Theory regarding evolution

[ZeldaFreak]

Note: This is not about real life, this is about the things that occur in the zelda games. ::)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the zelda games, I dont think evolution exists. My evidence to back it up is that since the goddesses are real then evolution can't be. The goddesses created it all right?  :-\
Does anyone know if it says anything in the games about what exactly the goddesses created? I think that there is, but cant remember.  :-[
I dont even know if this theory can really stand on its own right now, I really dont have that much evidence to back it up.  :(
Any help? ;)

EDIT: Also, and I'm sorry I didnt mention this earlier, but there are to kinds of evolution, theres a kind that allows one animal to evolve into a different one entirely (like a fish into a frog), and theres a kind that just allows for a species to evolve into another (like a lizard that evolves into a new species of lizard). Im saying the first one isnt real in zelda. So there could be different kinds of chu chus but not a zora turning into a merman. :)

[Hi no Seijin]

The goddesses exist, so evolution can't?

Error.

Even here on Earth, with the supposed existence of God, biological evolution (which is what I assume you're talking about) exists.  So why, in a fictional setting with more definitive proof of the existence of gods and goddesses, would evolution not exist?  Look at the octoroks; they have two different forms, land and water.  Surely that would be evidence for the existence of evolution in Hyrule.

[ZeldaFreak]

I kind of get what your saying but i'm  pretty sure that the octoroks are different because of different graphics. Also when i said that goddesses exist, so evolution can't, I meant that since the goddesses created all the creatures (thats what they do right?) then evolution wouldnt have a purpose. ::)

Also, and I'm sorry I didnt mention this earlier, but there are to kinds of evolution, theres a kind that allows one animal to evolve into a different one entirely (like a fish into a frog), and theres a kind that just allows for a species to evolve into another (like a lizard that evolves into a new species of lizard). Im saying the first one isnt real in zelda. So there could be different kinds of chu chus but not a zora turning into a merman. :)
-->I'm gonna add this to my theory at the top. ::)

[Hi no Seijin]

I kind of get what your saying but i'm  pretty sure that the octoroks are different because of different graphics.

If you're going to treat Hyrule as a hypothetically real place, then you can't bring in elements like graphics into your argument.  Even if doing so was a good idea, graphics wouldn't matter; PH has octoroks on both land and water, so, [spoiler]supposing that the setting of PH wasn't a dream world of some sorts[/spoiler], both types of octoroks can exist within the same time period.

Also, and I'm sorry I didnt mention this earlier, but there are to kinds of evolution, theres a kind that allows one animal to evolve into a different one entirely (like a fish into a frog), and theres a kind that just allows for a species to evolve into another (like a lizard that evolves into a new species of lizard). Im saying the first one isnt real in zelda. So there could be different kinds of chu chus but not a zora turning into a merman.

Again, with the supposed existence of God, there is proof for the existence of evolution (in your example, birds from dinosaurs) here on Earth.  So why wouldn't Hyrule, with more definitive proof of the existence of deities, have this sort of evolution?  The goddesses may have created them, but that wouldn't necessarily ban the possibility of evolution.

Also when i said that goddesses exist, so evolution can't, I meant that since the goddesses created all the creatures (thats what they do right?) then evolution wouldnt have a purpose.

Evolution from one species to another is the same as the evolution of one species to a sub-species; it's all biological and deals with genetics.  If octoroks and chu chus can evolve into sub-species of each other, then why can't Zoras evolve into the mermen?

[ZeldaFreak]

Evolution from one species to another is the same as the evolution of one species to a sub-species; it's all biological and deals with genetics.

No, there are two different kinds of evolution but i for get the scientific terms for them. Ill ask my friend what their called on monday, he told me about it and thats what I based my theory off of. It made more sense when he explained it...sorry i suck at this guys.  :(
Also to answer your question: why cant zoras evolve into mermen? well thats because the goddesses would have created zoras and mermen seperate so there isnt evolution involved its just the goddesses. :)

[Hi no Seijin]

From Wikipedia:

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection.

That change can either lead to a new species or a sub-species, depending on how much time you give it.  If you allow for one in a fictional setting, then you really ought to allow for the other.

Again, why would the inclusion of the goddesses lead to the exclusion of evolution?  Unless you have indisputable evidence that the goddesses created Zoras and mermen separately or that they cause every single biological change in Hyrule, then evolution is a perfectly plausible within Hyrule.

[Commodore Axilon]

The terms you're thinking of are microevolution and macroevolution, Zeldafreak. However they both work on the same basic principle of evolution, so if one exists the other must also exist because the only real difference is how divergent the populations are.

So, uh, HNS is right.

[Uximadesk]

I agree with Commodore.
Also it takes some hundred generations to make a noticable change in a species, think about how the animal we see today are not much different from the ones 2000 years ago, now, I'm going to assume that all the Zelda games happen within a 2000 year span. If you buy that genetics in Hyrule work similar to Earth, then species couldn't really have changed much in that time.
My guess is that, as people from Hyrule moved to different regions, they met new species.
As for the Rita-Zora debated relation...
$R%^%$R%^&T&*&^&*^&^%RTYHGFRT^Y&UJHBGVFCDE
...and that's all I have to say

[Commodore Axilon]

The Zora/Rito thing makes sense if you believe Valoo did it himself.

[ZeldaFreak]

Also it takes some hundred generations to make a noticable change in a species, think about how the animal we see today are not much different from the ones 2000 years ago, now, I'm going to assume that all the Zelda games happen within a 2000 year span.

It does take time for evolution to work, and considering the zelda games are 100 years apart (except for TWWand PH, which are right next to eachother), I dont think that theres alot of chance that even a new speicies could be evolved that quickly. ::)

The terms you're thinking of are microevolution and macroevolution, Zeldafreak.

Yeah this is what I was talking about, but one of them can exist without the other. Because if you take a species of very large dogs and you breed the smallest ones over and over than they will get smaller and smaller and soon they'll be a different species than the original large ones. They accually did this in real life but I forget what species they were. But this also happens in nature too. This would explain the different chu chus, octoroks, ect. However, as much as you try to breed them, the dogs will still be dogs. You cant breed the into a new animal, besides another dog right? I guess it is possible, but it it would take more than 100 years for sure, probably alot longer. And different creatures in zelda would not be there because one evolved from another one, its because both of them would have been created seperately, by the goddesses. I hope clarified some things, sorry i suck at explaining. :(

[Hi no Seijin]

Do you know what a mule is?  It's the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.  On the same note, a liger is the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger.  Granted, the offspring is usually sterile, but there have been instances of fertile hybrids, and supposing that this fertility continued throughout the generations, two different species could result in an entirely new species.  Why would this be impossible in Hyrule?  If the goddesses didn't like their created creatures evolving, then it wouldn't make any sense at all for them to stop it on a higher scale but not a lower scale.

Furthermore, there has yet to be a Zelda game where the goddesses played a role other than that of the mythical creators, once again making it plausible that macroevolution can be used to explain the existence of new races/species.

[ZeldaFreak]

Well I give up you guys convinced me.  ::)