bipedalist Posted April 20, 2016 BFF Patron Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) Easy to go all overboard in this science: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-genetic-differences-between-humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/ http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/denisovans-humans-and-the-chromosome-2-fusion That is all! Edited April 20, 2016 by bipedalist
FarArcher Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 He does not assume its a "total ape". If by that you mean chimps, bonobos, orangs and gorillas. Bigfoot lacks a divergent big toe, but has a midtarsal break.....something between man and ape (homo vs pan) is Meldrum's position and yours as well yes??? Regardless of where exactly we place Bigfoot on a scale between man and ape, the purpose of this thread was to displace the notion that Sasquatch is the product of a recent mating of a unknown primate and a human woman.....and somehow became its own distinct species. I think its safe to say that idea is dead, with the news of the dna research done. What it is I dont know, but no witness Ive ever talked to has claimed sasquatch was wearing animal hides, packing a spear or a stone tool. Nor was he seen starting a fire. So as far as our scientific knowledge of the Homo genus? Sasquatch does not fit in that regard. Orangs are called "wildmen of the woods" for good reason, they look human and are very smart. I do suspect Sasquatch to be even closer to us than Orangs. Its a incremental discussion. Wait. We don't have any certainty that BF has a midtarsal break. That's where I seriously differ with Meldrum. They may have a midtarsal break, they may not. If there were a midtarsal break, you'd think it would show up in at least a significant majority of prints - and we don't see that. I'd not say that no witness has ever seen a Squatch packing a weapon. And the first thing that comes to mind is the Woodwose in Europe - frequently depicted with a club or healthy looking stick. The DNA is not indicative, until we have a body, get a DNA profile to compare with, and only then can make some determinations. You'd think that humans, being more complicated, more intelligent, and more creative would also be more complicated - and yet we have only 46 chromosomes while the apes, monkeys, etc., have 48 chromosomes. Obviously, we did not descend from monkeys - no higher animal reduces chromosomes and simultaneously improves. We don't even know how many chromosomes these things have - unless you know something I don't. You know how many pairs of chromosomes the Neanderthal has? That's right. No one does. Yes we do. Neanderthals had the same number of chromosomes as we do. Why? Because remember from my article the female hybrids survived and bred back into the Homo Sapien population? This proves it. If the number of chromosomes were different then either the mating would not have been successful or the offspring would have been sterile. And if you deny human evolution then there is not much more we can discuss. Divine creations do not need to follow any sort of rule book....they can just appear. If thats your feelings on human history.....thats ok, its just not mine. Didn't deny human evolution. Stated you don't reduce variables numerically, and get a more complicated, more capable creature. If we came from apes, who have 48 chromosomes, you'd think we'd have to have at least 50 chromosomes, at least something to account for our somewhat superior intellect, creativity, and self awareness. Not less chromosomes. And another thing. I'm not convinced that the fossil record has been fully discovered or determined. And I'd further suggest that is obvious. 2
Incorrigible1 Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 F/A, tell me you've not slipped into the 19th century expectation that succeeding evolved species were improved and superior to their predecessors. 2
FarArcher Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) F/A, tell me you've not slipped into the 19th century expectation that succeeding evolved species were improved and superior to their predecessors. Not really, as I've seen American voters of the past two decades clearly demonstrate a tanking of our species. I do find interest in the suggestions that in the presence of a high voltage static DC field, that limited experimentation indicates that organisms will significantly change to a more primitive manifestation of its antecedents from progeny to occur. No mutation - only gene expression is altered. Almost like the biological entity has reverted many generations back to its more original format. Per data by others, even species previously extinct were regenerated. But in all fairness, I'd have to do some work on that myself before I'd believe it. I believe the original patent was filed by a Ebner G UIDO [CH] // Schuerch Heinz [CH] , applicant CIBA GEIGY CORP (US). I get some time, I'd really like to play with that for a few months. I only mention this as it's apparently possible to cause a biological entity to recall and then revert back many generations to its original state - minus the interim mutations. If I lived a thousand years, I'd never be bored. Edited April 20, 2016 by FarArcher 1
Incorrigible1 Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 Word salad. Species do not necessarily "improve." They do adapt, so that subsequent generations occasionally mutate, and if that mutation helps the progeny to better adapt to their environment, their genes will affect their offspring. It does NOT mean they are better than their predecessors, it only means current specimens are better adapted to survive their current environment. 1
FarArcher Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) Word salad. Species do not necessarily "improve." They do adapt, so that subsequent generations occasionally mutate, and if that mutation helps the progeny to better adapt to their environment, their genes will affect their offspring. It does NOT mean they are better than their predecessors, it only means current specimens are better adapted to survive their current environment. No salad. Maybe you're just hungry. Comparing apes to humans, I'd say there's an improvement. One group has no real self-determination. The other group has a significant amount of self determination. Edited April 20, 2016 by FarArcher 1
Incorrigible1 Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) Humans are apes, my friend. Edit: If humans lived within a jungle environment, wouldn't they likely far more resemble the other great apes? My city happens to have perhaps the country's best zoo. I've spent time looking thru a pane of glass into a gorilla's eyes. I assure you, the ape I observed is not far removed from me or you. There's complex thought going on in that gorilla's brain. Edited April 20, 2016 by Incorrigible1 1
ShadowBorn Posted April 20, 2016 Moderator Posted April 20, 2016 DWA As far as us Human and Chimps goes we all share a common ancestor. But with these guys where is the common ancestor that they share, when they are mixed or should I say combined together to form what they are. This is breaking rules that are set forth in nature that should not be broken, maybe I am stuck on this like a skipping record. But they are a freak of nature and I have no idea why they should even be around or even exist. I do not blame the people that deny their existence since how can one explain them. Even if they did get DNA from them how could they be explained when their DNA will defy logic. It be stating that man mated with beast and created said creature or even worse that said creature was created by man. My theory is that we at one time we were playing with genetics and this is how this creature came about. It then took over it's creators and went forth to hide from it's creators which is us. Now again this is just theory and my own opinion ,but I also feel that this a strong theory as well. Maybe this is ridiculous but I am not sure, but from what I have experience it does tend to lead this way. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
ShadowBorn Posted April 20, 2016 Moderator Posted April 20, 2016 Humans are apes, my friend. Edit: If humans lived within a jungle environment, wouldn't they likely far more resemble the other great apes? My city happens to have perhaps the country's best zoo. I've spent time looking thru a pane of glass into a gorilla's eyes. I assure you, the ape I observed is not far removed from me or you. There's complex thought going on in that gorilla's brain. Can that ape talk to you then in any form? like say like unlock the cage it is in? Does that ape know it is enclosed in a cage like a human would know? If not then it is not human, but just an ape. There are humans who do live in the jungle and guess what? they are clothed and know that they are naked. Do apes and chimps know that they are naked? This is the difference that establishes us different from them, that we know our nakedness. Animals have no shame, Humans do.
JDL Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 I think it's safe to say that bigfoot will redefine the hominoid family tree.
guyzonthropus Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 The higher primates can talk to you in at least one repeatedly confirmed form of interspecies communication, that of sign language, as used by many members of the deaf community. They have been witnessed creating new sentences(not taught by rote) and descriptive word forms, recognizing the emotional state of humans around them and then commenting appropriately, expressing grief, joy, like and dislike, through often quite considerable vocabularies. Do they know they're in a cage? Every animal does. And as for their awareness of their nudity, I doubt it was ever an issue til those upstart humans began wearing other creatures skin and fur. Maybe they only see us as naked for all the bare skin..And prefer us dressed in lieu of a proper coat.... It is largely our culture that bestows our "intelligence" rather than an innate given on a biological level. Sure the infrastructure is physical but only as prepared for the possibility of interfacing with other forms of data storage that enable even more knowledge/information to be transferred to the next generation, such as language enhanced teaching of young, written texts, Apple watches & the internet, all of which are contrary to the laws of the nature from whence we sprung. If you take a human and raise it without any human contact, input, or influence, and should it actually survive, it won't be much more than an ungainly hairless upper primate, absent language,cultural tradition, refined tools, knowledge of existence past what it alone has experienced. Doesn't really sound as too distinguishing from other animals as made by/from their DNA...
southernyahoo Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 Humans are apes, my friend. My city happens to have perhaps the country's best zoo. I've spent time looking thru a pane of glass into a gorilla's eyes. I assure you, the ape I observed is not far removed from me or you. There's complex thought going on in that gorilla's brain. Yep, you have to acknowledge their intelligence. The boundaries are language and written language. Edit: If humans lived within a jungle environment, wouldn't they likely far more resemble the other great apes? Perhaps. Maybe there is something to environmental diet that triggers changes in gene expression. Some of that has to account for the differences between man and ape given their DNA is 98% or so indentical. I'd really like to understand these changes in hogs when they go feral.
FarArcher Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 Humans are apes, my friend. Edit: If humans lived within a jungle environment, wouldn't they likely far more resemble the other great apes? My city happens to have perhaps the country's best zoo. I've spent time looking thru a pane of glass into a gorilla's eyes. I assure you, the ape I observed is not far removed from me or you. There's complex thought going on in that gorilla's brain. If you say you're an ape - I'm not going to argue that. But I'm not. I have lived in a jungle - time between hot showers would be 6 months. After returning to civilization, couldn't sleep inside any structure, and would still sleep on the ground outside at night for a couple more months, gradually adjusting back. And sorry, I didn't take on the appearance of an ape. Surely if hogs can alter their appearance significantly in a couple months, I could have changed in six. But I didn't. Well, my hair was longer, my skin was darker, mosquitoes would no longer bite me even as they buzzed around me, I could smell, detect, and track upwind humans from 3/4 mile away due entirely to their different diet. But it was still me. I got sideways with some of the monkeys there, as they were very territorial, and I've been run out of some of their territorial areas since they took extreme exception to my presence. If I had said I looked into they eyes of some, and "detected" some complex thoughts - what would your response be to me? Would I get the benefit of doubt, or would a tendency to disagree for the purpose of disagreeing be your response? Would you suggest I was "reaching?" 1
norseman Posted April 20, 2016 Admin Author Posted April 20, 2016 I'm afraid so Far Archer.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae 1
FarArcher Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 I'm afraid so Far Archer.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae A major grouping of bipedals - but only ONE has 46 chromosomes. US. All others have 48 chromosomes. I'm not surprised that there have been and continue to be several revisions as to what's what. For this reason, I'll acknowledge the current, conditional classification includes humans, but that's likewise subject to change, as it has in the past. One may note the necessary terminologies - 'hominid,' 'hominoid,' 'hominin,' and 'human', the only extant species being 'homo-sapiens,' with the (according to current science) homo-sapiens-sapiens being the assumed lone survivor subspecies. The terminologies are a moving target designed to accommodate rare fossil finds for placement - some of which in the next few years will likely be dropped as individual fossil species. It's probably just my contrary nature, Norse, but I'll never admit to being an ape. A man's gotta have a bit of pride. And no credentialed academic can convince me otherwise.
Recommended Posts