You Are Sasquatch (New Book/theory)

[Guest]

It is incredibly bold to come out with this theory and book now, when they knew that their premise could be falsified instantly and within weeks by the publication of the Ketchum report. One thing the DNA analyses will certainly do is place the unknown creature in relation to known ones, and if it turns out to be a relative of ours, then we'll know immediately if the authors are right or wrong.

Mike

I think coming out with it now was done more out of necessity, than an act of boldness. If the report comes out before their book, and completely debunks everything they've written before it even hits the marketplace, they stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. At least this way they have about a 50% chance they could be right.

[Guest Peter O.]

I'm with MikeG above (page 1). When the DNA analysis comes out, BF will be placed in it's proper evolutionary place and, IMO, the theory will not hold water.

No one is really complaining about a missing link, and in any case it's not a line, it's a tree.

And maybe, what this account (in the book, which I haven't read) is lacking is the lack of acknowledgement of the non-teleology of evolution. Even if we *were* an offshoot of BF development, how would that make us devolved, or dumber? It's all relative, eh? Where is BF's art, science, philosophy, walking on the moon, etc.

The ability to use one's natural environment is a moot point since Hss does not live in the legendary "state of nature" anymore, not since the Paleolithic. Our environment is *not* the woods, it is society, and it has not been so for *many* thousands for years.

No matter how much we've adapted to our social environment, with our shoes and our roads and markets, does not make BF our progenitor. These things may appear "weaker" in the context of some master-of-the-woods, but all that means is that we are not BF. Which, no one has claimed that we are. Until now, I guess....

Edited June 20, 2012 by Peter O.

[Guest]

What it's lacking is the lack of acknowledgement?

The point the book is making is that we are devolved with respect to individual and small-group prowess.

The examples of human achievement that you cite are based upon large-group cooperation and technological

advancement. The theory holds that Sasquatch is superior to HSS in terms of individual and small-group strategic

smarts, and sheer physical capacity. Certainly, they haven't taken the route of civilization, but this is not the sole

measure of success.

Of course evolution is not "teleological" in the sense that it is guided by some invisible hand toward some particular goal or end-point. Nor is this what the book proposes.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Christopher Noel

[Guest Peter O.]

^^ What you say is that individual and small-group prowess has "devolved". What you mean is that it is not as skilled. But evolution has no such agenda as to value one skill over any other. Evolution favors those who survive. And we have not only survived in great numbers, but great enough numbers that we can change the face of the earth as no other species has ever done. In many people's view, we could be the most successful species ever. So how is it exactly that we are "devolved"?

If our skills for survival had somehow gotten "worse" then you would expect less survival. Yet here we are. Strategic smarts and physical capacity are only favored by evolution when they result in passing down of genes. Which Sasquatch has done, but apparently our genes aren't so bad. (Not that you said they were.)

[Guest]

Again: the "success" you tout is not the only success available to a species. I think you are

privileging human values of "progress" over all else. Our book explores other forms of success, and

how Homo sapiens sapiens may have experienced certain diminishing capacities over millions of years,

even as we have flourished in other ways, thanks to our large-scale social skills. Of course, we have "survived," even thrived, but self-domestication occurs when survival pressure descreases on individuals, when weaker individuals who would (in previous, pre-large-group eons) not have lived to pass on their DNA are now able to,

courtesy of group support.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Christopher Noel

[Guest Peter O.]

Actually, Christopher, I want to apologize for mentioning our art & science and so forth, since I was also implying some teleology, but these are only epiphenomena of other survival mechanisms, like the social skills you mentioned.

edit: I agree that the "success" I mention is not the only kind of success, but in general there's the idea that success is measured in numbers, and this may be the only kind of success that's relevant for evolution. I can't argue with the fact that BF has been evolutionarily successful, and I don't mean to, but I disagree with the word "devolution" when a better word/definition might be "niche evolution" or something. But I also disagree with the idea that we are descended from Squatch when there is no one clamoring for a missing link in the tree. I think that we are, and will continue, to discover that there was more of a web or tree or interbreeding and not a clear-cut line like you are implying.

Any timeline as to when the book is available in a non-Kindle format that a Linux schlepp like me can read??

Peace,

PeterO.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Peter O.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Interview with Jack Barnes of FB/FB about their new book:

http://www.examiner.com/article/bigfoot-researchers-release-new-book-called-you-are-sasquatch

[Guest]

It's a pleasure debating with you, Peter O.

You write that "in general there's the idea that success is measured in numbers, and this may be the only kind of success that's relevant for evolution."

But by this logic, modern domesticated dogs would be a more "successful" species than the gray wolf. Is this your contention?

[Guest Peter O.]

Well, that domestic dog example shows that I was thinking about it incorrectly. It now seems to me that it only makes sense to think of success as both relative and in the context of a particular niche/resource. I could say (fictionally) that the Red Finch was more successful than the Blue Finch at cracking walnuts, causing the Blue Finch to decline or go extinct. But Bigfoot and us do not occupy the same niche, so it doesn't make sense to say that H.s.s. is "more successful" just because there are more of them.

edit: typo.

edit2: spelled out "bigfoot" because I realized "BF" could refer to the fictional Blue Finch!

Edited June 22, 2012 by Peter O.

[Guest Transformer]

This book is an answer to a question that has never been asked. For a good reason. The overall theme reminds me of the writings of Percival Lowell Mars (1895), Mars and Its Canals (1906), and Mars As the Abode of Life (1908).

[Guest]

To Transformer: "Early forms of Homo erectus [our direct ancestor] mark such a radical departure from previous forms in height, reduced sexual dimorphism, long limbs and modern body proportions, that it is hard at present to identify its immediate ancestry in east Africa. Not for nothing has it been described as 'without an ancestor, without a clear past.'" (Dennell & Roebroeks in Nature, 2005)

To Peter O.: I think that among those of us who understand that Sasquatch exists, there can be no doubt that they are perfectly adapted to their niche.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Christopher Noel

[Guest Transformer]

To Christopher Noel: That is actually a very meaningless statement in the context of what is being claimed in your book. As it has already been noted It only means that the fossils needed have probably not been found yet. It certainly does not mean that because real scientists have not found anything at this time that is a direct transitional link to the early Homo Erectus anybody can come up with a half-baked idea and insert it in the gap. Your hypothesis must have some relationship to existing recognized knowledge about primate fossils and evolution unless it has factual evidence to prove the current theories wrong. Do you have any factual evidence about sasquatches and their place in the fossil record? Didn't think so. Maybe it will come some day but your book is just so much idle speculation based on fantasy constructs just like Powell's Mars.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Transformer

[Guest]

Have you read our book?

[Guest Transformer]

^I stopped reading fantasy masquerading as science once I could discern the difference and that was at about age 9 or 10 so of course I have not read the book. Since you fell back on the old dodge of "Have you read the book?" instead of dealing with the salient points of my assertions regarding proper science versus fantasy I will repeat my postion: Your hypothesis must have some relationship to existing recognized knowledge about primate fossils and evolution unless it has factual evidence to prove the current theories wrong. Do you have any factual evidence about sasquatches and their place in the fossil record?

Edited June 23, 2012 by Transformer

[Guest BFSleuth]

Transformer, your questions regarding the fossil record can begin to be answered by reading the book. Since this thread is about the book it might be best to either read the book or talk to someone that has in order to have a cogent discussion. Theories are often developed with incomplete data or information. While I don't agree with much of what I've read I think it worthwhile to read.

It will be interesting to see what the DNA studies conclude. It will either shoot down this theory or it may lend credence to it, time will tell.