I Am A Real Werewolf
Comments on an Argument Against the Existence of Werewolves
Part 2
Continued from the last post because it cut me off, probably for length. Again, the author of the bold comments is "Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods".
[b]8. The concept of werewolves being shapechanging, or humanoid wolves, is really absurd - wolves are descended from prehistoric canine creatures, the most famous example of which was the dire wolf. Humans are descended from upright, bipedal hominids. Nature (as in natural selection) "engineered" wolves and humans to be two totally different species, with different specializations and physical construction. Sure, there are "shapechanging" animals, such as maggots and caterpillars, but they can only change once, and can never revert to their original form. Such changes occur gradually, over a prolonged period. In order for a humanoid being to change into a wolf - or vice versa - it would require months of physical changes, and the creature would be in far too much pain to move, let alone feed. Soon the requirements of nutrition would slow the transformation down as the creature would no longer have the energy to fuel the change. It would waste away and die from starvation.[/b] The statement that “shapechanging, or humanoid wolves, is really absurd” is an opinionated and unfounded assertion. Also, humans and wolves are not “two totally different species”. That statement is entirely opinionated and suggests human “exceptionalism” (see Caldararo 2009: The tendency to make man the exception). Even arguing for the complete uniqueness of humans from turtles is false. Lastly, the whole latter section of this statement is quite detailed and would be a good argument if not for one major problem: how do we know that any of this is relevant? Again, how can you know how the transformation process of a werewolf might work and could be compared to other examples of transformation in the animal kingdom if your argument is that they do not exist? Your argument immediately makes all characteristics of werewolves irrelevant because, and I cannot say this enough, if they do not exist then they have no characteristics.
[b]9. ANYONE who tells you such things are real is either living in a fantasy, lying through their teeth, or are caught up in a delusion bordering on mental illness. The real danger lies in people who will tell you whatever you want to hear in order to get close enough to hurt you, such as pedophiles, rapists, and murderers - the only real monsters on our planet, and giving out your real location information is just asking for trouble.[/b] This statement is an end-all conclusion that cannot be supported. You cannot predict who will come forth and claim to be a werewolf of claim to be knowledgeable on the subject. Because of that, you cannot draw conclusions about “anyone” who does such things. Secondly, how would you explain people who function in society, are emotionally stable, and are not lying? Ergot poisoning? Hypertrichosis? Clinical Lycanthropy? This statement arrogantly assumes that one can predict the mental state or truthfulness of “anyone” who claims to be a werewolf before they even speak. That is inherently counter-scientific; making judgments before observation, before evidence has even been presented.
Source:
[b]The word "Lycan" is from the word lycanthrope and lycanthropy, basically meaning a man who turns into a wolf. Such a creature, if the condition was genetic, would have the DNA of a wolf, and his whole bloodline would be a hominid descended from lupine ancestors instead of primate ancestors. That means that instead of being a humanoid with an ape-like body, you would be a humanoid with a wolf-like body. That means no opposable thumbs, a tail, crookback hind legs, a skeletal system designed to run on all fours, and color-blindness.[/b] The first statement about the meaning of the contraction “lycan” is true. However, the rest of this statement, again, relies on evidence that the argument immediately makes unattainable. How could you know any of this is true if werewolves do not exist, as is argued? Finally, and less importantly but still affecting the strength of the statement, the concept of color-blindness is canids is still debated. If I am up-to-date on my literature, the belief is that canids can see color, but not as humans see it. The number of rods versus cones in the retina of a wolf does not allow for the same kind of color vision that humans have, but it does not make them color-blind either.
[b]Werewolves and lycans do NOT exist, regardless of who or what tries to tell you that they do. It is absolutely impossible physically and biologically for a man to transform into a wolf or to have wolf DNA. Lupine and primate DNA are NOT compatible.[/b] An interesting concluding statement if it were not for the fact that it is just one big, unsupportable assertion or, more appropriately, a personal opinion. There is no real logic behind arguing against the existence of something because such an argument relies entirely on the lack of evidence for that thing. Science is about observation, analysis, and retesting. The only logical path for a scientist is to either seek evidence for the existence of werewolves and make no end-all conclusions without that evidence or to admit that they do not know the answer until sufficient support is found for or against the concept.
[b]I am a Nurse, real education, real experience.[/b] A good question might be: how much do they teach you about werewolves and the science behind shape-shifting in nursing school? A background in studies related to human anatomy would be beneficial for studying the science behind werewolves, but being a nurse does not make one an expert on the subject or add any support to these arguments.
Part 2
Continued from the last post because it cut me off, probably for length. Again, the author of the bold comments is "Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods".
[b]8. The concept of werewolves being shapechanging, or humanoid wolves, is really absurd - wolves are descended from prehistoric canine creatures, the most famous example of which was the dire wolf. Humans are descended from upright, bipedal hominids. Nature (as in natural selection) "engineered" wolves and humans to be two totally different species, with different specializations and physical construction. Sure, there are "shapechanging" animals, such as maggots and caterpillars, but they can only change once, and can never revert to their original form. Such changes occur gradually, over a prolonged period. In order for a humanoid being to change into a wolf - or vice versa - it would require months of physical changes, and the creature would be in far too much pain to move, let alone feed. Soon the requirements of nutrition would slow the transformation down as the creature would no longer have the energy to fuel the change. It would waste away and die from starvation.[/b] The statement that “shapechanging, or humanoid wolves, is really absurd” is an opinionated and unfounded assertion. Also, humans and wolves are not “two totally different species”. That statement is entirely opinionated and suggests human “exceptionalism” (see Caldararo 2009: The tendency to make man the exception). Even arguing for the complete uniqueness of humans from turtles is false. Lastly, the whole latter section of this statement is quite detailed and would be a good argument if not for one major problem: how do we know that any of this is relevant? Again, how can you know how the transformation process of a werewolf might work and could be compared to other examples of transformation in the animal kingdom if your argument is that they do not exist? Your argument immediately makes all characteristics of werewolves irrelevant because, and I cannot say this enough, if they do not exist then they have no characteristics.
[b]9. ANYONE who tells you such things are real is either living in a fantasy, lying through their teeth, or are caught up in a delusion bordering on mental illness. The real danger lies in people who will tell you whatever you want to hear in order to get close enough to hurt you, such as pedophiles, rapists, and murderers - the only real monsters on our planet, and giving out your real location information is just asking for trouble.[/b] This statement is an end-all conclusion that cannot be supported. You cannot predict who will come forth and claim to be a werewolf of claim to be knowledgeable on the subject. Because of that, you cannot draw conclusions about “anyone” who does such things. Secondly, how would you explain people who function in society, are emotionally stable, and are not lying? Ergot poisoning? Hypertrichosis? Clinical Lycanthropy? This statement arrogantly assumes that one can predict the mental state or truthfulness of “anyone” who claims to be a werewolf before they even speak. That is inherently counter-scientific; making judgments before observation, before evidence has even been presented.
Source:
[b]The word "Lycan" is from the word lycanthrope and lycanthropy, basically meaning a man who turns into a wolf. Such a creature, if the condition was genetic, would have the DNA of a wolf, and his whole bloodline would be a hominid descended from lupine ancestors instead of primate ancestors. That means that instead of being a humanoid with an ape-like body, you would be a humanoid with a wolf-like body. That means no opposable thumbs, a tail, crookback hind legs, a skeletal system designed to run on all fours, and color-blindness.[/b] The first statement about the meaning of the contraction “lycan” is true. However, the rest of this statement, again, relies on evidence that the argument immediately makes unattainable. How could you know any of this is true if werewolves do not exist, as is argued? Finally, and less importantly but still affecting the strength of the statement, the concept of color-blindness is canids is still debated. If I am up-to-date on my literature, the belief is that canids can see color, but not as humans see it. The number of rods versus cones in the retina of a wolf does not allow for the same kind of color vision that humans have, but it does not make them color-blind either.
[b]Werewolves and lycans do NOT exist, regardless of who or what tries to tell you that they do. It is absolutely impossible physically and biologically for a man to transform into a wolf or to have wolf DNA. Lupine and primate DNA are NOT compatible.[/b] An interesting concluding statement if it were not for the fact that it is just one big, unsupportable assertion or, more appropriately, a personal opinion. There is no real logic behind arguing against the existence of something because such an argument relies entirely on the lack of evidence for that thing. Science is about observation, analysis, and retesting. The only logical path for a scientist is to either seek evidence for the existence of werewolves and make no end-all conclusions without that evidence or to admit that they do not know the answer until sufficient support is found for or against the concept.
[b]I am a Nurse, real education, real experience.[/b] A good question might be: how much do they teach you about werewolves and the science behind shape-shifting in nursing school? A background in studies related to human anatomy would be beneficial for studying the science behind werewolves, but being a nurse does not make one an expert on the subject or add any support to these arguments.
