Guest DWA Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 There's stuff in the fossil record that appears plausible ancestor material...and if we saw one today, we'd call it an ape. I'd rather let taxonomists make the call. It's fun to speculate, I guess. But if you told 100 scientists they had to start with the assumption Patty's authentic, so, what was she? I'd be surprised if one came down "human."
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 But if you told 100 scientists they had to start with the assumption Patty's authentic, so, what was she? I'd be surprised if one came down "human." I think most of them wouldn't have a clue.
norseman Posted April 15, 2015 Admin Author Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) There's stuff in the fossil record that appears plausible ancestor material...and if we saw one today, we'd call it an ape. I'd rather let taxonomists make the call. It's fun to speculate, I guess. But if you told 100 scientists they had to start with the assumption Patty's authentic, so, what was she? I'd be surprised if one came down "human." oh no! they all came down with "human......... in a SUIT"! Edited April 15, 2015 by norseman
MIB Posted April 15, 2015 Moderator Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) ^^^^^^ Come again? Refer back to post 293. SY is precisely correct. If you are claiming, as the quote appears to say, that they are infertile hybrid, then both of the hybridizing parent species must exist. Not only must they exist, they must exist in large enough numbers to both perpetuate their own species AND cross-breed to produce the hybrid. In other words, if we kill off all the donkeys, we would also not have mules anymore. If BF exists as an infertile hybrid it requires the existences of not just one unknown species, but two. 'tis also true though, as SY says, that the hybrid, even if fertile, would have to be a preferred mate or the DNA replaced by bringing new human female mothers into the population on a pretty regular basis. I'm not convinced there are enough abductions to account for replacement. If we rely on assumptions and logic none of this should be happening and yet they are out there. Some of our assumptions, some of our logic, is just plain wrong. MIB Edited April 15, 2015 by MIB
norseman Posted April 15, 2015 Admin Author Posted April 15, 2015 ^^^^^^^^^^^ I absolutely positively am not in the hybrid camp. I think the evidence we do have, such as the PGF, Bossburg tracks, etc clearly shows we are dealing with a large bipedal ape that only superficially looks like us. My theory is that its an Asian ape related to Modern Orangs that crossed the land bridge sometime during the last ice age but possibly earlier.
Yuchi1 Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 I keep hearkening back to the night of the "Cookout" event wherein the big one exhibited the forebearance from "beheading" us instead, opting to slam to the ground a ~1400# tower stand ~75 yards from our location and then following us up out of the bottoms and chunking the softball sized stone into the yard from out of Rattlesnake Canyon. IMO, this presents a thought process superior of that for a simple ape.
Guest diana swampbooger Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 I'm on pins and needles waiting for the binomial nomenclature. lol, betting on fisticuffs among the learned & Nobel chasing girls & boys.
Guest DWA Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 Apes aren't simple. The "mere apes" thing is a teeth-gritter with me. Like we're some great shakes. Our 'intelligence' has taken us some stupid places. Doesn't look like we'll come close to a tenth the dinosaurs' run, much less half of it.
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) Didn't we go through this tiresome rubbish in the 'This is a Neanderthal' thread? Mere apes plan, connive, disguise, cheat, recruit, make, use and refine tools, hunt, harvest, wage war, kidnap, hold grudges and on and on. Corvids do much of this too. Edited April 15, 2015 by Stan Norton
MIB Posted April 15, 2015 Moderator Posted April 15, 2015 ^^^^^^^^^^^ I absolutely positively am not in the hybrid camp. I think the evidence we do have, such as the PGF, Bossburg tracks, etc clearly shows we are dealing with a large bipedal ape that only superficially looks like us. My theory is that its an Asian ape related to Modern Orangs that crossed the land bridge sometime during the last ice age but possibly earlier. Gotcha. Misunderstood. I've been looking at the timeline for prior glacial maximums back to about 2.5 million years ago. There were certainly other candidate opportunities for a land bridge crossing close enough not to remove any potential solutions from the table. Starting with a small cut off population and extreme climate pushing natural selection we have a number of candidates for the known ancestor, no scientific basis for any specific choice, just personal bias. Way more questions than answers. MIB
SWWASAS Posted April 15, 2015 BFF Patron Posted April 15, 2015 The "mere apes" thing is a teeth-gritter with me. Like we're some great shakes. Our 'intelligence' has taken us some stupid places. Doesn't look like we'll come close to a tenth the dinosaurs' run, much less half of it. You hit on a pet peeve of mine. We are all one large asteroid away from going the way of the dinosaurs yet are the only species that has come along that stands a chance to divert it. Rather than spend all that money funding the International Space Station that is basically an orbital science lab, we should have been building in orbit a large ship, capable of intercepting and diverting a large asteroid and saving humanity and everything else on earth from extinction. In the mean time, man the large space ship in orbit and use it for science experiments. We are spending money with detection and tracking programs but may only have a few months to launch something that could divert a large asteroid. Too little too late. What in the world is more important than funding a program to save the planet?
Yuchi1 Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 The "mere apes" thing is a teeth-gritter with me. Like we're some great shakes. Our 'intelligence' has taken us some stupid places. Doesn't look like we'll come close to a tenth the dinosaurs' run, much less half of it. "Stupid" as in blasting the woods at poorly identified targets? BTW, if apes are capable of all the behaviors described in post #311, IMO, they are "us".
Guest DWA Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) A) If anyone was blasting the woods, etc. yes. But they aren't, so, no. beezer*) No, they're another species. Why is it that we think only humans can do that stuff in post #311? Stan is talking, clearly, about *chimpanzees and bonobos.* They us? *Why is it that letter b plus paren gives me , every time? Regardless the case of the b/B? Edited April 15, 2015 by DWA
Recommended Posts