Drew Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 " Their being human certainly would tangle things up. Whatever right we grant them, other people would want the same right, which would include roaming the countryside with immunity to the laws we abide by. " ^ This, that is the tangle that I was talking about. I can't even begin to imagine how that would be handled. I can't imagine a new code of law that allows for a classification like sub-human or near-human, or human hybrid or anything like that. Thankfully, I don't ever see that being an issue. IF..BIG IF..Sasquatch was ever discovered, I don't see it being at all human. Dr. Meldrum said that Sasquatch is not Homo-. The foot morphology alone is enough to tell him that. We would be talking about a completely different GENUS. Not just another species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 BFF members- you might want to check out the web site nonhumanrights.org and clink on the Dyson lecture and listen the Prof. Steve Wises' lecture on how new species are classified as to the differant levels of personage. Some may be suprised that even the African American slaves had to endure a personage trial and determination in the day. Many studies would be involved as to distribution,social interaction amougst themselves etc. an interesting lecture. As far as protection, there are emergency status' until certain processes unfold which basically protects a subject from huntingharassing or enviornmental damage until such processes are determined; in most states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Dr. Meldrum said that Sasquatch is not Homo-. SNICKER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 (edited) ptanigeir's comments are worth noting.... will find on that website the arguments, legal, that surrounded both NA and slaves, which won't really apply...unless the DNA shows unequivocally human, like Neanderthal. If not, then we will probably approach the problem as though they are wildlife, as great apes (which we don't have in the US, but our laws regarding lab chimps have changed..and that practice is ending). That website will bring you up to date on how humans are responding to a push for the Great Aes "right to live" movement. If they are further from us than Denisova, and still within the genus Homo, but unwilling participants in the human experiment, we will find a way to dehumanize them..change the phylogeny or refine definitions...tool use is not a marker of humaneness anymore. Speech/language is though. This website is awesome, and focused on just such questions, as what is human? http://carta.anthropogeny.org/ Norseman, I know...how is that...bi-pedal is the definition of the genus homo...and yet, with a few teeth and desire..BFs are gigantico? It makes no sense to me...check out that Carta website...watch the lectures on bi-pedalism circa 2011 or 2012...you will find it associated with the following lecture link.....about 7 lectures from a recent conference. Also great lecture comparing great ape to hominin feet...and ya know? hahah...watch it, and then tell me! http://carta.anthropogeny.org/events/bipedalism-and-human-origins Really interesting is the discussion of tracks at 1Mil YBP and ..well, just too funny/poignant?....all of this stuff, the genome projects, and archeology are screaming to fill the "missing hominin" with BFs...if we can just accept they retreated to the wild places and high mountains some tens of thousands of years ago..and continue to survive? Edited September 19, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 They would be popular attractions at zoos, if enough were caught. But I suppose they would be hiding the whole time and you wouldn't get to see them anyway. And any pics you would take would turn out fuzzy. Dr. Meldrum said that Sasquatch is not Homo-. SNICKER! You said Homo! snicker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the parkie Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Dr. Meldrum said that Sasquatch is not Homo-. SNICKER! Well, Sasquatch is certainly Bi- (pedal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Dr. Meldrum said that Sasquatch is not Homo-. The foot morphology alone is enough to tell him that. We would be talking about a completely different GENUS. Not just another species. I'd say that he dismisses alot of evidence to hold onto that view based on the midtarsal break. The new genus would have to have zero human haplotypes in it, otherwise, it's genus homo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I agree SY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest andy1867 Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 (edited) Be very interesting if it was proven...at least Bigfoot could come out and claim the world record in the hide and seek contest...the Coelacanth might be p*SS*d but waddya do? I doubt it would have much of an affect on the U.S economy either, in fact in some areas it might even enhance it. Years ago they reintroduced the Sea Eagle into some of the remote island areas of Scotland, these are now a tourist trap and bring cash into an area that was virtually an economic wilderness, so what the timber trade loses, the tourist trade might gain. Edited September 19, 2013 by andy1867 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Andy, you might be right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 ptanigeir's comments are worth noting.... will find on that website the arguments, legal, that surrounded both NA and slaves, which won't really apply...unless the DNA shows unequivocally human, like Neanderthal. If not, then we will probably approach the problem as though they are wildlife, as great apes (which we don't have in the US, but our laws regarding lab chimps have changed..and that practice is ending). That website will bring you up to date on how humans are responding to a push for the Great Aes "right to live" movement. If they are further from us than Denisova, and still within the genus Homo, but unwilling participants in the human experiment, we will find a way to dehumanize them..change the phylogeny or refine definitions...tool use is not a marker of humaneness anymore. Speech/language is though. This website is awesome, and focused on just such questions, as what is human? http://carta.anthropogeny.org/ Norseman, I know...how is that...bi-pedal is the definition of the genus homo...and yet, with a few teeth and desire..BFs are gigantico? It makes no sense to me...check out that Carta website...watch the lectures on bi-pedalism circa 2011 or 2012...you will find it associated with the following lecture link.....about 7 lectures from a recent conference. Also great lecture comparing great ape to hominin feet...and ya know? hahah...watch it, and then tell me! http://carta.anthropogeny.org/events/bipedalism-and-human-origins Really interesting is the discussion of tracks at 1Mil YBP and ..well, just too funny/poignant?....all of this stuff, the genome projects, and archeology are screaming to fill the "missing hominin" with BFs...if we can just accept they retreated to the wild places and high mountains some tens of thousands of years ago..and continue to survive? Well I was joking but......... Krantz felt that the jaw of Giganto being flared wider, was there because the head sat on top of the shoulders instead of being hung out in front like a gorilla. Making room for the neck. Hence his reasoning that Giganto was bipedal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 (edited) Ahhhh...from the mouth of babes! Yeah I understand and also read his book first, then Meldrum's. Who advances the idea the tracks he views show a mid tarsal break..and since really only great apes have such.....he so concludes, I guess. But, given the footprint data coming out for early hominins, with BFs in mind...the comparisons are there, and the tracks that appear mid-tarsal in BF might possibly be due to these earlier adaptations... With the many more hominid fossils today (and even some gigantico finds, but still small bits right?.. I don't think the bi-pedal theory is widely accepted among paleo primatologists..maybe.. I can't say) , of archaic humans down to australopithecus really seems to point.to.....bipedalism was early and unique ..and if that big toe is in line within those ranges, BF is genus homo... One of those lectures..from a woman..maybe Morgan? goes into detail knocking down the well know "evolution graphic"..ape to man..(used in jokes now, etc) through the fossil skeletal remains we have now, not just the skulls...and that evidence didn't exist when Krantz was alive. I really recommend the whole series, the lectures are very accessible to most, and only about 20 minutes each. you know...for a long time we thought the Turkana Boy, a fossil erectus skeleton..(the most complete I think still (?)) was a 12 year old boy...at about 5'3" , but he.was actually only 8 years old! This thru new dating techniques with teeth.. He was larger than adult humans many hundreds of thousands of years later, even while this continuing line of erectus shared the planet. So much has really changed in both archeology and genetics...and the impact on the evolutionary story...seems really a place is already there, clearly for BF! The genetics information is most telling...and I suppose someone will search ENCODE or such and find the genes associated with foot adaptation..if they haven't already.. Edited September 19, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 But yet other than bipedalism? Squatch does not exhibit any Homo traits, including the stone axe which is over a million years old. Who do we explain that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoelS Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 After a lot of thought, and I know this could fit in me in with the tin-foil-hat crowd, but I do think this is the biggest reason for a govt. coverup. If the existance of the big-man becomes scientifically accepted, the impact on mining, logging, and other industries will be enourmous. Couple that with the impact on the environment and the potential for hunters heading in to "bag" a trophy, well, the impact would be enourmous. I sorta think that we're better off without science recognizing this particular critter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 (edited) Are you sure about that? From both the fossil record of the various hominids and also what we think we know of BFs? I don't think the fossil record of erectus tool use is that defined, as the branching off of any shoot from erectus ..say much earlier than florenis, or even us, would necessitate that conclusion. Nor, is it clear that erectus and habilis are "in line" but may be separate "twigs" of the same branch/bush of Homo or even Robustus. In contrast, what fossil, (other than these jaw/teeth extrapolated to a bi-pedal gigantico) of apes lead to a BF track?...It's the supposition of mid tarsal break in BF tracks today that leads to an ape theory, not the other way around...as it should in the fossil record...all ape fossil have quadrupedal features...right?... And, I think there are credible reports of BFs with clubs, using rocks, and sticks, and making shelters, I think even some with stick spears.. even a few reports of skins, or torn up human clothing...(Clothing was apparently taken on by us about 100K YBP) and lets don't forget reports of what seems to be a type of speech, or communication with possible speech...so if one accepts "BF evidence" it's looking stacked...really to me anyway/... It is also possible that BFs may have even culturally de-evolved, in that even fire alerted past humans to their location and certain death, b/c that is what we do well...band together, make cool weapons, etc...and they don't..erectus didn't. neanderthal did though, more......but still it is possible that was crushed in some bottleneck of evolution and they just can't advance... Why didn't we make the "great leap" till 40,000 ybp? Also, it is not clear erectus had control of fire making...or when...and where....so many sites in Asia..etc So, if one can prove some ape lineage...great, it just seems the weight of evidence leans heavily genus homo Joel, I think a lot of people come to that conclusion... and I embrace it sometimes, others I think..we can do this, this time, right...and not wipe them out, or miss knowing altogether...and then...there are days when I don't! Edited September 20, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts