Sasquatch "Nest" Question

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Ok so to test your hypothesis, go buy a Gorilla infant and teach it to flake stone tools. If it’s ONLY behavioral then it should pick it up with ease.

 

I will be waiting patiently…. You will fail.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3437888/

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/monkeys-make-stone-ldquo-tools-rdquo-that-bear-a-striking-resemblance-to-early-human-artifacts/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/19/monkeys-smash-theory-that-only-humans-can-make-sharp-stone-tools

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/10/monkeys-unintentionally-make-sharp-edged-stone-tools/504602/

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2363882-stone-flakes-made-by-monkeys-cast-doubt-on-ancient-human-tools/

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/19/498421284/those-ancient-stone-tools-did-humans-make-them-or-was-it-really-monkeys

 

 

[Huntster]

8 minutes ago, norseman said:

No, he is a human which is also why he learned to walk upright, dress in clothes and smoke cigarettes…… something you will NEVER teach a wolf pup to do..........

 

 

 

Both zoos insist that their chimps are like our former Commander in Chief; they're too smart to inhale........

 

Quote

.........Again this is an outlier. And not representative of a complete population. Most human children would probably die and be eaten by the wolves…not raised by them. 

 

The point wasn't about wolves. Stop trying to deflect. Abandoned children have been documented to have been raised by wolves, dogs, monkeys, gazelles, leopards, even ostriches. The point is that in every such case, the child did not learn human behaviors. In fact, in most cases, even after being rescued, they never fully recovered developmentally. It is proven science that if a child doesn't learn human speech by the age of 6-8, they rarely ever will. This precludes learning technology. However, they're still human.

 

https://developingchild.harvard.edu/guide/what-is-early-childhood-development-a-guide-to-the-science/

 

 

[norseman]

5 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

 

 

Both zoos insist that their chimps are like our former Commander in Chief; they're too smart to inhale........

 

 

The point wasn't about wolves. Stop trying to deflect. Abandoned children have been documented to have been raised by wolves, dogs, monkeys, gazelles, leopards, even ostriches. The point is that in every such case, the child did not learn human behaviors. In fact, in most cases, even after being rescued, they never fully recovered developmentally. It is proven science that if a child doesn't learn human speech by the age of 6-8, they rarely ever will. This precludes learning technology. However, they're still human.

 

https://developingchild.harvard.edu/guide/what-is-early-childhood-development-a-guide-to-the-science/

 

 

We are in the weeds.

 

So your whole argument is that Bigfoot is Homo Sapien even though it exhibits NO human traits?

 

What is your point?

20 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3437888/

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/monkeys-make-stone-ldquo-tools-rdquo-that-bear-a-striking-resemblance-to-early-human-artifacts/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/19/monkeys-smash-theory-that-only-humans-can-make-sharp-stone-tools

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/10/monkeys-unintentionally-make-sharp-edged-stone-tools/504602/

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2363882-stone-flakes-made-by-monkeys-cast-doubt-on-ancient-human-tools/

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/19/498421284/those-ancient-stone-tools-did-humans-make-them-or-was-it-really-monkeys

 

 

No. Don’t move the goal posts! Lets see the little monkeys flake HUMAN tools. I will accept Clovis? 

[norseman]

[Huntster]

13 minutes ago, norseman said:

We are in the weeds..........

 

No, we're not. You already admitted my point, even though you don't realize it:

 

38 minutes ago, norseman said:

No, he is a human which is also why he learned to walk upright, dress in clothes and smoke cigarettes…… something you will NEVER teach a wolf pup to do..........

 

Humanity doesn't hinge on behavior. It hinges more on morphology.

 

Quote

........So your whole argument is that Bigfoot is Homo Sapien even though it exhibits NO thuman traits?.........

 

No, but part of my hypothesis is that sasquatches, as many of us understand them to be, might be human (of the genus Homo), and tool manufacture or use, or the lack thereof, is not the deciding factor in such a determination. More, the fact that they're of the genus Homo is both part of the reason that DNA analysis has not isolated them thus far, and some people are actually using that as a tool to delay or confound discovery. The repeated use and misuse of the term "human" with respect to this phenomenon, both careless and intentional, is simply creating more confusion than not.

 

If they're Homo sapien, they aren't "sasquatches". They're feral Homo sapiens that have been called "sasquatches", because we didn't know what they were.

 

If they aren't Homo sapien, they're Homo SomethingElse.

 

Hiflier sees this. You do not. You're on an unrelated quest. You don't want these creatures to be human any more than government does. You want to shoot one with no legal liability, as if that is going to somehow save them from something. It won't. They're in deep peril as a species, just like Neanderthals and Denisovans. 
 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

........If they aren't Homo sapien, they're Homo SomethingElse..........

 

I have to correct myself:

 

When Science is fully painted into the corner and there is no further escape, they will simply create a new genus. There is simply no way in Heaven, Hell, or Earth that they will allow another human species to share this planet with them.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

No, we're not. You already admitted my point, even though you don't realize it:

 

 

Humanity doesn't hinge on behavior. It hinges more on morphology.

 

 

No, but part of my hypothesis is that sasquatches, as many of us understand them to be, might be human (of the genus Homo), and tool manufacture or use, or the lack thereof, is not the deciding factor in such a determination. More, the fact that they're of the genus Homo is both part of the reason that DNA analysis has not isolated them thus far, and some people are actually using that as a tool to delay or confound discovery. The repeated use and misuse of the term "human" with respect to this phenomenon, both careless and intentional, is simply creating more confusion than not.

 

If they're Homo sapien, they aren't "sasquatches". They're feral Homo sapiens that have been called "sasquatches", because we didn't know what they were.

 

If they aren't Homo sapien, they're Homo SomethingElse.

 

Hiflier sees this. You do not. You're on an unrelated quest. You don't want these creatures to be human any more than government does. You want to shoot one with no legal liability, as if that is going to somehow save them from something. It won't. They're in deep peril as a species, just like Neanderthals and Denisovans. 
 

This has nothing to do with my position of pro kill. This has everything to do with your misunderstanding of science. You have proven my point for me.

 

Ask yourself this? Why isn’t Lucy included in the genus Homo? Science thinks her species gave rise to the genus Homo. She walks on two legs. She has 5 toes in a straight line…..?

 

https://www.worldhistory.org/Oldowan_Tools/

 

“The genus Homo exhibits bigger brains, increased brain-to-body ratio, as well as smaller jaws and teeth. If you rely less on your physique to chew food, alternative tools are needed, especially since the brain is hungry for nutrients. Modern human brains consume about 20 % of the body's energy while being only about 2% of the body's total weight. Behavioral and dietary changes due to tool usage most likely contributed to the development of Homo habilis, indicating that the manufacturers of the earliest Oldowan tools still belonged to the australopithecines. These are close, now extinct relatives to humans.”

 

Hmmmm…. So science admits that the demarcation line between the Homo genus and australopithecines has some tool manufacturer on both sides. But the really really good tool manufacturer that allowed us to grow our brains and shrink our jaws and teeth? Is on our side of the fence…. the genus Homo.

 

Does Patties skull look like ours or a Gorillas? Is Patty carrying a Oldowan hand axe? Does it look like she has fine motor skills in her hands?

 

So honest question? If Bigfoot is in some gray area between Homo Sapiens and an archaic ancestor? And they DO NOT manufacture stone tools? What makes you think science will categorize them in the genus Homo? It appears to me? That is a prerequisite!

 

I’m gonna find Meldrum’s video talking about Bigfoot eating its way through the environment now. I will post it here shortly!👍

 

 

[Huntster]

2 minutes ago, norseman said:

..... So science admits that the demarcation line between the Homo genus and australopithecines has some tool manufacturer on both sides. But the really really good tool manufacturer that allowed us to grow our brains and shrink our jaws and teeth? Is on our side of the fence…. the genus Homo..........

 

Okay. So do you say that sasquatches are pithecenes? If so, how would a DNA analysis help? Would a slightly "degraded" DNA sample somehow show pithecene? Or would it show human? What's the difference genetically if the only difference to you is the the technological difference in tools?

 

Today we have nuclear weapons. Have we evolved into a different species since the Roman Empire, which didn't even have gunpowder?

 

Quote

.......So honest question? If Bigfoot is in some gray area between Homo Sapiens and an archaic ancestor? And they DO NOT manufacture stone tools? What makes you think science will categorize them in the genus Homo?........

 

1) Foot morphology and bipedal posture

2) Possible hybridzation with Homo sapiens

3) Speech/language

 

 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

But the really really good tool manufacturer that allowed us to grow our brains and shrink our jaws and teeth? Is on our side of the fence…. the genus Homo.

 

Our brains actually grew because of brain gene mutation. And TBH, if it wasn't for the Human mutations of the Great Ape's NOTCH2NL brain gene we'd be no better than simple, albeit more physically advanced, Chimps.

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Okay. So do you say that sasquatches are pithecenes? If so, how would a DNA analysis help? Would a slightly "degraded" DNA sample somehow show pithecene? Or would it show human? What's the difference genetically if the only difference to you is the the technological difference in tools?

 

Today we have nuclear weapons. Have we evolved into a different species since the Roman Empire, which didn't even have gunpowder?

 

 

1) Foot morphology and bipedal posture

2) Possible hybridzation with Homo sapiens

3) Speech/language

 

 

What’s the difference? You concentrate on the feet as being similar which they are…. But the skull, jaws, long arms? You throw over the fence because it doesn’t match your narrative. Which is Bigfoot is a Homo Sapien or in the genus Homo very very closely related. 
 

Technology. Why don’t we now have a sagittal crest? Prognathism? A small brain? Is it easier to eat raw meat and plants? Or is it easier to eat cooked meat and plants? The 1200 cc human brain is 60% pure fat. So is a Gorilla ever going to achieve a similar brain size with its current diet? Does sharp stone tools help with killing and butchering game? 

 

1) Ok. While superficial I will accept that. (Compliant gait, midtarsal break)
2) Possible? We have ZERO evidence of hybridization between a Sasquatch and a Homo Sapien. We have stories.

3) We have no evidence of Sasquatch possessing language. We have the Sierra sounds. 
 

Thus far the best evidence we have is video and foot casts. Here is Dr. Meldrum’s interpretation of the evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

39 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Our brains actually grew because of brain gene mutation.

https://www.science.org/content/article/human-gene-linked-bigger-brains-was-born-seemingly-useless-dna

 

“Overall, the findings suggest these de novo human genes “may have a role in brain development and may have been a driver of cognition during the evolution of humans,” says Erich Bornberg-Bauer, an evolutionary biophysicist at the University of Münster.  

Manyuan Long, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, calls the new study “a breakthrough in the understanding of the molecular evolutionary processes that generate [new] genes.” In an indication of how widespread those processes may be, Long’s group has found that most of the recognizable de novo genes in rice were once lncRNAs, and that lncRNAs also helped form new genes in bamboo. But he is more cautious about interpreting the role of de novo genes in brain evolution. Organoids are far simpler tissues than the brain itself, he notes, and human and mouse brains have evolved along very different paths.  

Xiaohua Shen, a molecular biologist at the Tsinghua University School of Medicine, adds that she wishes the authors had studied a larger sample of mice to be sure the differences in brain size from the gene additions couldn’t be explained by natural variation”

 

 

[hiflier]

Okay can w stop burrowing down into these tangents, please? Because this discussion shouldn't even exist today. It should have existed SEVEN YEARS AGO! Had the ones who had reported the DNA results not been protractionists then this genus Homo thing at the nest site wouldn't have been the news it was a few days ago when I brought it to  this Forum truth of it is that it's only a recent revelation, or conclusion, to the BF community. Well you can bet your bottom dollar that it wasn't news to Meldrum and Disotell. But they've allowed the community to hang by virtue of a simple word transposition. They used the word primate instead of the word Human, even though Human was all there was, and all there could have been!! This thread is pretty useless right now since the truth of the matter has been exposed. And I've yet to get thanked for it by anyone

[hiflier]

39 minutes ago, norseman said:

https://www.science.org/content/article/human-gene-linked-bigger-brains-was-born-seemingly-useless-dna

 

“Overall, the findings suggest these de novo human genes “may have a role in brain development and may have been a driver of cognition during the evolution of humans,” says Erich Bornberg-Bauer, an evolutionary biophysicist at the University of Münster.  

Manyuan Long, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, calls the new study “a breakthrough in the understanding of the molecular evolutionary processes that generate [new] genes.” In an indication of how widespread those processes may be, Long’s group has found that most of the recognizable de novo genes in rice were once lncRNAs, and that lncRNAs also helped form new genes in bamboo. But he is more cautious about interpreting the role of de novo genes in brain evolution. Organoids are far simpler tissues than the brain itself, he notes, and human and mouse brains have evolved along very different paths.  

Xiaohua Shen, a molecular biologist at the Tsinghua University School of Medicine, adds that she wishes the authors had studied a larger sample of mice to be sure the differences in brain size from the gene additions couldn’t be explained by natural variation”

 

 

 

LOL! Mice? Rice? I can cherry pick the article as well, my friend:

 

"The study’s authors highlight 74 human protein genes that appear to have arisen in this de novo way—more than half of which emerged after the human lineage branched off from chimpanzees. Some of these newcomer genes may have played a role in the evolution of our relatively large and complex brains. When added to mice, one made the rodent brains grow bigger and more humanlike, the authors report this week in Nature Ecology & Evolution."

 

I read the first two papers that came out FIVE years ago, one from Belgium and one from the US. NOTCH2NL, baby, NOTCH2NL. Gorillas and Chimps. But not Orangutans. Humans had three mutations right off the bat at the Chimp split. Science thinks that those mutations won't be the last either. I wonder what we'll be capable of after the next series of mutations?

 

But all of this is really moot where the nests are concerned. All we know is that genus Homo was there and the DNA was too degraded to show another species of Human if another Homo species built the nests and it wasn't us. But our wonderful professors never elaborated on that. All they said was primate even though only a Human primate was possible. People can dodge this very succinct and ACCURATE point all they want...and they HAVE, just look at this thread....but nothing will change what I've presented one iota. Dancing around it and talking in tangents won't change it. Nothing will change it. Of course I could've not said anything and kept it to myself. Maybe I should have.

 

The result would be the community would've just plodded along and been completely oblivious to it all. No novel primate at the nest sight? Oh, okay. Well, folks, it's not okay. At least with me it isn't. Seven wasted years when the "Human" part, being so precisely definitive, never got brought up for discussion? Hard to say whether you're lucky to have me still a member or not at this point. Because no one else, except for Huntster, seems the least bit chagrined over this. But you ain't refuting it either now are you!

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

7 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

LOL! Mice? Rice? I can cherry pick the article as well, my friend:

 

"The study’s authors highlight 74 human protein genes that appear to have arisen in this de novo way—more than half of which emerged after the human lineage branched off from chimpanzees. Some of these newcomer genes may have played a role in the evolution of our relatively large and complex brains. When added to mice, one made the rodent brains grow bigger and more humanlike, the authors report this week in Nature Ecology & Evolution."

 

I read the first two papers that came out FIVE years ago, one from Belgium and one from the US. NOTCH2NL, baby, NOTCH2NL. Gorillas and Chimps. But not Orangutans. Humans had three mutations right off the bat at the Chimp split. Science thinks that those mutations won't be the last either. I wonder what we'll be capable of after the next series of mutations?

 

But all of this is really moot where the nests are concerned. All we know is that genus Homo was there and the DNA was too degraded to show another species of Human if another Homo species built the nests and it wasn't us. But our wonderful professors never elaborated on that. All they said was primate even though only a Human primate was possible. People can dodge this very succinct and ACCURATE point all they want...and they HAVE, just look at this thread....but nothing will change what I've presented one iota. Dancing around it and talking in tangents won't change it. Nothing will change it. Of course I could've not said anything and kept it to myself. Maybe I should have.

 

The result would be the community would've just plodded along and been completely oblivious to it all. No novel primate at the nest sight? Oh, okay. Well, folks, it's not okay. At least with me it isn't. Seven wasted years when the "Human" part being definitive never got brought up for discussion? Hard to say whether you're lucky to have me still a member or not at this point. Because no one else, except for Huntster, seems the least bit chagrined over this.  

I didn’t cherry pick the article. And it doesn’t support your assertion. It MAY have resulted in our brain development.
 

Of course it doesn’t address WHY these mutations are happening after the chimp split. Could it be bipedalism opening up the use of our hands completely? Meat consumption? Being able to see over the grass? Different perspectives? 
 

What came first? The chicken or the egg? It’s rather telling that the Chimp brain remained 400 cc’s.

[hiflier]

And I'm saying in the following post what does it matter? This is about a Human being at the nest site and no other "primate genus. And that's all this is. And we should have been told that right from the beginning. Period. Because, for just about everyone, the "too degraded to show novel primate" gobbledygook was an unnecessary distraction to th truth that only a Human was there. And not genus APE. Any idea where we'd be today if that had actually happened? If the CLEAR truth had been told? "We found degraded Human DNA and that's all we found. It means only genus Homo was there." But nope, not one of them had the courtesy. And that really sucks because it shows just how little the "experts" think of us and how more important it is to them to string everyone along and keep everyone guessing: Was it people? Was it Sasquatch? The reality of the true nature of the nest builders was kept secret. Well, it ain't a secret anymore. I can just here it now:

 

"Why didn't you tell us there were only Humans at the nest site?"

"We did."

"No, you said degraded Human DNA was found that didn't show a novel primate."

"Yes, and we told the truth about that."

"Did you find any other primate genus there besides Human?"

"No."

"Then why didn't you say 'novel Human" instead of 'novel primate'?"

"It'd be better if you didn't ask."

 

And everyone is okay with this?

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by hiflier