Guest Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 You arguing culture, behavior and accomplishments Bip. With a specimen, think biology only. What will make them not a human? I think you are hoping for a different chromosome count or number of vereibrae in the neck or something, because Patty with all her differences hasn't shown us enough and walks too much like a member of homo. I'm arguing that your little set of circumstantial does not equal humanity. And I have a giant pile of circumstantial evidence that argues the other way. And you are apparently unwilling to address the flaws in your argument.
Guest DWA Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 (edited) You are really going to have to tell these people about it Bip! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060803-footprint.html Know what a real scientist - somebody who never takes off the skepticals - would say about that article? Maybe those scientists are getting a weetad ahead of themselves. Those couldn't be, oh, I dunno, say, Yowie tracks? OH, RIGHT...scientists don't accept those... You arguing culture, behavior and accomplishments Bip. With a specimen, think biology only. What will make them not a human? I think you are hoping for a different chromosome count or number of vereibrae in the neck or something, because Patty with all her differences hasn't shown us enough and walks too much like a member of homo. And a penguin looks way too much, to me, like a guy in a tuxedo. Subjectivity, once AGAIN, ain't science. Edited May 22, 2014 by DWA
salubrious Posted May 22, 2014 Moderator Posted May 22, 2014 We definitely would not say "we got one, stay tuned." Our plan is to document the specimen as well as possible along with experts in several fields then announce. We definitely won't play any games about it or be coy or post cryptic videos to YouTube or any of that nonsense. Sweet! That avoids the rules of BF world: 1) make announcement, stunning info to be revealed at a later date 2) upon date, nothing 3) rinse wash repeat
Guest DWA Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 ^^^It also coincides, by no coincidence, with the rules of Science World: 1. Make sure all ducks in a row 2. Get all technical specialties in alignment 3. Ensure authenticity of specimen, and... Go...
southernyahoo Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Bottom line, "humanity" is not defined by morphology. Oh dude, thats all you're going to have in a specimen, and you'll have to hope it's enough to prove it's not genus homo. I'm arguing that your little set of circumstantial does not equal humanity. And I have a giant pile of circumstantial evidence that argues the other way. And you are apparently unwilling to address the flaws in your argument. Geez......I am adressing them, but I am at work and address on my breaks. I thought we were looking at the same pile of evidence, and concluding different things, but you haven't shown me your pile yet. Remember we want to see and hear the objective evidence not an argument that your pile is bigger than mine conjecture. 1
Guest DWA Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 (edited) Oh dude, thats all you're going to have in a specimen, and you'll have to hope it's enough to prove it's not genus homo. Au contraire. One has far more than morphology in a specimen. (For one thing, one now has a DNA sample that one knows what it came from.) What one is not considering here is that one also now has the impetus to go out there and do the longitudinal studies of behavior that will conclude that, nope, not human here. (As if the specimen didn't make that point.) Geez......I am adressing them, but I am at work and address on my breaks. I thought we were looking at the same pile of evidence, and concluding different things, but you haven't shown me your pile yet. Remember we want to see and hear the objective evidence not an argument that your pile is bigger than mine conjecture. Actually not required. He and I are looking at pretty much the same pile. We're not seeing "human" anywhere in it. Other than, you know, a very small minority of people making subjective judgments. Unless the thousands of reports you are reading are in a different database which I would personally doubt. Once again: go back to bipto's characterization of anthropomorphizing. You are doing it. Edited May 22, 2014 by DWA
Guest Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Sweet! That avoids the rules of BF world: 1) make announcement, stunning info to be revealed at a later date 2) upon date, nothing 3) rinse wash repeat Yep. Oh dude, thats all you're going to have in a specimen, and you'll have to hope it's enough to prove it's not genus homo. The specimen is a step in a process, not the end of the process. It proves the animal exists and allows primatologists and other related specialists to study what now is considered ridiculous. I thought we were looking at the same pile of evidence, and concluding different things, but you haven't shown me your pile yet. Remember we want to see and hear the objective evidence not an argument that your pile is bigger than mine conjecture. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/9719-the-echo-incident/?p=839256
WSA Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Overheard in Area X (translated from the original samurai): "Let's just give 'em Bob. We all know what a pain he is, and this rock throwing at all hours of the night is wearing me out. Besides, I've got hickory nuts to pound before next week. I want my LIFE back!"
Guest zenmonkey Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 Bottom line, "humanity" is not defined by morphology. thank you!!! thank you!!! man you've got to be excited! for this season! don't forget bug spray and TP
southernyahoo Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 I would encourage you to do this. In my opinion, those who argue for bigfoot humanness do it from the wrong direction. They cherry-pick individual behavioral traits or morphological similarities and draw straight lines to Homo. That's literally anthropomorphizing. The very definition of the the word and, obviously, I think a fundamentally flawed process. I take the opposite approach. I start with those things that make humans human. What sets us apart from other life and makes killing one of our own murder but killing any other living thing on the planet not. If you take that path, I don't see how you can deduce that wood apes are anything approaching human. Close, sure. At least as close as other great apes or some marine mammals, but even that is very, very far away. For example, you said... Tracks and bipedalism are not enough to make a human. The shape of their foot is superficially like ours, but the track evidence suggests the morphology is quite different. Not unlike past bipedal primates, but not like us. Their use of bipedalism is also not unique to humans. Other apes will situationally walk on two legs and wood apes, based on observation and reported behavior, are not exclusively bipedal as we are. The sounds they make, too, are not like the sounds we make. You can find an expert I'm sure who will talk about syntax and language, but for a hypothesis to be validated and become a theory, it needs to be proven more than once. The science behind wood ape language just isn't there. No reputable DNA analysis has yet been conducted. Not once. At the end of all that, you have a bushel of circumstantial evidence that's not nearly close enough to "human." You ignore all the huge circumstantial differences. Their overall physical shape is nothing like ours (once you get past the primate prereqs of arms, legs, head on shoulders, etc.). They are massively larger than us. Larger than any known close relative to Homo that might also fall under the "human" camp (like Neanderthal). They are covered in hair that, in at least some parts of their body, can be quite dense. They appear to have no neck or a very different one than we do. The proportions of their limbs is very different than ours and much closer to that of apes and monkeys. Basically, for each circumstantial element you pick out, I can pick out two more that go the other way. I think what makes us human is a combination of things that don't show up in a photograph or film of typical wood ape encounters. They need to be shown to do what we're doing right now: Discussing abstract concepts. They need to demonstrate what Neanderthal did: culture, art, religion. They need to manufacture tools, not just poke things with sticks or bang stuff with a rock. They need some kind of technology. They need to be able to pass down knowledge with language. They need to be shown to have the ability to work against their instinct. They need to be able to exist simultaneously in multiple social structures like we do (family, job, military, religious congregation, etc.). They need to show that they can modify their environment to suit their needs. These are things that all human cultures have done, to one degree or another. Even our close relatives (again, Neanderthal, Homo floresiensis, etc.) have done many of them. None of these behaviors have been found with regard to wood apes. In short, there is no preponderance of evidence that suggest these animals have any of the attributes commonly associated with human development. So that's my list of what makes humans human. What's yours? And in what way are they found in wood apes? I think you are misrepresenting my position a bit bipto, so maybe this helps. I look at Patty and see upper limb proportions that are marginally longer than modern man. The legs are maybe a bit shorter proportionally (perhaps the femur is shorter) and may contribute to a larger angle of shin rise. The neck is probably obscured by muscle, more than ours. The arm swing is just like ours and this is one attribute that contributes greatly to the humanness of their walk, often reported to be like a cross country skier. The facial features being much like ours, with a hooded nose, actually fits very well with decreased prognathism which shifts the position of the tongue further back in the throat which is directly associated with the ability to produce the quantal vowels heard in the recordings and is an anatomical basis for language. So it's not surprising to hear these in purported bigfoot speech/ chatter etc., and in the long distance calls which is very much a human trait. The other sounds, perhaps a learned technique or on the outer limits maybe laryngeal air sacs are at work. Fahrenbach's analysis of hairs only matches what is found in human head hairs, though I do know that the sample I've worked with did not match his criteria...and still produced only human DNA. The tracks are larger yes, they are reported to be larger, hairy and brutish in nature, unsophisticated and low tech, but the opposite is not required in the purest biological sense. The body and DNA is all science will go by. As you can see Bip, I do allow for some differences between us and them, but the taxonomy only cares where it fits in current theory and on a purely biological phylogenetic basis. It won't be classified and placed on the tree of life without the genetics in this day and age, and scientists have proposed that chimps be placed in the genus homo before based on this. So as I have said, I think they are in the genus homo and perhaps a subspecies of modern man, but I do not think they are homo sapiens sapiens 100%.. maybe that clears things a bit when I say they are human.......meaning member of the genus homo. I can't be anthropomophising when the commonalities are so apparent from so many different angles. 3
Guest Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 I look at Patty and see upper limb proportions that are marginally longer than modern man. The legs are maybe a bit shorter proportionally (perhaps the femur is shorter) and may contribute to a larger angle of shin rise. The neck is probably obscured by muscle, more than ours. The arm swing is just like ours and this is one attribute that contributes greatly to the humanness of their walk, often reported to be like a cross country skier. What about all that hair? The facial features being much like ours, with a hooded nose, actually fits very well with decreased prognathism which shifts the position of the tongue further back in the throat which is directly associated with the ability to produce the quantal vowels heard in the recordings and is an anatomical basis for language. So it's not surprising to hear these in purported bigfoot speech/ chatter etc., and in the long distance calls which is very much a human trait. The other sounds, perhaps a learned technique or on the outer limits maybe laryngeal air sacs are at work. What about that little pointy head? The heavy brow? I'm not disagreeing they're obviously fairly close to humans on the tree of life. But so are orangs and the other great apes. You continue to ignore the salient point I made above: Humanity is not morphology. It's mental. It's bigger than what something looks like, it's how it acts. In what way do wood apes act like humans? Where's their art? Their mythology? The evidence of their technology? Tools? Shelters? Any commonly understood relic of human culture whatsoever? That have nothing humans have. They live like apes. I will reiterate: So that's my list of what makes humans human. What's yours? And in what way are they found in wood apes? You keep doing the math backwards. IMO.
Guest DWA Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 It's just like Leakey said about chimps and tools. If sasquatch are human, our definition of what constitutes "human" will require radical rewriting.
Recommended Posts