Debunk The Debunking

[Guest]

Going back to fossils, I was reading an interesting article about birds and there is no fossil record for a transition species.

Huh? Can you provide a link to the article. I'm confused by the statement.

The fossil record for birds is often considered inferior to that for other vertebrate groups. This is because birds tend to be small with light (often hollow) bones and lack teeth (some of the most prevalent fossil material, particularly for small organisms). Nevertheless, we have a rich and varied fossil history for birds that might surprise people with its depth.

How would this relate to the supposed absent fossil record for bigfoot?

When considering the absence of something from the fossil record, it makes the most sense to me to examine morphology and opportunity. By morphology, I mean the size and robustness of material the species could potentially leave behind. Little things that have hollow bones and no teeth have the odds of fossilization stacked against them. Bigfoots are supposed to be big. In fact, they'd qualify as mammalian "megafauna" so there's nothing about them physically that would put them at a "disadvantage" when it comes to being transformed into fossils upon death and rapid burial.

How 'bout opportunity? To me this involves the length of time an organism has occurred in a particular area (longer = greater chance), the abundance of the species across its range (more abundant = greater chance), and the habitats in which those organisms occur (yes there are some that lend well to fossilization and some that don't). If bigfoot dispersed to North America around 12,000 years ago and came to occupy the portions of the North American continent from which it is now reported, then it has had as much time, been as numerous, and occupies similar habitats to a plethora of other large mammals that have been well preserved in the fossil record. There's no reason bigfoot fossils should be any less likely to be found than those of short-faced bears, for example. (In fact, I'd argue that bigfoot fossils should be much more likely to be found.)

So, as I've written numerous times, the absence of bigfoot from the fossil record – even though it in no way confirms that such species do not exist – is puzzling if assume that such creatures do exist. This is not a "skeptical debate team tactic" that needs to be debunked; it's an enormous gaping hole in the likelihood of a physical bigfoot in the eyes of scientists.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Saskeptic

[Guest]

Huh? Can you provide a link to the article. I'm confused by the statement.

The fossil record for birds is often considered inferior to that for other vertebrate groups. This is because birds tend to be small with light (often hollow) bones and lack teeth (some of the most prevalent fossil material, particularly for small organisms). Nevertheless, we have a rich and varied fossil history for birds that might surprise people with its depth.

When considering the absence of something from the fossil record, it makes the most sense to me to examine morphology and opportunity. By morphology, I mean the size and robustness of material the species could potentially leave behind. Little things that have hollow bones and no teeth have the odds of fossilization stacked against them. Bigfoots are supposed to be big. In fact, they'd qualify as mammalian "megafauna" so there's nothing about them physically that would put them at a "disadvantage" when it comes to being transformed into fossils upon death and rapid burial.

How 'bout opportunity? To me this involves the length of time an organism has occurred in a particular area (longer = greater chance), the abundance of the species across its range (more abundant = greater chance), and the habitats in which those organisms occur (yes there are some that lend well to fossilization and some that don't). If bigfoot dispersed to North America around 12,000 years ago and came to occupy the portions of the North American continent from which it is now reported, then it has had as much time, been as numerous, and occupies similar habitats to a plethora of other large mammals that have been well preserved in the fossil record. There's no reason bigfoot fossils should be any less likely to be found than those of short-faced bears, for example. (In fact, I'd argue that bigfoot fossils should be much more likely to be found.)

So, as I've written numerous times, the absence of bigfoot from the fossil record – even though it in no way confirms that such species do not exist – is puzzling if assume that such creatures do exist. This is not a "skeptical debate team tactic" that needs to be debunked; it's an enormous gaping hole in the likelihood of a physical bigfoot in the eyes of scientists.

Thanks Saskeptic, I was trying to change the subject and get the conversation onto a different track. I was hoping you would answer. What you are saying makes perfect sense as far as why mammal bones would survive better than bird bones. I still think there are a lot of holes in the entire fossil record just based on the few things I've started to read that could possibly apply to bigfoot, but I also see your points. There is no fossil record connected to bigfoot at that this time so it makes it hard to argue the point. However, if disagreements still persist about what the fossil record indicates throughout the animal kingdom, it might have some relevance to why nothing has been tied to bigfoot. Here is a link to the article about birds I was reading. In one I read that they found a fossilized bird next to a fossil of an Archaeopteryx. I gathered there was some debate about the source from which birds evolved from in the next article listed.

http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1963.tb00790.x/abstract

[Guest]

Pteronarcyd:

It seems quite elitist to insist that one cannot learn and share information from a book that one has read but does not own. Are patrons of libraries second-class citizens?

Masterbarber:

Then you clearly did not understand what I wrote.

No need to argue this point anymore fellas. Problem solved. Let's debate Bigfoot.

[xspider1]

There's no reason bigfoot fossils should be any less likely to be found than those of short-faced bears, for example. (In fact, I'd argue that bigfoot fossils should be much more likely to be found.)

How in the world would we know that Bigfoot populations were ever comparable in number to short-faced bear populations?

It is often brought up that, since we have so many reports, we should have proof. This is a logical fallacy because Bigfoot are hoaxed, sitings are made up out of thin air and other animals are mis-identified as Bigfoot. We know those things for sure but; none of that makes these creatures any less likely to exist.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Here is a link to the article about birds I was reading. In one I read that they found a fossilized bird next to a fossil of an Archaeopteryx. I gathered there was some debate about the source from which birds evolved from in the next article listed.

Throwing Haplocheirus sollers into the mix.

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/01/newly_described_bird-like_dino.php

There's gotta be fossilized Bigfoot with quill knobs and protofeathers

somewhere. :]

[Guest]

Well that was my point in bring up the bird issue. Then you have all of these new hominid bones and sites found that are either older or younger than they should be such as the 30,000 year old skull that looks like Homo Erectus in Australia, the denisova finger, the modern tooth found in 400,000 year old sediment in Israel, the hobbit, evidence of modern human occupation going back 75,000 years in India before they should be there, and the city that was carbon dated to be 9,500 years old underwater off the coast of India which would put it as being oldest civilization. We don't have enough information on the hominid fossil record to even know if Erectus comes in a variety of flavors or whether we are looking at different species. There are so many holes in the record, many new discoveries lately, and more to be found in the future with improvements in sequencing ancient DNA. I think it could indicate a possibility that we may yet find fossilized evidence of bigfoot or we might already have that evidence and not know it. I don't think a lack of a known fossil record is a good indicator that it doesn't exist. However the skeptics do have valid reasoning behind their arguments regarding fossils, I can't deny that, both sides of the argument leave me with the impression that we are picking and choosing what to give the most significance. I know bigfoot exists I just can't understand HOW it exists.

[Sasfooty]

I know bigfoot exists I just can't understand HOW it exists.

They are PARANORMAL.

Paranormal is a general term (coined ca. 1915–1920) that designates experiences that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation" or that indicates phenomena that are understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure.

(Please see notice in my signature.)

Edited January 1, 2011 by Sasfooty

[Guest]

Sasfooty, I just refuse to accept that. I know at this point in time that is how it appears to be but in my world paranormal is just normal waiting to be defined, and it can be defined, but in a 4 dimensional world in which we live in.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Jodie

[Sasfooty]

but in my world paranormal is just normal waiting to be defined, and it can be defined,

Well, sure it is. That's what I said. Science just hasn't figured them out yet.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Sasfooty

[Guest]

Ummmmm- I don't think the definition is right but that is what it says. Have you ever read the Allegory of the Cave?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

To say bigfoot is paranormal means it is not entirely corporeal and that is where I have a problem with that concept. Ironically they do call bigfoot "shadow folk".

I think we need to change the direction of the conversation.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Jodie

[Sasfooty]

I think we need to change the direction of the conversation.

Yeah. Since debunking the "Bigfoot Is Paranormal" theory has never happened....

And your Allegory of the Cave reference was a good one. I especially liked this line:

"Wouldn't it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it's not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead up, wouldn't they kill him?"

[Guest]

Yes, I thought you would appreciate it, Sasfooty.

So what next? Can we talk about why we think bigfoot is more intelligent than the average bear?

[Sasfooty]

We could, but it's awfully boring when you already know the answer.

[Guest]

They are PARANORMAL.

The one I saw wasn't. If it was, it was having a really bad day in it's paranormal world. It walked in, clearly audible by myself. I heard loud footfalls and also heard the flora being disturbed. Why not use a wormhole jump or teleport in silently? It stood in broad daylight in one spot and I watched it for at least 5 minutes. Why not use it's invisibility to hide itself? It ate leaves and berries. Why would a paranormal creature need to eat? It walked away clearly audible by myself. I heard loud footfalls and also heard the flora being disturbed. Why not use a wormhole jump or teleport out silently?

[Sasfooty]

So, since you didn't see him(?) doing anything paranormal, do you think it is impossible that he could have if he had wanted to?