Jump to content
norseman

What if the PGF did not exist?

Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor
10 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Careful, there, my friend, yer starting to sound like me ;) You know I've been pushing the bear side of Sasquatch for a long time now. It's the old "bear ina primate's body" thing, remember that? Sure, I was off base in the genetics category but other than that yeah, acts jut like a bear but has the advantage of hands, feet, and bipedalism. So, is it an ape? Not really. Is it a bear? Not really. Is it a Human? Not really. It's a species that has the mannerisms of all three in which the only drawback is its reduced capacity for technological advancement. So there is a brain development problem. I would think that for our Human history? It's a good thing Sasquatches couldn't and still cannot advance or we as a species would have been gone off this planet a long time ago. So, shaped like us, walks like us, but behaves like a bear. It was kind hard to get my mind around that a couple of years ago. Had a hard time describing such a thing. Now though it's pretty danged easy. Sasquatch: an ancient brand of Human/animal that never got smarter than a bear.

 

Its an ape. IMO.

 

I was speaking in terms of morality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

Its an ape. IMO.

 

I was speaking in terms of morality. 

 

Norse, don’t deny it, your slowly turning into Hiflier.   Just let it happen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
3 hours ago, norseman said:

Its an ape. IMO

 

As in we are apes too? I say that in the general sense that all are under the heading of primate whether Great ape, Homo Sapiens Sapiens or........Sasquatch. I do not look at BF as Pan or Pongo. But I don't look it as Homo either. Taking all BF's attributes together, it has to be a species all on its own. Calling it an ape is psychologically convenient for harvesting one for science but in essence all one has to really has to say is that it isn't Homo Sapiens Sapiens. What it actually is is something only science can determine. It's a technicality but it is an important one IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
23 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

As in we are apes too? I say that in the general sense that all are under the heading of primate whether Great ape, Homo Sapiens Sapiens or........Sasquatch. I do not look at BF as Pan or Pongo. But I don't look it as Homo either. Taking all BF's attributes together, it has to be a species all on its own. Calling it an ape is psychologically convenient for harvesting one for science but in essence all one has to really has to say is that it isn't Homo Sapiens Sapiens. What it actually is is something only science can determine. It's a technicality but it is an important one IMHO.

 

Yes. As in we are apes too. It may even be an archaic Homo species. Or it may not be. We just do not know.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
40 minutes ago, hiflier said:

........... I say that in the general sense that all are under the heading of primate whether Great ape, Homo Sapiens Sapiens or........Sasquatch. I do not look at BF as Pan or Pongo. But I don't look it as Homo either. Taking all BF's attributes together, it has to be a species all on its own...........

 

How do paleo-anthropologists determine genus in such species as Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo habilis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo luzonensis, Homo naledi, and Homo neanderthalensis? How do they differ from Australopithecines? Often all these guys have to go on are a few bone fragments.

 

Any of the Homo species are human, by definition of the word. Australopithecines are hominins, which includes Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) but excludes gorillas.

 

Are we at a crossroads where genus will be determined by lawyers and courts, not biologists or anthropologists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Good question, Hunster. I just wrote in another thread that WE Humans may not eveb be the last branch to come out of Africa. Who's to say what Nature has in store for the future? Sasquatch may be a branch of archaic Human as Norseman said and so like all the other branches that have died out Sasquatch, sad to say, may die out as well. I wonder how many ancient hominins watched others die out in their presence. I'm sure Cro-Magnon watched a few Neanderthals go by the wayside on their way to being absorbed into the genetic soup of Modern Humans.

 

I can hear it now, "Hey, where did are all those Neanderthals go? Seems like only a minute ago they were everywhere, and now I ain't seen hid nor hair of one in the last thirty years or so."

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

..........I can hear it now, "Hey, where did are all those Neanderthals go? Seems like only a minute ago they were everywhere, and now I ain't seen hid nor hair of one in the last thirty years or so."

 

Odds are that if they did see them, they'd kill them..........except maybe the females.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
On 5/14/2019 at 10:51 AM, Huntster said:

 

How do paleo-anthropologists determine genus in such species as Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo habilis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo luzonensis, Homo naledi, and Homo neanderthalensis? How do they differ from Australopithecines? Often all these guys have to go on are a few bone fragments.

 

Any of the Homo species are human, by definition of the word. Australopithecines are hominins, which includes Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) but excludes gorillas.

 

Are we at a crossroads where genus will be determined by lawyers and courts, not biologists or anthropologists?

 

https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/21/8460657/judge-gives-chimpanzees-human-rights-first-time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor

From your reference:

 

For the first time in US history, a judge has decreed that a pair of chimpanzees held at a university research facility are covered by the same laws that govern the detention of humans, effectively rendering the animals as legal "people" in the eyes of the law. New York Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe said that the apes, held at Stony Brook University for research purposes, are covered by a writ of habeas corpus — a basic legal principle that lets people challenge the validity of their detention.



However, hours later, Jaffe amended her court order to remove the habeas corpus language, essentially reversing the earlier decision.......

 

It is wise that she reversed her ruling, because it would be certainly reversed for her by a higher court. Chimpanzees are clearly not Homo or human. But then:

 

........But Natalie Prosin, the Nonhuman Rights Project's executive director, said after the original decision that

regardless of whether Hercules and Leo are afforded legal personhood after the hearing, the group intends to use the judge's ruling in future cases. "We have scientific evidence to prove in a court of law that elephants, great apes, and whales and dolphins are autonomous beings and deserve the right to bodily liberty," she said. "[This ruling] strengthens our argument that these nonhuman animals are not property."

 

Ironically, the United States is rapidly closing in on civil war on the abortion front with pro-life forces taking advantage of fetus personhood rather than women's rights. Extending personhood and human rights to other species while continuing to reject human rights toward human fetuses cannot stand together.

 

Dumping a sasquatch carcass on the legal table at this time could complicate ideologies and legalities a bit, couldn't it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
47 minutes ago, Huntster said:

From your reference:

 

 

 

 

It is wise that she reversed her ruling, because it would be certainly reversed for her by a higher court. Chimpanzees are clearly not Homo or human. But then:

 

 

 

 

Ironically, the United States is rapidly closing in on civil war on the abortion front with pro-life forces taking advantage of fetus personhood rather than women's rights. Extending personhood and human rights to other species while continuing to reject human rights toward human fetuses cannot stand together.

 

Dumping a sasquatch carcass on the legal table at this time could complicate ideologies and legalities a bit, couldn't it?

 

 

I have little doubt that many would want to extend personhood to a Bigfoot. Just the blowback I receive for wanting to shoot one to definitely prove they exist tells me that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×