What Is Sasquatch?

[Sasfooty]

If you could skin a possum in 30 seconds using only your fingernails, why would you want to sit around chipping on flint to make a knife to do the same job?

[norseman]

Because I cannot do the same to an elk or for that matter a mastodon?

The better question is......why as a human would I give up a knife to evolve strong fingernails? I know how to make a cutting tool, I know how to make clothes, shelter, fire and make a pretty comfortable life for myself in the forest and give my offspring a better chance at survival.......

To answer that question myself is they could not give up what they never had.

[Guest DWA]

I have actually heard the argument that they 'gave up' technology because the bountiful environment made it unnecessary.

 

One of the biggest logical flaws in Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch is that asserted as a possibility...for the coastal region of Alaska and British Columbia.

 

Not only does the pervasive damp chill for most of the year make that highly unlikely, lots and lots of food aside, but that coast also saw some of the richest material use among all Native Americans.

 

"Human" being in reality a technical distinction, and not Some Mental/Spiritual Superiority Thing, there is nothing in the behavior of these animals that would lead someone thoroughly versed in the technical definition of "human," which includes substantial material culture, to draw that conclusion about sasquatch.

Edited December 11, 2013 by DWA

[southernyahoo]

.

 

"Human" being in reality a technical distinction, and not Some Mental/Spiritual Superiority Thing, there is nothing in the behavior of these animals that would lead someone thoroughly versed in the technical definition of "human," which includes substantial material culture, to draw that conclusion about sasquatch.

 

Being human is also a bilogical state since the testing of samples doesn't require the donor animal to fill out a questionare on whether they've ever made a tool or participated in material culture and you'd never deny a human infant it's human status.

[Sasfooty]

Why would we as humans give up strong fingernails & hairy bodies so we'd have to waste time sitting around making clothes & knives? How do you know that they don't have comfortable lives the way they are?

[southernyahoo]

That might be the chicken or the egg debate within evolution. The incapable brain would have to benefit by physical adaptation or die. Or, if the physical adaptation was already there and precluded the need for tools and manufactured weapons, then it could take a different evolutionary path. Long range weapons are less effective in dense cover which favors ambush style predation, which sasquatch would appear to be adapted for.

[norseman]

Why would we as humans give up strong fingernails & hairy bodies so we'd have to waste time sitting around making clothes & knives? How do you know that they don't have comfortable lives the way they are?

.

Um, because my dog would rather sleep by the fire inside the house than to lay on the porch in the cold?

I think if you posed the question to humanity, the majority would not choose to go back living like an animal in the first place.

Unless you never were apart of humanity.......then the question never would have occurred to you.

[Sasfooty]

If your dog was a wolf, who had thick hair & never felt the cold, & had the ability to feed himself, he might not be interested in lying by your fire.

 

He might even look down at a weak, pampered dog, & think how glad he was to not be so unfortunate.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Sasfooty

[Guest DWA]

Not sure where this is going.  But evidence says sasquatch isn't human, because what humans do to adapt to wilderness is ...technology.

[Branco]

Being human is also a bilogical state since the testing of samples doesn't require the donor animal to fill out a questionare on whether they've ever made a tool or participated in material culture and you'd never deny a human infant it's human status.

Interesting that you mentioned that. In that thread I started a while back - "Integrity Of Scientific And Scholarly Activities"  which resulted in U.S. biological labs, including governmental and any college/university lab that in any shape, form or fashion connected to government, must follow procedures established under order of the POTUS. (The policies and procedures were adopted by other international science organizations as well.)

 

One very specific requirement was that any testing of or on humans must be done with their written permission. If BF are relic humans and one is killed and "laid on the lab bench", I would think that might pose a legal, ethical and scientific quandary (AFTER the DNA was done) for all involved. (Not to mention what would happen if and when the public was made aware of the situation.)

 

I wonder if that might have been discussed when Dr. Sykes' made those one or two trips to the Ashland lab. Probably not.

 

 

Not sure where this is going.  But evidence says sasquatch isn't human, because what humans do to adapt to wilderness is ...technology.

There's sure a lot of indigenous tribes down in Brazil and in the whole Amazon Basin that have a lot of catching up to do then. 

Edited December 11, 2013 by Branco

[Guest DWA]

No, actually, there isn't a scientist who would not call their adaptations to their environment technological in the strictest possible sense.

 

From Wikipedia:  "Humans use tools to a much higher degree than any other animal, and are the only extant species known to build fires and cook their food, as well as the only known species to clothe themselves and create and use numerous other technologies and arts."

 

Blowgun and dugout canoe draw the line, and it only gets wider and wider from there.

Edited December 11, 2013 by DWA

[norseman]

If your dog was a wolf, who had thick hair & never felt the cold, & had the ability to feed himself, he might not be interested in lying by your fire.

He might even look down at a weak, pampered dog, & think how glad he was to not be so unfortunate.

A dog is a wolf, that chose to sleep by our fire 20,000 years ago.

You can argue your case all you want Sas...,, but it's nature to take the easy route and not the hard one, not unlike electricity or water.

Grizzlies would rather dumpster dive for jelly donuts than run elk calves down. Bull moose would rather walk railroad tracks than buck deep snow.

[Branco]

If your dog was a wolf, who had thick hair & never felt the cold, & had the ability to feed himself, he might not be interested in lying by your fire.

 

He might even look down at a weak, pampered dog, & think how glad he was to not be so unfortunate.

Kind'a like Zana; she liked to sleep out in a hole in the snow.

[Sasfooty]

Exactly, Branco!

 

Norseman. Your "case" seems to be that humans are lazy & weak & like it that way. I guess mine is that BF is strong & independent & like it that way, & the bull moose that walk the railroad tracks are likely to end up killed by a train.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Sasfooty

[Guest DWA]

Exactly, Branco!

 

Norseman. Your "case" seems to be that humans are lazy & weak & like it that way. I guess mine is that BF is strong & independent & like it that way, & the bull moose that walk the railroad tracks are likely to end up killed by a train.

I think the case is that animals, in general, won't do something they don't have to do if survival is at stake and an energy-conserving alternative exists.

 

Sasquatch are that way because they are.  (And the lazy bums are frequently reported stealing livestock and raiding garbage. [wink] )