Study Shows Sasquatch Intelligence Impossible Without Fire.

[Guest Transformer]

This study does not mean much at all,since these creature have been seen around camp fires. Even in our sightings there has been times where we have found burned out sticks carried off from our pit. So they do have some curiosity to fire and how it is made. But even us as humans have eaten raw meat at one time. Surviving in the wild is a lost art that us as human have lost ,but these creatures still live by that art.we cannot compare our intelligence with them until we live the way they do.

Humans cannot survive indefinitely on an uncooked diet that is not artificially supplemented. Period. Did you read the article?

[Drew]

1. Why would a human brain be needed to have ninja like evasiveness? A lot of animals show cognitive planning and cunning.

Humans get caught on game cams all the time. It's the Bigfoots that don't.

[Guest Transformer]

Transformer- from what I understand having seen a program on PBS is that humans statred developing larger brains when they became more carnivorius.

Something about protein that was responsible. One website you may want to check out is the non-human rights.org site, they have articles about how animals are classified and in the BF it would seem how the BF would be able to obtain "personage" and how that system works.

We cannot digest uncooked meat efficiently enough to survive indefinitely. I'm not sure what classification or "personage" has to do with neurons and energy requirements.

More fool you.

[Guest]

I think I edited mine after doing some research from the time you responded, Transformer, and the time you posted what I'd written.

I still don't think the premise is right concerning a species that is so obviously different, that we just don't know enough about. I do think the calories are there to support a large brain, though, and intelligence.

[Guest Transformer]

Cooking has been shown to be unhealthy for modern humans (see: "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration", by Dr. Weston Price). But we do it anyway because we like the taste. For example: eggs. How many here eat raw eggs? It was common 100 years ago but now we think its unsafe. Its not, but its an uphill battle to convince most people of that simple fact.

Some people do have an enzyme that allows them to digest cooked food more easily. Most people's digestion relys on the autoimmune system if they don't have the enzyme mutation, which has only appeared the last 40,000 years or so.

More importantly, there are people who have seen the creature, thus the 'blow' does not exist- it has been detected. Just not acknowledged. There is a huge difference.

I suggest that you read on what science has to say about cooking nutrition and digestion as your ideas seem to clash with what has been established as fact.

Sasquatch has not been detected as a species and anecdotal evidence is not enough to acknowledge and classify a species. People have claimed to have seen many things that don't really exist.

[Guest BFSleuth]

The only enzymes in our system are the ones that we were born with. We may lose some or overproduce some due to disease or system malfunction but we do not spontaneously produce new or varied enzymes because of any change in diet.

Google "enzyme changes in intestine" to get millions of hits regarding research about changing enzymes within individuals due to dietary changes, age, etc.

Humans cannot survive indefinitely on an uncooked diet that is not artificially supplemented. Period. Did you read the article?

I think if you do a little research on the matter there's a developing body of evidence espoused by those that subscribe to the "raw foodism" diet, or raw vegan diet, that would disagree with your statement. You seem to be trying to hang your entire argument based on one article (which I read) that also notes within the article that the theory of cooking as necessary for a developing brain may very well be wrong.

If you are trying to make the point that sasquatch is impossible because they don't use fire for cooking, then you may need to do a little more research and find other research that would solidify the theory you are proposing. Taking one article, that already notes that the evidence is controversial and weak to support the theory, then extrapolating that to a blanket conclusion seems a bit over eager IMHO.

[Guest Transformer]

I think I edited mine after doing some research from the time you responded, Transformer, and the time you posted what I'd written.

I still don't think the premise is right concerning a species that is so obviously different, that we just don't know enough about. I do think the calories are there to support a large brain, though, and intelligence.

Those kind of studies are where they erroneously make the conclusion that something that had happened is the only way that it could happen. One says we couldn't evolve larger brains unless we lost the sagittal crest. Others say that our brains couldn't grow larger until they ate the marrow in scavenged bones. It is typical of the sort of arguments made by people that seem to have very little understanding of evolutionary biology. They are shamelessly trying to elevate their area of study to something monumentally important when it probably wasn't. Humans that eat only raw food have just as large a brain as do people that don't eat bone marrow. You would think that would occur to them. Certainly the higher calories makes it easier to support a larger brain but to say it is a requirement is just wild speculation.

Please provide an example of a human tribe or community that eats only raw food. Please provide a raw diet that a human can survive on indefinitely that is not artificially supplemented. The rest of your argument is not on topic. More neurons need greater energy - or are you disputing that too?

[salubrious]

The only enzymes in our system are the ones that we were born with. We may lose some or overproduce some due to disease or system malfunction but we do not spontaneously produce new or varied enzymes because of any change in diet.

Lol! Sounds like you need to read up on digestion or something

We cannot digest uncooked meat efficiently enough to survive indefinitely. I'm not sure what classification or "personage" has to do with neurons and energy requirements.

Lol! Actually the opposite is true. Raw meats have bacterias that assist us with digestion and ones we are symbiotic with. We digest raw meat very easily. Ever had sushi??

It is **undercooked** foods where we get in trouble. Our bodies are not developed to work with bacteria found in cooked foods (which can be as much as 60X higher). This is why its important to cook food correctly, and serve it in a timely fashion. Whoever you are getting your 'science' from is misinformed! Don't feel bad- this is one of the more common myths we deal with these days.

Sasquatch has not been detected as a species and anecdotal evidence is not enough to acknowledge and classify a species. People have claimed to have seen many things that don't really exist.

I saw two. up close and personal. No ambiguity, good lighting (the brights of my headlights, from 8 feet). You can tell others that but it won't work with me. I know, it was a bear- right?? No. Bears don't get that big to start with, and they have a snout thingy where their mouth is. These things were so big they took up the entire lane. I am glad they are so reclusive- not sure I would really want to bump into them on my own.

[Guest Transformer]

Google "enzyme changes in intestine" to get millions of hits regarding research about changing enzymes within individuals due to dietary changes, age, etc.

I did and found nothing to suggest that the enzymes themselves change or that new enzymes are made or change due to dietary changes. Please link to a cite.

I think if you do a little research on the matter there's a developing body of evidence espoused by those that subscribe to the "raw foodism" diet, or raw vegan diet, that would disagree with your statement. You seem to be trying to hang your entire argument based on one article (which I read) that also notes within the article that the theory of cooking as necessary for a developing brain may very well be wrong.

Where does it say that the theory that more neurons require more energy could be wrong? If you are going back to your misinterpreting of the secondary argument of which came first the slightly larger brain or cooking food you are off base. See my answwer to your first post.

If you are trying to make the point that sasquatch is impossible because they don't use fire for cooking, then you may need to do a little more research and find other research that would solidify the theory you are proposing. Taking one article, that already notes that the evidence is controversial and weak to support the theory, then extrapolating that to a blanket conclusion seems a bit over eager IMHO.

Actually, if you read my initial post you will see that I stated...If the study stands. Again, I believe that you are mistaking the secondary proposition with the point that I am using which is the relationship between energy and the number of neurons.

[Guest]

I think it has more to do with a steady and continuous diet as opposed to the cyclic feast or famine one would have seasonally. You can smoke meats, fish, and dry vegetables with fire and preserve with salt or storing in dark dry place so that starvation periods are avoided in the winter months. It's probably not the only factor to consider, bigfoot supposedly migrates and that would also work to avoid the lean months if they do indeed follow rivers and bodies of water.

Edited October 26, 2012 by CTfoot

[Guest Transformer]

Lol! Sounds like you need to read up on digestion or something

This seems to be a common argument. I may be wrong but I can't find any evidence to back up your and BFSleuth's points. Please provide a link if BFSleuth doesn't beat you to it. Thank you.

Lol! Actually the opposite is true. Raw meats have bacterias that assist us with digestion and ones we are symbiotic with. We digest raw meat very easily. Ever had sushi??

It is **undercooked** foods where we get in trouble. Our bodies are not developed to work with bacteria found in cooked foods (which can be as much as 60X higher). This is why its important to cook food correctly, and serve it in a timely fashion. Whoever you are getting your 'science' from is misinformed! Don't feel bad- this is one of the more common myths we deal with these days.

I strongly disagree that raw meat is easily digested . Please provide a cite to back up your claim.

I don't eat bait. Can you please give me a cite that shows a human tribe or community or a primate that survives on only sushi? The natural and non-supplemented diet of a primate is what my argument is so a one food example is moot anyway so don't worry too much about the cite.

I saw two. up close and personal. No ambiguity, good lighting (the brights of my headlights, from 8 feet). You can tell others that but it won't work with me. I know, it was a bear- right?? No. Bears don't get that big to start with, and they have a snout thingy where their mouth is. These things were so big they took up the entire lane. I am glad they are so reclusive- not sure I would really want to bump into them on my own.

I am not disputing your experience.

I think it has more to do with a steady and continuous diet as opposed to the cyclic feast or famine one would have seasonally. You can smoke meats, fish, and dry vegetables with fire and preserve with salt or storing in dark dry place so that starvation periods are avoided in the winter months. It's probably not the only factor to consider, bigfoot supposedly migrates and that would also work to avoid the lean months if they do indeed follow rivers and bodies of water.

But does what you propose answer the direct correlation between the daily energy needs required to power a neuron loaded human-like brain in a huge primate as sasqautch is purported to be?

[Guest Mandango]

The peer review process for PNAS is a little ... different. Many people think it isn't very rigorous.

If the study does have any weight to it, is it horrible that a BF be as smart as a homo ergaster or homo habilis?

[Guest]

But does what you propose answer the direct correlation between the daily energy needs required to power a neuron loaded human-like brain in a huge primate as sasqautch is purported to be?

I think so. It's not so much the day to day issues because the brain will steal from the body to support itself. Think Auschwitz or other circumstances where humans are in situations of starvation.

http://nlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1467-0658.2001.00109.x/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+27+October+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+(05%3A00-07%3A00+EDT)+for+essential+maintenance

[Guest Transformer]

The peer review process for PNAS is a little ... different. Many people think it isn't very rigorous.

If the study does have any weight to it, is it horrible that a BF be as smart as a homo ergaster or homo habilis?

Like I said in my opening post If the study stands. I certainly know very little about anthropology so I cannot do anything but rely on my quick Google search which tells me that those examples are from very early in our evolution and probably would not have the intelligence to escape detection as a species as sasquatch is purported to have done. Please correct me if I am off about my assumed intelligence levels of the two examples.

[salubrious]

This seems to be a common argument. I may be wrong but I can't find any evidence to back up your and BFSleuth's points. Please provide a link if BFSleuth doesn't beat you to it. Thank you.

Its not a link- its a book. I mentioned it earlier: "Nutrition and Physical Degradation" by Dr. Weston Price. Its available on Amazon. When it came out, it put the medical industry right on its ear. Basically Dr. Price examined the diets and health of aboriginals that were still using traditional diets. He's got the photos to back up his claims. If you really think cooked food takes less energy to digest and its better for you, you might want to read this book.

If you eat raw foods, your stomach will tell your brain you are full faster. Try it sometime.

I strongly disagree that raw meat is easily digested . Please provide a cite to back up your claim.

I don't eat bait. Can you please give me a cite that shows a human tribe or community or a primate that survives on only sushi? The natural and non-supplemented diet of a primate is what my argument is so a one food example is moot anyway so don't worry too much about the cite.

The bait might be better for you than what happens to the enzymes and helpful bacteria after its been cooked

I've been eating raw eggs (90% of the eggs I have eaten in the last 3 years are raw) and meat for several years. Other than having to overcome my own programming, no ill effects, in fact I feel better. One thing that is a lot better is my memory... but try this link:http://www.wewant2live.com

I am not disputing your experience.

But does what you propose answer the direct correlation between the daily energy needs required to power a neuron loaded human-like brain in a huge primate as sasqautch is purported to be?

Sure. I don't seem to need nearly as much food as when I was eating more cooked.

However something you need to keep in mind. Humans apparently arrested their physical adaptations about two glacial ice retreats previously. Our adaptation is our brains, which allow us to adapt to all sorts of environments (or destroy them...). BF did not take that path. They are extremely good at camouflage, and modern humans are extremely unaware in the forest. The combination is great for BF, which I theorize is actively trying to avoid us for a reason.

Edited October 26, 2012 by salubrious