• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,222 Mythical

About gigantor

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?

Recent Profile Visitors

5,006 profile views
  1. Oh, you really killed his argument with that one! Not
  2. Forget cat-eye. An associated gene doesn't tell you what the animal looked like. Which genes indicate that it had no facial hair, or was very hairy? You are confusing inherited traits from evolution with specific features. We share some genes with all kinds of living organisms. Also, even though we have "decoded" the genome, doesn't mean we know what every gene does, nor the combination of genes. In fact, there are more unknowns than knowned. Google "junk DNA" for reference. To claim that you can analyze a genome and reproduce what specific features looked like is really silly. I think this has already been admitted by the authors of the depiction after the controversy was raised, it's been a few years. I'll dig it up for you when I'm done moderating
  3. Ok, I'll put it on my reading list... However, you cannot reverse-engineer an inherited trait to determine what the ancestor looked like, it's a silly idea. If you could, there would be no mystery about our ancestors at all. Evolution is a one way function.
  4. I agree, the number of sighting report hoaxes is low enough as to be a non-factor. Video and photoshop hoaxing is all the rage, but its really just an adolescent rite of passage and also not a factor. Thanks. Lets remember for Friday night's sake.
  5. I think he's referring to the masterpiece April Fools Day prank a couple of years ago, when we put up fake ads all over the BFF. It was great A lot of people fell for it initially, but truth be told, DWA got pwned.
  6. We still do have mods, we're just a little short handed right now. So the correct course of action would be to ignore this thread and carry on with the pinned one, instead of complaining about it. I've asked DWA to use existing threads instead of digging up old ones. Now I'm asking you guys to ignore irrelevant, old threads so as to not encourage the behavior. Thank You.
  7. Not at all. You are missing the point, which is: The top representation has as much uncertainty as the bottom. It is all conjecture. To make the point, somebody created the bottom pic making different, plausible assumptions considering the differences in skull size, eye sockets, etc. The top picture which the media is going with, and presented as certainty, may not be accurate at all. Neither is the bottom picture. No conspiracy necessary. The same thing is happening with dyno representations, many of which have already been proven to be incorrect. Yet we have movies and Nature documentaries spreading speculation as fact.
  8. Yuchi1, you haven't been around in a couple of days, so perhaps you missed it... let me quote myself so that you are aware: I'm going to tell you this just once. Please read it and let me know if you have any questions. 1) Stay on topic 2) Attack the argument, not the member. Thank You.
  9. It's so nice to have civilized, reasonable discourse.... I agree with FarArcher and his opinion on the museum/media depictions of Neanderthal and other primitive humans. Below is the one the media is going with. Pleeeease... it's laughable. I'm not saying the other depictions are correct either, but they are just as valid as the one below. From
  10. You're an Attorney? (not that there's anything wrong with that!)
  11. We actually agree on this one DWA, if Bigfoot is ever discovered, there will be all kinds of nature shows documenting it from pregnancy to death.
  12. Just a reminder: 1) stay on topic 2) attack the argument, not the member. Thank you
  13. Not where I was going with it.
  14. I'm curious dmaker, do you consider cosmology to be a science?
  15. The courts use anecdotes to put people in jail, even kill some. Banks lend hundreds of thousands based on a promise to repay.