|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:16 pm
I realise I'm coming into this topic a bit late, and admit you all have valid points. Firstly, creatures of the deep have been discovered. Nobody used to believe the Giant Squid existed, yet bodies have been found washing up on shorelines. These squids are twice the size of a man, and there are plenty of articles in the internet to prove this point. Secondly, when we're talking about merfolk do they generally have to look human? In Harry Potter, they have scaly green skin and look vaguely human. What about octopuses? They're reported to have some kind of intelligence, and indeed could, in fact, have an intelligent species in the ocean depths that we haven't yet explored. I'd say it's likely that a more fish-like creature would exist if we're talking about the percentage of ocean that we haven't yet explored. If they do exist, they'll have skin that can move about easily in the water, maybe scales, or maybe similar to the octopus to help guard against the pressure. No human like creature could exists in the depths of the ocean, unless they had some survival mechanism like flexible skin that could help them out. Just my two cents worth, and I'm kinda hoping it makes sense.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:15 am
I've not been real active on Gaia lately, but this topic is interesting and a good place to make a reappearance. Sorry if my responses are a bit late to some of the earlt posts.
Regarding merfolk, DM_Melkhar and Berzerker_prime (not to omit others but just as examples) both made excellent points early on. There are many problems with classical Disney type mermaids that are just an apparent half human half fish (yet having tails with horizontal fins more like whales than fish). Mel made good points about how merfolk might be adapted for underwater living. Temperature, locomotion, light availability, would be just a few factors that would have to be considered. I do disagree on one point though, and that is that merfolk would have gills for breathing underwater. While it makes perfect sense on the surface, in truth water holds far less oxygen than air. All known warm-blooded aquatic creatures are air breather (mammals specifically). In addition, an intelligent creature would have an additional oxygen demand - the brain. The human brain uses around one fourth of all the oxygen that humans breath in. Even if merfolk were not warm-blooded, the oxygen in water could not support the metabolism of a highly developed brain. As for possible mermaid origins, I do - like Berzerker_prime - believe in evolution. (I do not find this contradicts with my religious beliefs at all. I won't go there though, as others have already wisely ducked out of the same debate and the topic is at hand is merfolk.) However in fantasy one could also simply believe that merfolk were created to live under the ocean. In fact any number of humanoid creatures might be created specifically to live in various habitats. Whether by evolution or creation, though, the creatures being discussed - here merfolk - would have to be adapted to their lving conditions. As for the discussion of whether they really exist, that's a topic cryptozoology (a real science if handled properly - I love Monster Quest - on the History Channel I think). At best the lack of phyical evidence does make their existence seem unlikely, though still possible. My personal feeling on the matter however is that merfolk don't and wouldn't exist just because I don't see the underwater world supporting a species anywhere similar to humans who are adapted to life on land. I could maybe see dolphins (which are very intelligent) evolving species with human scale intelligence and social interaction, but I don't see them adapting a half-humanoid form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:18 pm
I think I did mention they would have gills. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:09 pm
Berzerker_prime Most depictions of Merfolk have tails that go up and down as they swim, implying that they were evolved from land-dwellers. So perhaps their upper halves are more like marine mammal skin than human skin; specifically adapted to life in the water, but in need of constant moisturizing out of water. Thus, while they can breathe outside of water, they can't really exist for an extended period outside of it. Berz. That makes it sound like they are amphbians instead of ocean dwellers. I hate to say this but I think that the Harry Potter version of mer-creatures was the best I have ever seen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:45 pm
I think you made sense Nyxix. 3nodding
Kudos SK! We don't mind to see you rarely, as long as you get to return. 3nodding
You know, I hardly remember the mermen in HP. Weren't they in the goblet of fire? neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:32 pm
J. Dragonhater Berzerker_prime Most depictions of Merfolk have tails that go up and down as they swim, implying that they were evolved from land-dwellers. So perhaps their upper halves are more like marine mammal skin than human skin; specifically adapted to life in the water, but in need of constant moisturizing out of water. Thus, while they can breathe outside of water, they can't really exist for an extended period outside of it. Berz. That makes it sound like they are amphbians instead of ocean dwellers. You're confusing "amphibious" with "secondarily aquatic." If something is amphibious, it can live either on land or in water. If it is secondarily aquatic, it evolved from land-dwellers, but cannot live on land. Dolphins and whales fall into this category. Berz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:25 pm
You know Berz, I had no idea how to say that in English. The "secondarily aquatic" I mean.
My grandpa asked me yesterday if the whale shark had lungs like a whale, or gills like a shark. I wasn't sure but I said to him that all sharks must have gills, right? rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:21 pm
Whale sharks are a type of shark, not a type of whale, so they would have shark gills.
Interesting thing about shark gills; they don't work unless the shark is moving.
Berz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:52 pm
Thanks for the info Berz!
BTW, this sprang up another question of mine: If Merfolk have gills, do they have to be moving all the time like the sharks do? I wonder how many kinds of gills you can find out there...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:52 pm
hypnocrown I think you made sense Nyxix. 3nodding Kudos SK! We don't mind to see you rarely, as long as you get to return. 3nodding You know, I hardly remember the mermen in HP. Weren't they in the goblet of fire? neutral Yes, they were in the Goblet of Fire. I was really quite impressed with the movies portrayal of mermen. The only problem I think I had was the rest of the movie. However, what concerns me is that if mer-people have gills, they would indeed have to keep moving. They wouldn't be able to sleep, logically. Actually, I'm confused about this point. How to sea-creatures with gills sleep and recharge their energy if they have to keep moving constantly? Even with creatures like dolphins who evolved on land, moved under water and continuously have to take breaths of air and surface occasionally, how would they sleep? How would they rest? Another point about mer-people: if they did have human like qualities and were once land dwellers, they would have to come to the surface for air occasionally. It's only right we would have seen them. So this effectively rules out that they were once land mammals, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:58 pm
Really? You didn't like the rest of the movie? How come?
You know, I've heard how dolphins can sleep cuz they use half of their brain to stay awake while the other half sleeps. Maybe mermen would be something alike if they were real. I must say that if they were to be real, would they have been land dwellers at one point? I think they've always been water dwellers, doesn't matter if they're real or imaginary. I mean, if they have gills, doesn't that mean that they've always been in the water? Dolphins don't have gills cuz they were land dwellers before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:49 pm
as far as to the whole do gills and movement question, i actually read a book based upon a mermaid society, where they lived in a city of sorts and there were these tunnels that kept the water flowing. as long as the water flowed, their gills could work properly, but when the water stopped flowing,the mermaids fell in to a type of coma. in contrast, if the water moves too fast, the mermaids have trouble taking it in through their gills, sort of like when people experience a fast gust of air that seems to steal their breath away.
in the same book, people were mermaids that adaptd to living on land, and so gradually they lost their gills as they became dependent upon "dry oxygen" in contrast to oxygen taken in through the gills. it makes more sense than saying that mermaids are castoffs from people, as seeing that we are what, 80% water? the idea of humans coming from the water also coincides with peoples' beliefe in the process of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:44 pm
Very good observation Hawk buddy! I gotta say I haven't really considered it but now that you mentioned it, I think Darwin's theory of evolution does mention something like that. And since I have heard how life on earth began in the sea well, I'm sure that if mermen were to exist, they would have camouflaged their city(ies) with something or just locate it as deep as they could and have a system like the one you describe (doesn't matter which book it comes from). 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:00 am
Hm, I can't beleive I didn't consider evoloution before. Although if it were to be beleived entirely, mermaids simply couldn't exist, as there would have to be something in between. We didn't just instantly develop humanoid form, we were first reptilian...or crustaceans...I can't remember which. And even if we were to ignore that, it would be impossible for something that existed before human to have any sort of city, they wouldn't have the intelligence(or likely dexterity) to creat such a thing...especially under water. So it's really only reasonable to consider mermaids in a purely "fantastical" sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:32 pm
Well, wouldn't merfolk be THAT something between fish and us? neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
