Guest BlurryMonster Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 So I ask,and not in a snippy way at all,BlurryMonster, you have no theory? Well, and not in a snippy way: because bigfoot hasn't been proven to exist yet. That's what it really comes down to. Again, a theory is not just a guess. It's a comprehesnive explanation for something based on factual evidence; theories also tend to be big enough to make predictions about a number of things. Lets look at the main theories of biology: Cell Theory - The idea that all living things are made from at least once cell. So far, everything living thing discovered has been made of cells, so it can be assumed (until evidence can show otherwise) that all are. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection - Evolution is known to happen, and several things are known to influence it. These include mutations, gene flow, and genetic drift. This theory explains how environmental pressures affects these influences, and what affect they have on species. Gene Theory - The idea that all living things posses DNA and/or RNA, which code for proteins and basically make an organism. This genetic material is also used in reproduction and affects heredity. Note how different all those ideas are from current guess and hypotheses about bigfoot. They are explanations, not statements (like "x" exists or doesn't exist). They are comprehensive enough that they can be applied to all living creatures. They are based on observed facts and solid evidence. They can be tested, and falisified if contrary evidence is discovered ( if an organism is found that doesn't contain cells, cell theory will probably be out, for example). They can also be used to make predictions. None of these things can be said about anything relating to bigfoot, and that should hold true regardless of how someone feels about bigfoot. The word theory just doesn't apply in a scientific context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 A comprehensive DNA study such as the Ketchum paper will decisively establish the nature of the Sasquatch. That means that in the future there will be little need for video. Instead, the priority is likely to become audio recordings of BF conversation to further enlarge the known vocabulary and syntax. The obvious goal will be to establish communication so that better relations can be maintained between BF and normal humans. Spurfoot. I find you comments interesting and thought provoking. I gather that you are of the opinion that a comprensive DNA study will establish that Sasquatch are human beings with spoken language rather than an undiscovered ape. Otherwise, I cannot understand how a comprehensive DNA study will "decisively" establish the nature of the Sasquatch. When you say relations between BF and "normal" human beings are you preferring to relations among equals? Or are you referring to the type of relations that human beings have with other animals such as a chimpanzee? Do you believe that Sasquatch have culture? If yes, is it a distinct culture different from human beings or an "undiscovered or misunderstood" part of the broader human culture? The thing that I fear is the label "sub human" meaning they are not animals as we traditionally define an animal but they are not granted the full rights of a human being. Our history with this concept is not a good one because this usually resulted in some type of "slavery". This can be seen in the comments about a sasquatch army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 A comprehensive DNA study such as the Ketchum paper will decisively establish the nature of the Sasquatch. That means that in the future there will be little need for video. Instead, the priority is likely to become audio recordings of BF conversation to further enlarge the known vocabulary and syntax. The obvious goal will be to establish communication so that better relations can be maintained between BF and normal humans. I don't think this is some type of Planet of the Apes scenario where we are going to be able to send some type of ambassador establish a relationship with the Sasquatch people. If they had any interest in, or ability to have some form of relationship with humans, contact would have been made... um I don't know... say 400 years ago. I don't think they are going to be asking for favored nation status in the U.N. Let's focus on getting them documented first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) BlurryMonster Well researchers have been comprehensively explaining what they believe to be BF due to very factual evidence. Hair samples, vocalizations, tracks, and sightings are all factual occurrences, they happen in the real world and are studied, observed, tested and may be falsified. What other argument can you present for there being no theories on BF. For the last time, well i hope the last time, there is enough factual evidence to support a theory on the creature many of us believe to be BF. There isn't that much hardcore evidence to support the Big Bang theory either, but yet it is still entertained as a theory due to the small amount of evidence supporting it. Theories are not fact, as you stated in your description of the word, a theory can be falsified. It may be that the popular theory that is BF will be falsified. Researchers are in the process of proving the theory of the existence of BF. They are well beyond the point of just sitting idly by hypothesising. There are real tests being conducted in the field, factual evidence being produced. I hope we as a forum can come to understand this. Even if the more popular theory that is BF is proven wrong, It is still a Theory Edited March 3, 2012 by Caesar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 The sightings, vocalizations, tracks, hair, blood, and scat that have been collected and studied are the facts. The theory that accounts for/organizes these findings is that there is an undiscovered primate living in North America. That theory might prove to be true one day. Someone else's theory might be that there are other more mundane explanations for all of the facts. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Again (and hopefully for the last time), I'm talking about the used of the word theory in a scientific context. Not the popular usage of the word as a synonym for guess. In science, a theory is not a guess, and it's not applied to any idea that comes along. It's a term that has serious weight behind it. You guys still seem to operating under the assumption that I'm talking about guesses. I'm not. I've already defined the word "theory" a few times, and given examples as to what a theory actually is. I don't know what else I can do to clarify the issue at hand, besides to say that I think I've already addressed the points you guys are making. Some minor points of clarification, though: I never said a theory was a fact, I said they are based on facts. There's a big difference between those two statements, and one that I think is important. I also think the big bang theory example Caesar is using needs to be clarified a bit, as it can actually a good example of what a theory is (although keep in mind, I'm not an astrophysicist). It's the best explanation based on both the evidence available and the observations made thus far; it also predicts things like the rate the universe is expanding. That's why it's accepted as a theory - it's not just a guess based on a few bits of evidence that suggest it could have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 BlurryMonster, I think you are frustrating yourself by being unnecessarily technical about a single use of a single word. Everyone here understands what a person means by "theory" depending on the context of the sentence they use it in. You guys have gone back and forth multiple times over something in which everyone knows what the person meant. Save yourself the angst! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) BlurryMonster For the last time hair samples, tracks, vocalizations, eye witness accounts are not guesses as you would like to put it, they are facts. BF has a lot more weight behind it then you seem to be letting on. Thus the popularity of this forum. I am talking about the word theory in the scientific context. I feel there is enough tangible, factual evidence to support a theory, i'm sorry if you do not. It's the best explanation based on both the evidence available and the observations made thus far I would like to apply my first quote to BF itself. it's not just a guess based on a few bits of evidence that suggest it could have happened. About my second quote, i would just like to say, last time i checked that's exactly what the Big Bang theory was. Edited March 3, 2012 by Caesar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 How about we call them "clues" until the big guy is offically discovered then start calling them facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Well, and not in a snippy way: because bigfoot hasn't been proven to exist yet. That's what it really comes down to. Again, a theory is not just a guess. It's a comprehesnive explanation for something based on factual evidence; theories also tend to be big enough to make predictions about a number of things. Lets look at the main theories of biology: The evidence is factual, and based on analyses predicts bigfoots existence. Cell Theory - The idea that all living things are made from at least once cell. So far, everything living thing discovered has been made of cells, so it can be assumed (until evidence can show otherwise) that all are. And so bigfoot shall be made of cells... The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection - Evolution is known to happen, and several things are known to influence it. These include mutations, gene flow, and genetic drift. This theory explains how environmental pressures affects these influences, and what affect they have on species. Right, so in theory, bigfoot would be a biological entity that has genetic drift through this process. Gene Theory - The idea that all living things posses DNA and/or RNA, which code for proteins and basically make an organism. This genetic material is also used in reproduction and affects heredity. Thats what this study is about, we are going to see what DNA is in the cells of biological evidence collected in association with other factual evidence. Note how different all those ideas are from current guess and hypotheses about bigfoot. They are explanations, not statements (like "x" exists or doesn't exist). They are comprehensive enough that they can be applied to all living creatures. They are based on observed facts and solid evidence. They can be tested, and falisified if contrary evidence is discovered ( if an organism is found that doesn't contain cells, cell theory will probably be out, for example). They can also be used to make predictions. None of these things can be said about anything relating to bigfoot, and that should hold true regardless of how someone feels about bigfoot. The word theory just doesn't apply in a scientific context. We have factual evidence in the form of tracks, vocalizations, sightings and biological samples. We could assume they are seperate phenomena and still have a scientific theory that they can be tied together and explained by the existence of a creature known as bigfoot who walks on two feet, squats, vocalizes like other social primates, including humans, eats a variety of foods, reproduces and deficates. This theory best explains the evidence which is falsifiable, testable and predicts bigfoots existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Ghuda I did not mean they are facts about BF. They are facts in the real world though, they do happen and exist, none of us can deny that. They may or may not be related to BF, but they are factual evidence of something. Thus a theory may be formed based on this factual evidence. Agreed? Edited March 3, 2012 by Caesar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Never mind Edited March 3, 2012 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sully Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I've not weighed into this thread and after reading through it, I hope these folks are never, ever,ever "proven" to exist. No disrespect intended to anyone. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Fact; giant Footprints have been found Hyp; These footprints come from a giant beast possibly a primate living in NA. Theory???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 We have factual evidence in the form of tracks, vocalizations, sightings and biological samples. I think it's great you guys finally have proof and all this skeptical nonsense can be put to bed once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts