Huntster Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 3 minutes ago, norseman said: 5) To sharpen #3….. She could be an unknown species in the genus Homo........ This is precisely what I believe her to be. Quote ........ Or she could be an unknown species that is not in the genus Homo but maybe the Australopithecus genus? Or the Paranthropus genus? All bipedal upright walking hominids. Closely related to Homo Sapiens........... Very possible, but a different genus does not pose the legal challenges that another human does.
norseman Posted 4 hours ago Admin Posted 4 hours ago 12 minutes ago, Huntster said: This is precisely what I believe her to be. Very possible, but a different genus does not pose the legal challenges that another human does. I think it remains to be seen what legalities are in effect if she is not Homo Sapien. Which I believe she is not. There simply is no precedent.
Huntster Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 40 minutes ago, norseman said: I think it remains to be seen what legalities are in effect if she is not Homo Sapien. Which I believe she is not. There simply is no precedent. There is a precedent: Zana. But I also do not believe Patty was homo sapien. But I believe that she was of the genus Homo.
MIB Posted 2 hours ago Moderator Posted 2 hours ago 2 hours ago, norseman said: Or she could be an unknown species that is not in the genus Homo but maybe the Australopithecus genus? Or the Paranthropus genus? The issue I see with those compared to Homo is there is nothing in the fossil record more recent than 1.2 million years ago for them yet Homo exists today as .. us. So while not completely impossible, Occam's Razor points pretty strongly to BF being Homo .. at least among those 3 options. There are also no LARGE monkey fossils in the new world, nothing known over 50 pounds. In any case other than Homo "something" we have a big gap in the fossil record to account for. That doesn't make it a certainty but it does make it the most likely. Further, if BF is a very close cousin, the DNA would hide in plain sight most likely being discarded as human with quirks by science. We have a good fit answer. It might or might not be right but it doesn't seem rational to me to keep trying to focus the search away from the most probable answer rather than investigate it as exactly that, the most probable. I think there are some people who trying to drive an artificial wedge between BF and human and are deliberately ignoring what science tells us is most probable. MIB
norseman Posted 1 hour ago Admin Posted 1 hour ago 9 minutes ago, MIB said: The issue I see with those compared to Homo is there is nothing in the fossil record more recent than 1.2 million years ago for them yet Homo exists today as .. us. So while not completely impossible, Occam's Razor points pretty strongly to BF being Homo .. at least among those 3 options. There are also no LARGE monkey fossils in the new world, nothing known over 50 pounds. In any case other than Homo "something" we have a big gap in the fossil record to account for. That doesn't make it a certainty but it does make it the most likely. Further, if BF is a very close cousin, the DNA would hide in plain sight most likely being discarded as human with quirks by science. We have a good fit answer. It might or might not be right but it doesn't seem rational to me to keep trying to focus the search away from the most probable answer rather than investigate it as exactly that, the most probable. I think there are some people who trying to drive an artificial wedge between BF and human and are deliberately ignoring what science tells us is most probable. MIB Mmmmmm….. It’s true that the fossil record is spotty. But I think you’re ignoring one glaring fact. Everything within the genus Homo is extinct except Homo Sapiens? Why? Because Homo Sapiens don’t play well with others. Now we kill each other with impunity. Every cousin we have alive today? Isn’t a member of the genus Homo. They owe their existence to the fact they occupy a different niche than us. They don’t compete with us for resources directly. Sasquatch reportedly doesn’t occupy the same niche as Homo Sapiens. They are nocturnal, they don’t manufacture stone tools, they don’t live in tribes, they don’t make villages, they don’t wear clothes, they don’t make fire, etc, etc. So an anthropologist would ask us why something we claim to be human? Exhibits no attributes that would make it human. The Homo Erectus hand axe is 1.8 million years old after all. Where is Sasquatches hand axe? And being pro kill I am often accused of trying to sway peoples opinions away from human classification because of the moral dilemma of killing one. But it’s a chicken vs egg argument. We won’t know what one is positively until it’s laying on a slab. Only after one is killed can we have some moral debate over the right or wrong of it. Until then? They are Pixies and Gnomes. Make believe.
Huntster Posted 59 minutes ago Posted 59 minutes ago 52 minutes ago, norseman said: ........Sasquatch reportedly doesn’t occupy the same niche as Homo Sapiens. They are nocturnal, they don’t manufacture stone tools, they don’t live in tribes, they don’t make villages, they don’t wear clothes, they don’t make fire, etc, etc. So an anthropologist would ask us why something we claim to be human? Exhibits no attributes that would make it human........ If behavior is required for entry into the genus Homo, then Zana was not human. She used no tools, didn't live in a tribe or village (until under captivity), didn't wear clothes, no fire, etc. She could not be human. But both Sykes and Margaryan claim she was human. You can't have it both ways.
Recommended Posts