Leaderboard

I was just reading through this thread and the pygmy rabbit comment is appropriate. We have graduate students devoting their life and staking their careers on pygmy rabbits or some rare shrew in Africa. Meanwhile we have something stomping around the woods of North American whose massive footstep sounds are second only to what one could have heard 65 million years ago from a bipedal dinosaur. All we need to do is get the right scientist or group of scientists to the right place at the right time to have that experience. Somehow a pygmy rabbit will never be the same for them. I will never forget the sound of that BF moving through the woods directly towards me. Good heavens, I have been supersonic dozens of times but that pales in comparison to a BF encounter. We need to share that BF encounter experience with more scientists. They will not be able to ignore that. That said, I don't know how to do that other than some Jane Goodall type situation where you can take people into an active area. Maybe someone here can get that going someplace. It would be difficult but is not impossible.

Odd. This hidden, silent mutatation of nucleodites you suggest seems to be so hidden, and so silent, that it was insufficient for 99.5% of the world's species that went extinct. It didn't work for 99.5%. I'd say, that's probably a major failure as a mechanism, or maybe there's a .5% chance another mechanism is in place. If I understand this correctly, the coelecanth changed out nucleotides, with radical genomes, but it didn't change morphologically, and is identical to the fossil. Now you suggest that the coelecanth found his little haven - geologically and environmentally - which was apparently a consistent environment as no changes were needed. Which brings up catastrophic geology. The world is not the same as it was 60,000,000 years ago. We've had the Paleogen Period hallmarked by mass extinctions, the Neogene Period hallmarked with mass extinctions, and the current Quaternary Period hallmarked by mass extinctions. Yet, during all this series of mass extinctions due to catastrophic geology, this particular fish never changed a thing. Could it be that maybe it just lucked out, and the coelecanth's contemporaries just perchance went extinct? Sixty million years is a long time - to do nothing different. Through major changes in the environment all around the world. In fact, 60 million years is a long time to demonstrate this evolutionary mechanism, that oddly, is so fast and so radical as to take us from a 3 foot ape to where we are today - jumping forward in great advances and leaps across species, and creating entire new species while simultaneously coexisting with species we're supposed to come from. I can imagine a modern man sitting around the fire with a Neanderthal, Denisovan, and a h. Erectus, having a beer while chewing on an h.floresciensis, and arguing over who had the uglier, meaner women. I have nothing to do with anti-evolution pamphlets, and of course that's a clever argument - because it's so very scientific. Maybe you should pick up some textbooks. I've seen the results of 150 years of scholarship, and it's embarrassing. How about that Piltdown man? That was solid science there for a few years. Like the Nebraska man. Remember the "Flipperpithecus?" For this theory to work, there has to be good evidence of transitional forms between species. Period. And there aren't ANY. Mis-identification of h. Erectus into four separate species does not constitute transitional forms. What was it Darwin himself said? "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed that could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin said it, not me. Silent mutations arent a mechanism they just happen. Everytime dna is replicated errors occour at a predictable rate. There several check mechanisms in place including on the replication machinery itself dna replicase. But errors are missed at a predictable rate. Every three nucleotides, once transcribed into rna, will represent an amino acid. There are 20 something basic amino acids and 64 combinations of nucleotide triplets. For example CTT and CTC can both translate into leucine. A mutation occoured with no change to the amino acid or protein. The only simililarity we know the coelencath shares with its fossil ancestors is some gross morphology. Same for several other species https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil Read this it puts the silly antievolution coelencath to rest. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201200145/abstract Evolution is only a theory in the same sense gravity is a theory. is it 100% known exactly how gravity operates? no. Do two seperate bodies apply force upon each other proportional to their respective mass, and do objects fall when you drop them? yes There is essentially no debate on whether evolution occours or not just stubborn individuals rdfusing to leave old world philosophies behind. All the work in biology for the last 150+ points to the same conclusion. All life is evolving. It has been observed directly in the lab in controlled experiments https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461117/ Scientists can altera species purposfully changing its genome. How didvthey figurevthst out magic? No they observed it working, evolution, and figured out some of the agents and mechanisms which cause change. Evolution doesnt require trsnsitional species it forks like river channels. Its all just a series of forks and dead ends. The chimpanzee is in sense just as evolved as we are. There is no dogma and no one protecting what is essentially modern biology. If you want to consider evolution a belief of dogma your going to have to lump all science, medicine, engineering in there as well. There are obviously a lot of people who dont orcant understsnd it so choose to fall back on easier systems. Im sorry guys scientists dont take bigfoot seriously but its very bizarre all the anti science/scientist sentiment seen around. Oh what you took infant mortality from 50 to 99% and lengthened our lives and gave us hand held comouters. but your obviously flawed and wrong becayse you cant accept our belief and flimsy bigfoot evidence. come on guys

This is an inaccurate statement as are most absolutist declarations. Whether it is willful or due to a lack of knowledge, I cannot say, but it's almost like you're building a straw man.

Yeah, well, when one gets into the details of fossil finds, for example, there's frequently less geology, and more conforming the numbers to match the preconceived determinations. I have a problem with "standard evolutionary theory." Why is this "evolutionary theory" so limited? Next question, why is this "evolutionary theory" so very selective and only works on a few species, and not at all on others? Wouldn't this evolutionary theory apply across the board if this were a real mechanism? 99.5% of all species are extinct. I don't see adaptation as should be so very evident, rather I see lots of extinctions. Glad you included geology and evolution. For current evolution theory to be a working mechanism, one must have what can be termed steady-state geology. After all, if it takes eons to alter and change in a painfully slowly method to a new, improved species, the geology must me steady state. But it's not. Geology is catastrophic geology - eras defined by mass extinctions. You can't morph if you go extinct. Then there's the extreme selectivity of this "evolutionary theory." Slow incremental changes, if a true mechanism, should be a universal mechanism, or a mechanism that works on all organisms, more or less at the same rate. In older books, especially on the fossil records, was at least one highly detailed, complete fossil of a coelecanth, and we were told A) the coelecanth went extinct 66,000,000 years ago, one could look at the stubby lower fins and see them clearly in the process of evolving into legs. Son of a gun. Found living coelecanths, and they are identical to the fossil dated to have gone extinct 66,000,000 years ago. Guess what? No legs. No change. Same fish. No evolving whatsoever. Now we know this is not a perfect fish, so it should have gotten slimmer, bigger, smaller, more efficient - something! But it didn't. So over 66 million years, not one tittle of evolving, but somehow, the most complicated, most intelligent thing to walk the earth, went from a primitive h. Heidelbergensis to a modern human in less than 600,000 years. That's quite a transition. Fast, too! I don't think the narrative is right. I have no idea what the correct narrative is, but I know BS when I smell it.

!00% discredited implies that no one gives them any credibility. This is not true. It may apply to you? And others. But not all. Also no one knows if habituation hasn't been substantiated as there could be non-disclosure agreements in place. If it's good enough for the BFRO to demand NDA's then some habituators just may demand them too. Therefore your post fails on both points. It kind places the burden of proof backing up what you say squarely in your own court.

Its always good to get the input from self appointed scientist DWA.

I think so Geogerm, yes. One of the universal truths about humans is: Criticisms of others will tend to supersede and be secondary to self-criticism. If you look for something and fail, the go-to is you've been thwarted by some force, plan or circumstances outside your own control. This is often employed on the side of proponents, sorry to say. How many "MIB" explanations do we see to explain why evidence isn't available to us? We have no way of knowing how many of those might actually be true, but they forever will sound like "special pleading" to those less convinced. So you have this (presumed) mammal that some are searching for, but for which none have yet gotten us to that "Ah-HA!" moment. They/we fail, and fail again. At least that is the standard perception by the greater population, and especially of the more vocal skeptics. They feel then you are vulnerable to the argument, "Of course you failed, because it doesn't exist." And on most any other subject but this one they'd be absolutely justified in making this observation. So, is BF research "special" in this regard? Yes, it is. Just the way it is. As DWA will remind us: There is more evidence for this animal than any other animal not yet confirmed by science. And to which I would add, "By a huge margin." I am drawn to this question by virtue of this fact alone. You can go on all day about leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, et al, and claim them to be of a kin with BF, but that would be demonstrably false. I'm sure the pygmy rabbit is a beast worthy of attention, and no less important to the workings of the creator than I am, but I am intrigued far less by it. No, the BF question is a special case, and I think it is this fact that intrigues so many of us here. I'll also hazard this prediction: If searching for a pygmy rabbit is your calling in life, it is highly doubtful you will be intrigued by the search for BF, or you would be doing it already with no prompting from us.

Maybe I am ... maybe you've talked yourself out of the right answer. The simple fact is you can't disprove habituation, all you can do, if that's what you wish, is become jaded, cynical, and Crowlogic will call you mini-me. I'm looking into habituations but from another angle: I'm looking for one that is real, I'm not looking to prove the final one is not. It takes as long as it takes. I'm having decent success making contact with people. But it takes time. I don't think BFF, with the snark and cynicism and rush to prove, is the place to meet those people. You have to find them out in the real world. You have to go slow, respect boundaries, be real, be authentic, and still pass muster. People who are failing probably can't see in the mirror clearly enough to know why they fail so they have to make excuses even up to the point of denying the existence of the thing they think they are looking for. Ironic. Or something like that. Rambling, I guess. MIB

Odd. This hidden, silent mutatation of nucleodites you suggest seems to be so hidden, and so silent, that it was insufficient for 99.5% of the world's species that went extinct. It didn't work for 99.5%. I'd say, that's probably a major failure as a mechanism, or maybe there's a .5% chance another mechanism is in place. If I understand this correctly, the coelecanth changed out nucleotides, with radical genomes, but it didn't change morphologically, and is identical to the fossil. Now you suggest that the coelecanth found his little haven - geologically and environmentally - which was apparently a consistent environment as no changes were needed. Which brings up catastrophic geology. The world is not the same as it was 60,000,000 years ago. We've had the Paleogen Period hallmarked by mass extinctions, the Neogene Period hallmarked with mass extinctions, and the current Quaternary Period hallmarked by mass extinctions. Yet, during all this series of mass extinctions due to catastrophic geology, this particular fish never changed a thing. Could it be that maybe it just lucked out, and the coelecanth's contemporaries just perchance went extinct? Sixty million years is a long time - to do nothing different. Through major changes in the environment all around the world. In fact, 60 million years is a long time to demonstrate this evolutionary mechanism, that oddly, is so fast and so radical as to take us from a 3 foot ape to where we are today - jumping forward in great advances and leaps across species, and creating entire new species while simultaneously coexisting with species we're supposed to come from. I can imagine a modern man sitting around the fire with a Neanderthal, Denisovan, and a h. Erectus, having a beer while chewing on an h.floresciensis, and arguing over who had the uglier, meaner women. I have nothing to do with anti-evolution pamphlets, and of course that's a clever argument - because it's so very scientific. Maybe you should pick up some textbooks. I've seen the results of 150 years of scholarship, and it's embarrassing. How about that Piltdown man? That was solid science there for a few years. Like the Nebraska man. Remember the "Flipperpithecus?" For this theory to work, there has to be good evidence of transitional forms between species. Period. And there aren't ANY. Mis-identification of h. Erectus into four separate species does not constitute transitional forms. What was it Darwin himself said? "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed that could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin said it, not me.