For Those Of Us Who Don't Think Sasquatch Is Genus Homo...

[Guest DWA]

It's hard for me to believe that the entire suite of adaptations happened at once.  This is one of the most logical finds I would expect:  first you get this; then you get that...then this helps that, and that helps this plus more of this...

[Drew]

yes. You have to have large numbers at each stage, in different branches, to have enough mutations or adaptations, to find the one that works.

 

There could have been huge numbers of concurrent populations interbreeding, and passing on the most advantageous traits.

[Guest DWA]

I get the feeling that a lot of the top minds in the field - let alone the rest of us - would be absolutely stunned were they to be able to find out, at a stroke, how we happened.  I really don't think any scenario - including that "braided river" thing where populations of what we might consider different species kept on exchanging genes - can be ruled out.

[JDL]

Too often science is based only on what is easy to find.  And until something is "found", it is considered not to exist.

 

A nod back to Norseman:  Any find that was collected in the 1800's or 1900's should be re-examined with modern techniques to verify previous classification and flesh out the information that can be provided by those techniques.  And Museums and Universities need to conduct a full audit/modernized inventory of their specimens with "eyes on" each to log and prep them for modern analysis.  Can't just look at any labels on their storage containers because of the potential for misclassification and missed information in the past.

[Cotter]

Hmmm....does this fit with Darwinian Evolution? 

[Drew]

Can you explain your question Cotter?

How would it not fit?

[Guest DWA]

I'm seeing nothing about this that can't be explained by Darwin's model.

[Cotter]

I'm not an expert on Darwinain's Model, so hence the question.  Seems like it has some 'goofy' features......

[hiflier]

Hello Cotter,

 

Sorry, won't touch that one

[Guest DWA]

I'm not an expert on Darwinain's Model, so hence the question.  Seems like it has some 'goofy' features......

If this thing survived and bred and passed genes down generations - which it clearly did - Darwin, check.

Darwin isn't about what specifically works.  It is about *why* it works, to wit:  individuals possess traits that give them competitive advantage in a niche or niches.

[Guest Taylor]

They always show the model with very little hair.  I suspect it had large amounts of hair like an ape.  Look at that picture again and imagine thick black hair.  Looks like a small Sasquatch! It's more evidence in my mind Sasquatch is a relic Homo population.

[WSA]

I'll put in another vote for an inventory of the existing bone collections of this world. Significant time and money would be needed, of course.  And not much glory to the (re) discoverer, unfortunately. I mean, what would you rather do? Sift through trays of collected bones in the basement of some university, or hang out with a crew of rugged women(!) dangling on the ends of ropes in a S. African cave?  Or try to grab headlines and publication bennies with, "Err....we'd like to announce the finding of a significant fossil. Again."

 

This find (and H. floresiensis, and H. denisovan, and...) doesn't so much confirm the existence of BF, so much as it confirms the possibility, (Dare I say "probability"?) of its existence.  We just need to keep having this pounded home for any and all who slap their hands over their ears at the mention.

[Guest DWA]

I'm highly questioning anyone's take on sasquatch who thinks that this is an earth-shattering find.  This is only a truly big deal, as in, flat rocking the foundations of their world, to those shocked by it.  Which could never include me.

[Drew]

We could possess features from this line of people.

 

It also could have died out, without ever passing on it's particular genes to our line.

 

 

It seems it is just another common ancestor somewhere down the line, we seem to have recieved it's feet and hands in our lineage, and the trait of small skull disappeared somewhere after their existence.

Here is the excerpt of John Hawks' portion of the presentation.

Very informative

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34207084

I'm highly questioning anyone's take on sasquatch who thinks that this is an earth-shattering find.  This is only a truly big deal, as in, flat rocking the foundations of their world, to those shocked by it.  Which could never include me.

 

I am shocked by the enormity of the find.

Feet found complete, in articulation.

 

That kind of thing.

 

I expect there are many more sitting under ground.

[WSA]

What is does for me, and no doubt for lots of others here whose opinions I value, is confirm that I want to keep getting up in the morning to see what might be happening next.  That this search will intersect with an identification of a recognizable and relatively more recent BF ancestor is not much doubted by me. Well, probably it already has. These are exciting times for those with this interest. Big. Fun.