Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 So what if the DNA reports come back predominantly human, or something similar, and the government does step in? What will that mean to the organizations that are using it for financial means? Say the government comes in with a bunch of regulatory legislation, including protecting this species from harassment? What about these places that are charging for Bigfoot excursions? What about the self proclaimed experts who don't hold the credentials to legitimately call themselves experts? I can see where some people stand to loose a lot of money here, loss of "charity" funds,no more charging three to five hundred dollars a pop to stack up groups of Bigfoot hopefuls,seriously,this could upset a whole industry here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Bringing the financial exploitation of BF to an end would be the first necessary step towards refocussing on the most important issue: The welfare and safety of Sasquatch. Everything else is just fluff. - Dudlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Having seen one and having other information about them noted, I have no concern about any pending DNA. It simply isn't going to come back "predominantly human", no matter how hard some people wish it to. As for the 'government', it wouldn't matter WHAT the DNA came back, if they want to insert themselves into anything, for better or worse, they can and will, though history should serve to prove how poorly they can manage to much of anything. (correctly or efficiently) So you see, in the end, it's far better for the species if science and governments never have a reason to KNOW that they really exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 There are humans and non-humans. What would a "mostly human" be? Humans are already protected under the law. How do bigfoot expeditions --free or not -- adversely impact the environment in any significant way? Such outings must already comply with applicable permitting and other rules when on public land or with landowner restrictions when on private land. My silly meter is pegged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) Having seen one ...........It simply isn't going to come back "predominantly human", no matter how hard some people wish it to. There are humans and non-humans. What would a "mostly human" be? Well, chimpanzee DNA is 98% (roughly) identical to human DNA, so I'm pretty confident that Sasquatch DNA won't be very different from ours overall, even if the animal is quite different. Mike Edited December 27, 2011 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Well, chimpanzee DNA is 98% (roughly) identical to human DNA, so I'm pretty confident that Sasquatch DNA won't be very different from ours overall, even if the animal is quite different. Mike Surprisingly (?) Wikipedia has one of the better articles on genomics and that % thing so many quote..one of the clearest explanations easily available. It will make all those % statements rather meaningless really and push us toward specific variations within the genome compared to us or Chimps. I think the idea of human will have to change yet again once the reality of BFs is accepted. I look forward to our treating BFs with the respect we demand for indigenous tribes worldwide, still living their traditional life, which is "hands off." I can't think of anything a BF or its family would benefit from by knowing humans or allowing contact. In Bigfootevidence.blogspot a whole series of articles....from Fasano saying the paper rejected, to Smeja on a webcast Jan. 1. So, sounds like just a few more days and perhaps this long wait will be over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Surprisingly (?) Wikipedia has one of the better articles on genomics and that % thing so many quote..one of the clearest explanations easily available. I know. It's no more than a useful shorthand.......but nonetheless, it is startling enough to encourage people to do a bit of thinking and reading. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WV FOOTER Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Bigfoot is too smart to have any human DNA. Sad but True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 What about the self proclaimed experts who don't hold the credentials to legitimately call themselves experts? I can see where some people stand to loose a lot of money here, loss of "charity" funds,no more charging three to five hundred dollars a pop to stack up groups of Bigfoot hopefuls,seriously,this could upset a whole industry here. The "experts" will continue to be questioned, mocked and relegated into what they truly are. Pressure always brings out what is there. There will always be "bigfoot hopefuls" wanting to believe. Just like people who buy the infomercial products and continue to gain weight, fail at cooking, cleaning and will never make money the "easy" way. Their dreams broken, they continue to believe and look for the next quick fix of deliverance that will never come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 The "experts" will continue to be questioned, mocked and relegated into what they truly are. Pressure always brings out what is there. There will always be "bigfoot hopefuls" wanting to believe. Just like people who buy the infomercial products and continue to gain weight, fail at cooking, cleaning and will never make money the "easy" way. Their dreams broken, they continue to believe and look for the next quick fix of deliverance that will never come. There will always be a group claiming special knowledge, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 There will always be a group claiming special knowledge, too. Couldn't agree with you more..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) Well, chimpanzee DNA is 98% (roughly) identical to human DNA, so I'm pretty confident that Sasquatch DNA won't be very different from ours overall, even if the animal is quite different. Mike I've seen TV shows and read articles that say 94%, 96% and now you're saying it's 98%, but so what? Even IF chimp DNA is 98% identical to human DNA, look at what that 2% difference matters. Everything! Man is singularly the only creature who possesses both intellectual skills and artistic skills, then finds ways to express those skills. Then, having done so, becomes restless enough to pursue each new horizon after reaching the previously sought one. At least on the apparent level, man is the only creature that is self aware (from an intellectual standpoint). So... bring on the DNA, but I'm snarky enough to believe it's not going to reveal anything as close to human as many 'wish' it will be. It's not just my eyes that tell me that, having seen one, but my ability to reason, which is another attribute of being human. Edited December 27, 2011 by GuyInIndiana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 27, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 27, 2011 My understanding is that it is not the one to four percent difference in genes ((98.77% actually, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10103/abstract ) so much as it is the switching on/off of many of those that differentiates us from Chimpanzee. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/dna-human-evolution.html Cetaceans apparently have the self-awareness of which you speak. Theory of mind, maybe not so much. http://jeremylent.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/theory-of-mind/ My evidence tells me that BF has some form of either artistic or non-verbal communication skills (or both) which makes use of symbolic placement of materials (be they sticks or whatever) which would require a refined pincer grasp. This would confer some basis of intellectual skills. Will I present proof with that statement, no. Is it a strongly held opinion based on my personal collection of evidence, yes. Predominantly human? Just maybe. http://fora.tv/2009/10/03/Dr_Katherine_Pollard_What_Makes_Us_Human Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 If it comes back predominantly human, then that would also mean that we would be predominantly squatch. Personally, I'm planning on declaring myself squatch, claiming all legal rights to my squatch nature, casting off all restictive societal expectations and abandoning all self-imposed obligations to comply with what people expect of me as a former human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 27, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 27, 2011 http://jeremylent.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/mimetic-culture/ This may be the stage that represents where BF lies on some people's radar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts