Will Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Ex I agree, you skeptics really come up with some real humdingers. Its very informative to see your comments on that other sad miserable forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Neanderthal weren't big enough to be the source of Sasquatch tho..... Hybrids have the capacity to exceed their parents in size. See Ligers and Tigons as an example. Plus, that guy makes a lot of broad assumptions in his conclusions. It's a 14 minute summary video. Go to the website and read the sample chapters. Much more closely reasoned and heavily sourced. Plus, Neanderthal wouldn't have a muDNA of modern human. (i don't know what it would be, not my field, but it wouldn't be homo sapien, it would prolly be Homo neanderthalensis, is that right?....if not sorry). Which wasn't mentioned by the folks here that supposedly know the results. A hybrid of Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthalis would have characteristics of both. IF (and I have to emphasize IF, for some people around here) the results come back that BF is some sort of near-human/human hybrid that is what we would expect to find. But what he claimed was that something can be Homo sapiens and NOT be human, though he failed to provide any source that supports that assertion. He may as well claim that while the subspecies Megasoma elephas elephas is a beetle, the species Megasoma elephas might NOT be a beetle. RayG I've explained what I said, and, despite your attempt to pass on deliberate disinformation, I DID post sources that showed that human beings are H Sapiens Sapiens. Any other H Sapiens subtype is NOT human. Period. Full stop. You've been refuted Ray. Please desist from continuing to misrepresent the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 If it was an honest question then I appologize, if not then I don't. It was an honest question, and I accept your apology. You also injected the words "putative bigfoot hair" without my offering it as such. What made you jump to that without my saying so if you didn't remember? Because you had posted it in a thread about DNA analysis of bigfoot tissue on a site called "The Bigfoot Forums." If you really want to get down to brass tacks, I wasn't even sure that photo was a hair at first. Remember, that photo does not appear in the link you provided with the description of hairs found in Oklahoma. Even if I had recalled a discussion of those hairs and that website, I would not have been able to recall anything about that photo because I hadn't ever seen it. Any other H Sapiens subtype is NOT human. Um . . . no. This is categorically wrong, Mulder. Most authorities consider every species within the genus Homo to be human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Because you had posted it in a thread about DNA analysis of bigfoot tissue on a site called "The Bigfoot Forums." And in the Ketchum report thread, So these questions don't seem that hard to answer right? Was there DNA extracted from it? Has it been analyzed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Again, human is a term that is equivocal. It is used to refer informally to homo sapiens sapiens, and it can also be used to formally refer to all members of genus homo. Let's not be pedantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'm not in a charitable mood, I'm a fact seeker, a truth hunter, and an a-hat. Mulder stepped on stage with the unsupported claim that an animal could be Homo sapiens and NOT be human, and it remains an unsupported claim. The three links he presented confirmed the opposite of his claim, yet he complains he's pandering to my request for facts. His logic escapes me. RayG Logic escapes you in general, it seems. I'm not going to repeat myself yet again just to satisfy your passive-aggressive psuedo-debating style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 The English adjective human is a Middle English loanword from Old French humain, ultimately from Latin hÅ«mÄnus, the adjective form of homÅ"man". The word's use as a noun (with a plural: humans) dates to the 16th century.... Wiki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I've explained what I said, and, despite your attempt to pass on deliberate disinformation, I DID post sources that showed that human beings are H Sapiens Sapiens. Any other H Sapiens subtype is NOT human. Period. Full stop. You've been refuted Ray. Please desist from continuing to misrepresent the conversation. Refuted? How so? Your original claim that an animal could be Homo sapiens and NOT be human, remains unsupported by any factual information/source that I can find, including within those links you provided. To the best of my knowledge I've made no attempt to pass along deliberate misinformation, nor am I misrepresenting the conversation. A link to a source confirming your claim would have ended our conversation days ago. exnihilo, I agree that the term ~human~ includes both the species Homo sapiens, as well as the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. Mulder however, is attempting to rewrite scientific taxonomy by continuing to cling to his unsupported claim that an animal could be Homo sapiens and NOT be human. I doubt he'll ever provide a source to support his assertion, but maybe that's just me being skeptical. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Let me step back for a moment and say that I don't think animal is an appropriate word for members of genus Homo, as Homo means, well, "man." But, if we are speaking ethically, I think some sort of distinction between H.s.s. and other hypothetical H.s. subspecies can be supported, though far from a man/animal ethical dichotomy. Other H.s. subspecies do not have full ethical standing vis-a-vis society IMHO -- meaning, taking a specimen falls short of murder. But just short. And clearly, a duty that is greater than any other in the natural world is owed to other Homo sapiens subspecies. Should they exist. BTW, this is merely my opinion, and I have no idea what the legal standard might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Isn't a main source of the DNA that Ketchum is analyzing a piece of tissue recovered from where someone claims to have shot a bigfoot, and is not that tissue referred to as a "steak?" Please accept my apology if I've confused some of the wild claims regarding Ketchum's analysis. On behalf of the proponent side, I accept your apology for the wild claims made by Skeptics regarding Ketchum's analysis. On a side note, did not someone claim to have shot a bigfoot in southeastern Oklahoma this summer as well? The point is that there are claims out there that people indeed have put bullets into bigfoots. If you can shoot one in the rump, you can shoot one in the head. If such claims are true, then it's simply a matter of time before someone really kills a real bigfoot and we've got our proverbial monkey on a slab. Perhaps, but even if it does not occur, we still have the reports, the tracks, the hairs, etc so the case for BF is still strong. No need for strength at all. I'll be happy to say I was wrong if that'll make someone feel better. But if you think about it, I wasn't wrong. Right now, having researched, searched, searched searched for years, I have arrived at my opinion that BF does not exist based on the evidence. It's a perfectly valid conclusion right now. absence of evidence fallacy. Not even Sagan, the great hero of the Skeptics fell for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Mulder, could I ask you really nicely to please go and have another look at this Homo sapien-but-not-human thing again. Everyone is entitled to a mistake or two, and no-one will think any the worse of you if you were to just quietly drop your insistence on this. You have had a biologist (amongst many others) tell you that you are wrong, and you have no supporting evidence or supportive posters. Please, please go and have a good read. Even 5 minutes on Wiki should be enough. Thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) Hybrids have the capacity to exceed their parents in size. See Ligers and Tigons as an example. It's a 14 minute summary video. Go to the website and read the sample chapters. Much more closely reasoned and heavily sourced. A hybrid of Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthalis would have characteristics of both. IF (and I have to emphasize IF, for some people around here) the results come back that BF is some sort of near-human/human hybrid that is what we would expect to find. I've explained what I said, and, despite your attempt to pass on deliberate disinformation, I DID post sources that showed that human beings are H Sapiens Sapiens. Any other H Sapiens subtype is NOT human. Period. Full stop. You've been refuted Ray. Please desist from continuing to misrepresent the conversation. i would really doubt that Sasquatch is a hybrid sapien/well....wtvr. If there was a divergence it must have happened a LONG time ago and due to the length of time, any such hybrid would've established it's own subspecies designation by now. Not to mention that a human hybrid of sapien and neanderthalensis that had the combined intelligence plus the size would've have been very fit indeed, perhaps at a level that would have superceded sapien in apex. IF it was at a level significant enough to continue from hundreds of thousands of years to the present time and have enough population to survive all of that time. i could buy that squatch is a different genus, I could buy it being a lost homo bigfooti that existed pre sapien , I could buy it as a remnant smaller version of giganto. I can't buy Bigfoot is a sapien hybrid though.... Too many things seem wrong there. Edited February 9, 2012 by Wookie73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I think you may be underestimating just how dependent H.s.s. is on technology and culture, and how powerful an advantage that truly is. I don't think it could be argued that BF has the advantage over H.s.s. in either category, even as a hybridized wild-man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Not to mention that a human hybrid of sapien and neanderthalensis that had the combined intelligence plus the size would've have been very fit indeed, perhaps at a level that would have superceded sapien in apex. Don't forget that such a hybrid could produce a creature with our size & strength, and Neanderthal intelligence! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I would suspect that it would produce a creature with a bit of both. Now a few here and there aren't likely to create a breeding population that diverges into it's own species. But for Bigfoot to be said hybrid, it would seem that would indeed be what happened. Thus, over time, one would expect their intelligence to improve and their size to stabilize (as intelligence in apes seems to be what gets selected over strength anld size). All I'm saying is that I doubt Squatchy is a sapien/neandethal hybrid. I would think a neanderthal/heidelbergensis or heidelbergensis divergence would be much more likely due to the size issues and difference to sapien. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts