Guest HairyGreek Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) I really want to know where the forum stands on this! Speak up and be heard; but be polite with others. Play nice now... HG Edited July 22, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Interesting so far...where are all the Giganto peeps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Nobody has gotten home from work yet, it will start getting busy after about 9-10pm eastern time. Bigfoot is a conundrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I'm still amazed at how many people think humans aren't apes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I'm still amazed at how many people think humans aren't apes... And I am still amazed at the opposite. But, it is cool to hear everyone speak out on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 If BF does exist....beyond the imagination....I would speculate that BF would be some kind of Ape....maybe a Great Ape....or maybe not such a great ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Bump! I want more votes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Closer to man yet not a man as we know man to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 The Russians refer to him as a subhuman protohominid. My personal take, especially in light of the suggested 100% human mtDNA, is that he is a hybridized subspecies of Homo. So I would diverge from the Russian terminology by suggesting he is a subhuman protohominin. - Dudlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 What about 100% human? A subhuman protohominid? Rhetoric, not science. Name calling, in fact. I am always a bit surprised that someone would ascribe this creature's abilities to an ape, unless they also hold that humans are a type of ape. I think of apes as animals, perhaps wrongly. I do not believe an animal could escape the notice of science in this era. DO NOT BELIEVE! My personal thinking is that these are a human tribe that somehow isolated a rare recessive gene and then bred for it. This might have happened accidentally. The small group could have been isolated for several generations. There might have been a cultural component, like a king deflowering the serfs. Clydesdales are descended from ponies. All dogs share ancestry. Nikolai Valuev does exist. Fun to speculate about. There are many defensible positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 The Russians refer to him as a subhuman protohominid. My personal take, especially in light of the suggested 100% human mtDNA, is that he is a hybridized subspecies of Homo. So I would diverge from the Russian terminology by suggesting he is a subhuman protohominin. - Dudlow D I'd like you to explain why you think that these specimens came from a bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I can't vouch for the origin of the specimens, 'parnassus'. All I can do is speculate based on what has been leaked so far. I'm sure I will be as interested as everyone else when the paper is finally published, if it gets that far. Currently, everything is contingent and unvalidated. - Dudlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) There's a strong case for hominoid origins in Asia, so I'm still in the Giganto (or something like it) camp at this point. We're only separated from orangutans, Giganto's closest relatives and our most distant among the Great Apes, by some 5% of the DNA. Jeffrey Schwartz has argued for years we're most closely related to orangutans on morphological grounds - chimpanzee DNA notwithstanding. http://www.pitt.edu/...g_wrong_ape.pdf Giganto may have been closer to the African hominids than we think. It's dentition was uniquely between hominids and pongids. I'm not buying "100% human mtDNA". I'll wait for the peer review. I really can't vote in the poll since my choice isn't represented. It's an unidentified NA hominoid primate (thanks to Dr, Daris Swindler for that definition). <edited to add "mt" to "DNA"> Edited July 23, 2011 by LAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 A preadamite man,unfallen, unknown and unexplained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) What about 100% human? A subhuman protohominid? Rhetoric, not science. Name calling, in fact. I am always a bit surprised that someone would ascribe this creature's abilities to an ape, unless they also hold that humans are a type of ape. I think of apes as animals, perhaps wrongly. I do not believe an animal could escape the notice of science in this era. DO NOT BELIEVE! My personal thinking is that these are a human tribe that somehow isolated a rare recessive gene and then bred for it. This might have happened accidentally. The small group could have been isolated for several generations. There might have been a cultural component, like a king deflowering the serfs. Clydesdales are descended from ponies. All dogs share ancestry. Nikolai Valuev does exist. Fun to speculate about. There are many defensible positions. Agreed. I think this is what answers the "no bones" and "no roadkill" arguments. I also think it explains the skunk smell some talk about; an intentional deterrent. I am also not sure they are entirely covered with hair/fur that is exclusively their own. Just interesting thoughts to me. I hope to know, right or wrong. Not holding my breath though. Edited July 23, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts