Originally posted by DRdino
I concur with StarChild, I believe that the loch ness monster is a pleseasaur, we must remember that: firstly, the pleseasaur and other such dinosaurs
ARE NOT REPTILES,
saurs are, infact, reptiles. They are not dinosaurs. Some dinosaurs may very well have been warm blooded tho, yes.
there was blood found on fossils proving them to be warm-blooded,
No, there wasn't. Mary Schwitzer (i beleive thats how her name is spelled) found some of the chemicals found in blood cells preserved in fossilized
dinosaur bone. Neither actual -blood- (dried or otherwise) nor actual blood cells have ever been found associated with dinosaur fossils.
Furthermore, even -if- a quart of dinosuar blood was found, it would -not- indicate either way if the organism was 'warm or cold blooded'. These
are attributes of metabolism, and are completely and totally unrelated to blood products.
The reports made by the paleontologists working on the above mentioned fossil do -not- state that the organism was warm blooded because of the blood.
I don't know where you got that information from, but its completely wrong.
we must also remember that we are talking about a lake that at one time connected with the ocean,
Loch Ness didn't even exist until relatively recently (in geologic terms)
so could nessie have lived in the ocean until this time?
No, it could not have. This would require large populations of the animal (which, keep in mind, is air breathing, must surface, and therefore can't
hide at depth) to have existed for 65 million years without leaving any carcasses or, more importantly, any fossils. Before 65 million years ago one
finds plenty of aquatic reptile fossils, especially plesiosaurs. Afterwards, none. Not one, for 65 million years worth of strata. Why? If they
were around in large numbers and all throughout the earth's oceans (which they would have to be, they probably wouldn't have survived in northern
oceans during ice ages, so would've had to have come from somewhere else) without leaving any evidence at all as to their existence. And then, this
thuroughly ocean going animal for some reason swims into a tiny freshwater lake in scotland? No.
I hold strongly to my opinion that nessie exists because I have NEVER seen ANY infallible defense against nessie.
And what exactly would that be? If it doesn't exist, how can their be evidence against its existance? If it did exist, then one could at least find
evidence, hypothetically anyway. But if it does not exist, then they'r'll never be any evidence to testify to this.