You Are Sasquatch (New Book/theory)

[Guest Transformer]

Theories must be based on demonstrable facts. That is so basic it shouldn't need repeating. Even an Hypothesis must fit into what is a fact based paradigm. Since there are absolutely no demonstrable facts or clear evidence of sasquatch accepted by science *yet*, any suppositions masquerading as an Hypothesis need to be shown for what they are and that is FANTASY. We have so much stuff making the rounds as 'truths" that are nothing more than the same sort of idle speculation based on nothing substantial we are shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to anybody from the outside looking in.

Instead of applauding idle speculation and fantasy dressed up to sound scientific we should be trying to use real scientific thought processes to make our case.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Transformer

[Guest thermalman]

Theory, Hoax or Fact?

[Guest]

Transformer, I’m not sure what inspires your caustic and belittling tone, but I’ll press ahead anyway. I quoted the Nature passage in response to your assertion that the book answers a question that has not been asked; in fact it has been asked, and the book does attempt to propose an answer. We are not filling the gap with just any “half-baked†theory; we are working (and granted, it is a work in progress) to apply a logical framework to a zoological story that remains murky and intellectually unsatisfying. The long-held conventional wisdom that Homo sapiens arose from a small species of hominid in Africa has been increasingly coming under fire, but thus far no persuasive alternative has come forward.

Admittedly, the theory advanced in You Are Sasquatch depends upon extrapolation and logical leaps, but 1) this extrapolation and these leaps are conducted in good faith, in an honest attempt to integrate what we know of Sasquatch (which is a great deal, especially when it comes to physical morphology) into the evolutionary history of our own species; 2) your vehement use, in your argument, of the lack of Sasquatch fossil evidence neglects the complete lack of fossil evidence, too, for the mountain gorilla, as well as the fact that this impediment has not prevented researchers from placing this species within the primate family tree based upon morphology instead; and 3) all new theories that step outside the accepted paradigm necessarily make use of an incomplete body of evidence, because if this evidence had been complete already, the new theory would not have to struggle to make its case. The new theory lays out a radical new vision of reality and then, as it matures, as more researchers join the effort, the theory accrues more and more evidence in its favor—or else it does not, and fades away.

This brings us to the Melba Ketchum DNA results, whose release will likely either serve to bolster or undermine the theory that we are descended from Sasquatch, or from Sasquatch’s own ancestors. Many sources have indicated that the Ketchum findings include the startling revelation that Sasquatch mitochondrial DNA is 100% modern human, demonstrating that at some point a female human and a male something else (also belonging to the family Homo) produced offspring whose descendents we know today as Sasquatch—or, more likely, an entire regime of such miscegenation occurred over a long period of time, leading to Sasquatch and the many other hairy hominoids seen worldwide. If this turns out to be true, then we will know at least that the developmental pedigrees of Sasquatch and Homo sapiens are deeply intertwined, and then a closer look at the nuclear DNA will shed light on the broader nature of this intimate relationship.

If you were to read the book, you’d see that it makes use of comparative skull morphology and other physical evidence to relate Sasquatch to Homo erectus, our direct ancestor. Yes, this effort is preliminary, not yet conclusive, but as I mentioned, this is endemic to far-reaching theories in their early phase. Giving the book enough of the benefit of the doubt to at least read it with an open mind, entertaining the possibility that it may be onto something important depends, of course, upon accepting that Sasquatch exists and that we already know a great deal (from eye-witness accounts and the video/pictorial record) about how the species looks, enough to enable the degree of theoretical spadework undertaken in You Are Sasquatch.

[Guest BFSleuth]

^ I think if you look especially at some of the posts by MikeG in The Ketchum Report thread quoting Substad you will find that the idea that the mtDNA is 100% human is incorrect. While it is close to human it has differences that no human has. The nDNA is ever further apart from human. I think the whole "the mitochondrial DNA is 100% human" echo effect going on over on the Ketchum Report thread is promulgated be certain skeptics in an effort to denigrate the work of Dr. Ketchum.

I think that the idea that somewhere "in the wild" there is a progenitor species extant that is the direct ancestor of homo sapiens sapiens is very interesting and a theory worthy of more than a dismissive guffaw. The problem will become which one of the species that is out there is that progenitor species? Time and DNA work will tell.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Feral: A feral organism is one that has changed from being domesticated to being wild or untamed.

I would bet now that the opposite of the books theory is true. That Sasquatch actually evolved from us. But I guess we won't know for sure until the DNA results are out.

[Guest]

I bought this book. I wonder what the authors' backgrounds are. Their alma maters and years are listed for degrees but the subjects in which those degrees were issued are not mentioned that I see. Anybody know?

What are the assorted degrees IN? I do not detect science backgrounds.....or am I mistaken?

Edited June 26, 2012 by Kings Canyon

[Guest Transformer]

^ Great question!

[Guest]

Nope, we don't have science backgrounds, so the theory will have to stand or fall on its own merits.

[Guest Peter O.]

What are the assorted degrees IN? I do not detect science backgrounds.....or am I mistaken?

I for one don't care. Critical thinking is taught in many disciplines and is the backbone of at least one (philosophy) I'm aware of. The sciences have devolved into technical disciplines that don't really teach the independent, open-minded, and in some cases stubborn, attitudes of modern science's founders, like Copernicus (had to pick my countryman ) and Einstein, anyway. Mostly memorization + terminology, as far as I can gather.

edit: No, I'm not anti-science by any means, but I'm pretty sure it's not holy.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Peter O.

[Guest]

I asked because I simply found it hard to follow. And it made me wonder. It doesn't really make sense to me. JMHO. I wonder if anyone else who did read it found that true or maybe it's just me.

[Guest]

I think that the idea that somewhere "in the wild" there is a progenitor species extant that is the direct ancestor of homo sapiens sapiens is very interesting and a theory worthy of more than a dismissive guffaw. The problem will become which one of the species that is out there is that progenitor species? Time and DNA work will tell.

That there is no extant progenitor species that is the direct ancestor of H. sapiens sapiens is far more likely. Time will tell.

Nope, we don't have science backgrounds, so the theory will have to stand or fall on its own merits.

Any theory must stand or fall on its own merits. To discredit yours on the absence of science degrees would be fallacious. I must say, however, that the lack of grounding in science is readily apparent. Nothing wrong with putting forth odd theories, though. Stephen Hawking once theorized that the universes's expansion from the Big Bang would one day reverse, and at that timd time would begin to run backward until the Big Crunch. It was the reversal of time that was odd -- I wouldn't look forward to the day when I would have to struggle back into my mother's womb. But, this odx hypothesis helped Hawking work things out so he could eventually develop a refined hypothesis.

[Guest MikeG]

Theories must be based on demonstrable facts.

No, not so.

Many perfectly good and very useful theories are susbstantiated after the fact by later discoveries that were predicted by the theory. The classic of this is Einstein's theory of relativity (or was it special relativity?) which predicted that light would be bent around stars with strong gravitational fields, and it was many years before this was properly testable.

Mike

[Guest BFSleuth]

Thank you for beating me to the punch with the Einstein analogy, MikeG. Einstein conducted a thought experiment to come up with his theory.

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

It seems that FB/FB are using similar methodology to come up with their theory, trying to tie together a range of observations that until now are not supported by a coherent theory on the phenomenon of BF. Some of what they talk about could only be confirmed with direct observation or interaction with a live specimen.

[Guest]

Many perfectly good and very useful theories are susbstantiated after the fact by later discoveries that were predicted by the theory. The classic of this is Einstein's theory of relativity (or was it special relativity?) which predicted that light would be bent around stars with strong gravitational fields, and it was many years before this was properly testable.

'Twas general relativity, which was put forth in 1915. The theory's prediction of gravity bending light was first field tested and confirmed during a solar eclipse in 1919. Other, harder to detect predictions could not be adequately tested until the latter half of the 20th century.

The field of theoretical physics is chock full of whacky sounding hypotheses. Then again, the field of theoretical physics is chock full of whacky sounding facts.

[Guest poignant]

...which Terry Pratchett so brilliantly spoofs in his Discworld series.