational.
There is no definitive evidence that such a creature exists in Loch Ness, but it is not impossible that such a creature could evolve in a similar environment.


For the record, (all going according to plan) I'm soon to be starting some postgraduate research in astronomical sciences, so I apologise if my approach is different to the usual biological scientific method. In astronomy you must often hypothesise the existence of a phenomenon, otherwise you could spend a lifetime looking for it in the wrong place! As I recall, biology often has a more top-down approach, so I'm sorry if this has caused confusion.

 

[Bignose]

Xan, theoretical doesn't mean a lick without answers to practical questions like I asked. "Could evolve" is even riddled with questions, because one of those "more" questions I had included that fact that Loch Ness doesn't have a large enough food supply in and around the lake to support a being of the size reported. There would be no reason to evolve or grow that big is the food supply around the lake was insufficient for one individual, much less its necessary parents and grandparents, etc.

krib, based on the fossils we do have of plesiosaurs, their neck would not be strong enough lift "swan-like" up out of the water as the reports of Nessie include.

 

[Invader Xan]

Touché.

As food supplies go, I suppose it would depend on what the diet was. I'm sure there would be plenty of bacteria (aerobic and anaerobic) and other microflora for a filter feeder (though probably not exclusively so) to eat, no to mention any matter which falls to the bottom (which, with nothing save bacteria to consume it, would accumulate over time). It's also a given that many lochs along that fault line are interconnected. Could be, we're dealing with a typically troglobite species. If such a filter feeding was to exist, it would be interesting to see if any studies have been done to correlate supposed sightings with algal blooms near the loch surface or any (greater than normal) lack of food deeper down.

Further a bottom dweller would typically be adapted to use not their eyes but their olfactory sense to locate food. Take catfish and crayfish as examples -- and some catfish species do grow very large (I've personally seen catfish in aquaria that were easily a foot long). Of course this creature, if it does exist, is unlikely to be completely unique, but creatures found in isolated aquatic environments are often adapted versions of other more commonly found creatures. Consider blind cave salamanders for instance. Those of us who keep bottom dwelling animals can doubtless testify to how infrequently they're seen looking for food at the surface, which could explain the infrequent reports.

A final matter for consideration is their 'described behaviour'. Typically, people exaggerate massively in eyewitness accounts and most photos show little to use as a reference point in order to gauge size. I would suspect that together with the presumption that this is a large animal might help to perpetuate this.
Wasn't that plesiosaur-like photo discredited as a hoax anyway?

I'll admit, this is speculation based on fact, but it's an entertaining idea to think about, wouldn't you say?

 

[Bignose]

Ah, but Xan, Loch Ness has very, very little bottom growth and algae due to how murky the water is. There are very large peat deposits nearby; the water is so murky that vision is usually less than 15 feet. Consequently, sunlight does not penetrate very far, so algae and plankton does not grow very much. This is why food supplies are so limited in the Loch, low algae and plankton means low numbers of fish, which means anything large just will not have the amount of food needed to sustain it. The low concentrations of measured plankton and algae pretty much rules out any kind of filter feeder.

And I will note that you are the one that described it as large, due to your support of the island gigantism-like theory. You can't have it both ways, Xan, it is either island gigantic or just presumed large, can't be both. Not only that, but if Nessie isn't large, then there are all sorts of much more plausible explanations, because once we start to include small objects, things like logs floating with just the top sticking out can very easily be mistaken for a neck or back of a large creature, or something like a seal or a large eel could look like part of a much larger creature. Even the wake from a boat can look confusing. The dark waters here help mystify lots of common objects, too.

 

[Invader Xan]

I see your point. Once you explore it from that angle the whole thing does seem rather implausible... I don't know for certain, but I suppose diatoms require light to grow too? I know algae wouldn't grow at the bottom due to the low light levels -- I meant more along the lines of a surface-level algal bloom triggering brief surface migrations, due to sinking dead algal matter. Or would the acidity due to the surrounding peat also inhibit algal growth? As I recall, it's certainly quite good at inhibiting fungal growth.

As for the gigantism thing, a variant 2 feet long as opposed to 6 inches would still be due to the same principle. Think large, but presumed larger. People see something two feet long and at the local pub after a few beers, it'll easily go through chinese whispers and become five feet long... ten feet long... Then someone catches a photograph without a reference point... Actually, a large eel sounds like a good potential culprit to me.

It just interests me that such stories abound the world over that where there is a large lake, there's often a myth attached of something large living in the lake. Perhaps not in Loch Ness then, but possibly somewhere? This has turned out to be quite a good discussion after all!

 

[Bignose]

Interesting that familiar objects put into unfamiliar circumstances often lead to misunderstandings. Not many people would mistake a log lying on the ground for something else, but seen from a shore as a log bobs up and down -- disappears and reappears in a different place -- can easily seem very odd. Or, again part of a seal or a large eel could really seem like a neck or head or even flipper of some larger animal. The legend probably grows as people, known to be in the area, disappear. And while chances are exceptionally likely that they just fell in an drowned, it is much more exciting and noteworthy to say that 'Nessie' got them.

Some other objects that are very common but often misunderstood in unfamilar circumstances include a flock of geese flying at night. When the moon is at just the right angle, and you are far enough away and you are at the right angle, the flock of geese will seem to look just like points of light hanging in the sky. Even weirder, as the flap their wings, the lights sometimes will look like they are winking on an off. Now lights hovering in the sky are pretty unusual, and this phenomena usually gets reported as a UFO. But, it is just common objects put into unusual circumstances -- the moon has to be jsut right, and where you stand had to be just right. Another related one is weather balloons. Or, the other day in Boston a blimp was flying pretty low.

There are lots of examples. Rather than repeat them all, I'd suggest you have a look at Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It is full of examples of common hallucinations and visions that many people assume to be spiritual or extraterrestrial or whatnot, but really can be explained by common phenomena. It also contains a "Baloney Detection Kit" to help improve skeptical thinking and logic.

Finally, and I am pretty sure that this if from Sagan as well, my love of science can be fulfilled by all the amazing real, true things that science can do. Science allows us to discover plants around different stars today, not only discover their presence, but tell their size and what elements they are made of. We can see light that is over 13 billion years old, from the very beginnings of the universe as we know it. We are very close to predicting the folding of proteins just given the list of the amino acids that make them up, with the promise of predicting their functions soon thereafter. We can predict the behavior of fluids in very complicated situations, from the flow in capillaries and blood vessels, to the flow in the atmosphere above hurricanes, and even all the way to the fluid flow in stars. We have a vaccine for a form of cancer today. Our understanding of general relativity is so good that GPS devices are accurate to within a few yards, and not only that accurate, but common enough and cheap enough that not only are a great number of cars coming equipped with them, people are using them out on the golf courses rather than just looking at the yard markers on the sprinkler heads. We've identified 23,500 species of fish -- just fish -- and there may be as many as 30,000; not to mention all the many, many other varieties of life on this planet. I could on and on and on...

So, forgive me if I don't need Nessie, or astrology, or magic healing crystals or magnets. Real science itself is enough for me.

 

[lljdma06]

p.s. I did not mind typing all that. This is the scientific section, and discussing how science works is a very important part of this section. There is a lot of science in fishkeeping, and unfortunately a lot of unscientific myths in fishkeeping as well. A lot of people have lost or never had skepticism, and take the word of people way too quickly. A good scientist always asks for the evidence, is always skeptical. And, if the members who read these forums become better scientists, by not just taking someone's post on the forum at face value, by not taking a webpage at face value, definitely by not taking a company's word at face value (because a company always wants to sell you something), then this section of the forum is a success.

...and this is why I left this thread in here...not because of the question, but, to develop an idea of scientific discussion. Funny, how, this post, actually is useful here as a first good example. HOWEVER..if Bigfoot shows up, it's deleted.

Cheers. SH

Well duh! Bigfoot doesn't live in the water! Of course it should be deleted.



But mermaids and mermen, they should stay...

llj

 

[-germ-]

Wasn't the story of the Loch Ness monster first founded on a Christian legend? That of Saint Columba?
Personally i don't believe in any of it for a second (in fact even stating this feels a little daft) but thought mentioning this may add to the thread, and prove as a helpful research point.
Although the science of (or lack of science in) religion maybe a touchy subject.

 

[Invader Xan]

Thanks for the recommendation. Carl Sagan's writings are always good (I'm halfway through The Cosmic Connection).
Maybe when all is said and done people just like a mystery...

 

[Joemuz]

Lol i didnt think people would take this thread seriously. Intresting though.


Anyway carry on people........................

Cheers, Joemuz

 

[Eel-Man]

Most likely there is something in the lake. Too many people claim to have seen something unusual. But I dont know...

 

[PRW1988]

Personally I say the easiest way to find out if there is a loc-ness monster is to go the same root Mr.Burns did in the simpsons, drain the whole lake, but I'd have a couple man made lakes and drain them into that.