Leaderboard

Agree with all of the above, and though you've each said it in context, the biggest potential obstacle is this: If bigfoot is in fact a hybrid, then the assumption that any human DNA appearing in samples is just contamination is fundamentally wrong and results in discarded evidence. The only safeguard against this is to publish proper sample collection procedures to the community and to carefully collect DNA samples from every person in the chain of custody. If the samples show human DNA that corresponds to that of anyone in the chain of custody, then it is obviously contaminated. If it shows human DNA that does not correspond to anyone in the chain of custody, and the sample itself is clearly not of human origin, then the sample must be analyzed under the assumption that a hybrid origin is possible.

Evolution is quite evident. I simply do not believe there is any design in it.

I don't think anyone has made the claim that BF can be identified by hair morphology alone. What we can say is that if bigfoot is out there, it is most likely a great ape, and the hair morphology is likely to follow those common characteristics. These can be identified, and narrow down the right samples to target with DNA extraction. We simply get a human result from the effort at best even when a very small amount of mtDNA can identify most any species these days. If BF were anything as diverged as a chimp is from human, all we need is 1500 base pairs to prove it. So make a big deal about lacking a couple billion bases from the genome, most of it is not what makes the difference.

Why even bring it up man? Exactly. How is it okay to basically craft a post that clearly states that you don't think evolution to be true, and in the same breath say that discussing the alternative is taboo? You open the door with your original post, that is very clear. To respond with any sort of refutation becomes taboo? That seems hardly fair. It seems that it would be fine to mention evolution in passing, by your logic, but not discuss any alternative.However, you didn't just mention evolution in passing, you brought alternatives into the discussion when you clearly stated that you believe evolution to not be the truth. Do the rules allow for that kind of drive by opining, yet, at the same time, restrict any response? I wouldn't think so. Bear in mind, I am not discussing alternatives to evolution or intelligent design, I am simply expressing confusion as to how any mention of one, or the other, does not introduce taboo topics.

I was pointing out that scientists wouldn't have a problem if any sort of new animal being discovered. im not sure what that has to do with a vague "truth" which supposedly will create problems for evolution and the secular world.

I lived in Austin Texas for a number of years. Deer were everywhere to the point that traffic jams occurred in business areas. I don't think deer are an accurate indicator of "squatchiness".