Revised Theory: Hylian "Real World" Ancestors

[HylianHero92]

It's the Theories section. You should be prepared to have your "beliefs" criticized and all the flaws pointed out.

[MagmarFire]

Thats not really true. Earth can mean the planet earth even if it's not capatalized (I've seen it in my science books), so thats not really any proof at all.

And I've also seen my biology book say that zero divided by zero is zero. Does that mean it's true? No; in the real number set, it's undefined, much like taking the square root of a negative number is undefined in the same set. More to the point, I'd rather observe how things are capitalized in my English book than in a science book. I'll give your science book the benefit of the doubt if the article the preceded earth, which would be correct capitalization, regardless of how the word's used. I've been going over grammar stuff for years, so I should know this stuff on the fly.

In fact, here's more support for my argument:

Do not capitalize the word earth unless it is used without the definite article in connection with the names of other planets.

The earth rotates on its axis.
   
Mercury is the planet closest to the sun, followed by Venus and Earth.

Generally put in lowercase, but capitalize when used as a proper name.

      ex.: In his garden, he enjoyed the feeling of earth between his fingers.

      "You Earth creatures make me VERY angry, " the Martian shouted as he pulled out his disintegrator.

. . .[E]arth, moon, and sun are not capitalized unless in a list of celestial objects or part of another name.

    Correct: I was born on the earth.

    Correct: The first three planets from the Sun are Mercury, Venus, and Earth.
    (In a list)

So yes, what I said is actually true.

[TP Zelda]

Rotflcopter XPP

Sorry Joe, but it's at least 5 to 1.

Now I can see this, though I'm not agreeing with you:

Hyrule and allll those other Zelda lands could have been buried in the ocean (or the Great Sea). And just before all went extinct, they burned everything that could possibly lead to finding their remains. And now everything is buried great leagues under the ocean.

And here's another one:

Hyrule and alllllllll those other Zelda lands existed before the Great Flood (the one in the Bible, where Noah built and arc and stuff, not the one in TWW or w/e). Now, I don't remember the story of Noah and the Arc very well so bear with me.
Noah and his family stayed in one place for a while while they built the arc, correct? Now, back then, all kinds of animals existed. Unicorns, dragons (yes, dragons probably did used to exist. I can find the theory my dad told me [he found it somewhere] and post it in either the GD or the Chatboard), etc etc... So octorocks, dodongo's, fairies, could have existed, only not where Noah was.
And the reason why no one knows about them is because they didn't know about the flood, so all that land got buried under that flood and Noah and his family never knew about them.

And yeah, I'm not agreeing with you I'm jsut saying what you're probably thinking.

And hat last one probably sounds cheesey but w/e XP

[Darth Wyndisis]

Even if they were talking about our Earth, that doesn't prove they existed. It's fictional.

That is a very good point.  How many other video games and movies use the earth as a setting?

And I have said this before, but I will say it again, there is no way the ocean level can rise enough to almost completly cover an island and not have an effect on coastal areas throughout the world.  If such a significant flood ever happened, we would know about it.  People build cities close to the water because of transportation needs and stuff, so if such a flood occured, there would be a crapload of coastal cities that would have been wiped off the map along with Hyrule, and that definatly wouldn't go unnoticed.

[JoeLink]

I don't think it was just the torrential downpours that caused Hyrule to sink beneath the sea, I also think an earthquake may have done it. I have heard that earthquakes can sink islands beneath the sea, and Hyrule is placed along a fault-line (Death Mountain is proof of that, volcanoes are commonly found near fault-lines), so I take it that earthquakes would've been relatively common there.

This would've caused Hyrule to sink beneath the sea, without really affecting the mainland.

[Uximadesk]

That may be true, but to sink an island as tall as Dragon Roost there would be the need of a massive earthquake, one that would have been felt in a radius thousands of miles long, also, an earthquake of that magnitude would have considerably shifted the Earth's axis, messing with the world weather and making the semi-stable conditions we have today impossible.

[Keaton]

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but if your theory was substantially plausible,  we would have assuredly found signs of some of the beasts that inhabited Hyrule in terms of fossils, imprints, etc. already.

[JoeLink]

Not all creatures are preserved as fossils when they die. Plus, when Hyrule was buried beneath the sea, underwater erosion would have done considerable damage to it.

[Hi no Seijin]

How many planet earths are there? Last I checked there was only one.

So you can prove, beyond any doubt, that our planet is the only planet in the entire universe that can support life?  Yeah, not even an organization like NASA can prove that.  The odds are good that there are other planets that can support life out there, even if we can't see them.

Also, what better name to call your planet than Earth, especially if you are incapable of interplanetary travel?

Not all creatures are preserved as fossils when they die. Plus, when Hyrule was buried beneath the sea, underwater erosion would have done considerable damage to it.

Given the time period you put down for the establishment of Hyrule, and given that bones are easily fossilized, we would have found fossil evidence for creatures like wolfoses.  And given that they have a unique form, and therefore a unique skeleton, I doubt we would mistake it for something else.

Also, as Wyndisis pointed out, no flood of the magnitude that it would take to submerge Hyrule would go unnoticed.

And again, Hyrule has thousands of years of history, and if it was established sometime during the reign of the Roman Empire as you claim, we would have a record of it, even if a giant flood was to somehow affect only Hyrule.  If we threw out records of civilizations just because they don't exist anymore, then we wouldn't know about civilizations such as the Mesopotamians or the Romans.

Don't call it a theory if you won't change it in the face of new and better evidence.  Don't even post it if you don't want us to point out all the flaws.

[JoeLink]

How many planet earths are there? Last I checked there was only one.

So you can prove, beyond any doubt, that our planet is the only planet in the entire universe that can support life?  Yeah, not even an organization like NASA can prove that.  The odds are good that there are other planets that can support life out there, even if we can't see them.

Also, what better name to call your planet than Earth, especially if you are incapable of interplanetary travel?

Not all creatures are preserved as fossils when they die. Plus, when Hyrule was buried beneath the sea, underwater erosion would have done considerable damage to it.

Given the time period you put down for the establishment of Hyrule, and given that bones are easily fossilized, we would have found fossil evidence for creatures like wolfoses.  And given that they have a unique form, and therefore a unique skeleton, I doubt we would mistake it for something else.

Also, as Wyndisis pointed out, no flood of the magnitude that it would take to submerge Hyrule would go unnoticed.

And again, Hyrule has thousands of years of history, and if it was established sometime during the reign of the Roman Empire as you claim, we would have a record of it, even if a giant flood was to somehow affect only Hyrule.  If we threw out records of civilizations just because they don't exist anymore, then we wouldn't know about civilizations such as the Mesopotamians or the Romans.

Don't call it a theory if you won't change it in the face of new and better evidence.  Don't even post it if you don't want us to point out all the flaws.

Um...Wolfoses are just wolves, dude.

Nothing else I can say at the time, as I am now usually posting on a different fansite(where they are a little bit nicer to me and my beleifs).

[Hi no Seijin]

Wolfoses are similar to wolves, but their skeletal structures are too different to be the same species.

[JoeLink]

Thats in OoT/MM. Their "real-life" look appears in TP.

[Hi no Seijin]

It still isn't proof that Hyrule exists on Earth.

See, by that logic, Middle Earth must have once existed on Earth because humans exist on both Earth and Middle Earth.  However, Middle Earth is just as fictional as Hyrule is, so the logic is seriously flawed.

[DW]

Thats in OoT/MM. Their "real-life" look appears in TP.

So their skeletal structure magically shifted?

[Hi no Seijin]

I hate to give some credit to his theory, but evolution could theoretically change the wolfos from it's OoT/MM counterpart to it's TP counterpart.

However, given the time between OoT and TP, which, unless I'm mistaken, was officially stated as some hundred years between the two, is far too short for such an evolutionary change to take place.  It is much more likely that the TP wolfos is a separate species from the OoT/MM wolfos, and that the same name was used for the both of them.

Also, the OoT/MM wolfos could shield itself with its forearms; I don't see why the wolfos would evolve in such a way that it would lose that useful ability.  The point behind evolution is to keep attributes that help the species survive while weeding out attributes that are detrimental to the species' survival.