Unknown Primate Dna

[Guest Urkelbot]

From his other paper. 

 

The foot shape is essentially human, in spite of the large size and flat arch. The toes are unusual in being more nearly all the same size than in humans; the first digit is the largest, but only slightly so. The toes are also arranged nearly straight across the front of the foot. This contrasts with the more tapered human foot, where the lesser toes are progressively much shorter. (All these characteristics also apply to the other Walla Walla footprints, as well as to most reported Sasquatch tracks.)

and

The toe design is also beyond the range of human feet in that they are relatively too short, toes II through V are too wide, and they line up too nearly straight across the front of the foot.

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/91-anatomy-of-the-sasquatch-foot

 

If the tracks examined are indeed bigfoot than the toes are not within human range according to Krantz.  

[southernyahoo]

There seems to be exceptions to Krantz's observations like in the Hereford tracks from Grays Harbor Washington. The toes show pronounced graduation in size and length.

 

 

I like to post this pic every now and then to show what science says is a 20k year old human print in the absence of any BF persuasion.

 

The toes are rather fat compared to what you find on the beach today.

 

 

 

Here is a comparison of two human feet to help see human variation.

 

 

This one is for sunflower, A good pic of the under turned pinky toe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

I think that recent finds should be counseling everyone to be careful about making general statements about species based on differences in bone and foot morphology.  There is evidence that we may have postulated a little too much hominid speciation based on inadequate evidence.  It's understandable, as no one can take a time machine back there and report back to us.  It may just be that there are some things we'll never know, and some things on which we should be cautious about speculating too much.

[Sunflower]

SY, Thanks love the pics!!!!!!!!

[southernyahoo]

I think that recent finds should be counseling everyone to be careful about making general statements about species based on differences in bone and foot morphology.  There is evidence that we may have postulated a little too much hominid speciation based on inadequate evidence.  It's understandable, as no one can take a time machine back there and report back to us.  It may just be that there are some things we'll never know, and some things on which we should be cautious about speculating too much.

 

It is the graduation in toe size that would distinguish BF tracks from bear tracks among a few other things. We also have no problem calling a dog track a dog or at least a canine track. Tracks tell us a lot about the animal that made them, so it's not that speculative. They are part of the whole picture regarding BF. They should tell us what to expect in the DNA from the study of knowns with similar feet.  

[Guest DWA]

Graduation in toe size in no way distinguishes bigfoot from bear tracks.  Which, well, have CLAWS for only one thing, and a completely different foot shape for another.

 

Bear-tracks-confused-with-bigfoot-tracks is a dead issue among the serious in the field. 

This is the truly frustrating thing about it - nothing seems to get catalogued; nothing seems to get spread among the proponents and passed along; no knowledge is accumulated.  It seems as if every proponent is at odds with every other one, sometimes, something that wouldn't happen would everybody get on the same page with regard to scientific method.

Maybe a few more people picking up Meldrum's field guide - which puts the bear issue to rest once and for all - could start changing this.

[southernyahoo]

Graduation in toe size in no way distinguishes bigfoot from bear tracks

 

 

Show me a bear track with toes that range in size on the same foot as much as a hominin. You'll find them to be far more equal in size. Or just show me the "big" toe. By the way, like I said this is just one of the ways you could tell when the toes are clearly registered in the soil.

[Guest DWA]

Show me a hominin track with claws.

 

Even if claws don't register and they almost always do, the foot shape and clear quadrupedalism are gonna say bear.  So is the largest toe on the outside of the track.

 

I have never seen a "see?  This could be mistaken for a bigfoot" bear track that should have fooled anybody.

 

I have been known to say that sooner or later, an animal makes a track that looks like the track of another animal.  But nobody should mistake a bear track for a bigfoot track.  There will pretty much always be more evidence that rules out one or the other, but the tracks should take care of that, really.

[southernyahoo]

I have never seen a "see?  This could be mistaken for a bigfoot" bear track that should have fooled anybody.

 

 Sadly enough, this was presented as a skeptical argument once again on the recent Sykes DNA documentary, and failed to address these things we are discussing.

 

Back to speculating about DNA..................

[Guest DWA]

^^^If you're talking about the famous caged-bear-overprint stunt, that is the most shameful bit of grandstanding I have ever seen on any program claiming a scientific approach.  An utter red herring, thrown in to prove a point that had virtually nothing else backing it up.  I couldn't believe they spent the money on the plane ticket for that nonsense.  I have never seen a bigger taking-the-audience-for-rubes stunt ever.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Show me a bigfoot track from a confirmed bigfoot.

Oh yeah, darn reality again...

[southernyahoo]

Closest thing would be the PGF showing a subject walking where the the tracks were documented and exibiting a foot that corresponds to the tracks photo'd in the ground and later cast. The feet were very big!

[Guest DWA]

[edited because, well, you know]

Show me a bigfoot track from a confirmed bigfoot. Oh yeah, darn reality again...

"Confirmed" would be by the mainstream of science...whom I believe we have already identified as AWOL.

 

Patty confirms the tracks.  Were science up to its usual professed rationality, we'd be done here.

Edited February 10, 2014 by DWA

[norseman]

Was watching the previews to the Spike TV's 10 million dollar bigfoot bounty finale...........saw that Dr. Todd Disotell claims a couple of samples were primate DNA.

 

Don't know all the details, but it will be interesting to watch.

[WSA]

There is something I often ponder, and it is this: What would biological science have to lose, really, if a discovery is declared prematurely, and the perception of discovery gets ahead of the confirmed/actual discovery itself? After all, LOTS of "final" discoveries are reversed once new information is found. Science amends the record and we move on. Why not a sort of provisional discovery, based on the current evidence and information to date ?  You know, take your best educated shot, and then let everyone have at it from there? Why is it so distasteful to think you may have to  "un-discover" a species? Plenty of species are "presumed extinct." Why is that risk of being wrong deemed insignificant? Why does the idea of "presumed to exist" raise such a ruckus?

 

The field of biology is hung up (to a degree I think is unhealthy to the discipline) on the requirement of a type specimen. If this were physics we were talking about, or medicine, or geology, mainstream science would be having all kinds of debates within the boundaries of the evidence so far. This whole "Do not admit without type specimen" boundary is anathema in so many other fields.