The Echo Incident

[norseman]

If we are going to classify chimpanzees in the genus homo? Then obviously a squatch should be welcomed with open arms!!! I don't agree with this assessment but whatever.

Breeding is the holy grail of species. They know that Neanderthals bred with humans . They also know that the hybrid was a stretch in evolutionary terms. Both species were far enough removed that they were almost incompatable.

Viewing Patty whom I view as a real entity is farther......much farther from humanity than a Neanderthal.

The Sierra sounds maybe a undescribed species or it may be uncle bob in the bushes.

Anyhow what if we shot a homo Erectus today? Or a austropethicus today? What would the scientific community do with such a discovery?

[JDL]

What exactly is the criteria for classification as genus Homo?

[Guest]

If we are going to classify chimpanzees in the genus homo? 

 

That's kinda of my point right there. If wood apes are "human" so are chimps and gorillas and orangutans. Hell, maybe even dolphins and whales. 

What exactly is the criteria for classification as genus Homo?

 

According to the Wikipedia:

 

 

 

The most salient physiological development between the earlier australopith species and Homo is the increase in cranial capacity, from about 450 cm³ (27 cu in) in A. garhi to 600 cm³ (37 cu in) in H. habilis. Within the Homo genus, cranial capacity again doubled from H. habilis through Homo ergaster or H. erectus to Homo heidelbergensis by 0.6 million years ago. The cranial capacity of H. heidelbergensis overlaps with the range found in modern humans.

 

Note that Patty's head is quite small for a body her size (when compared to human norms). 

It goes on to say:

 

 

 

The advent of Homo was thought to coincide with the first evidence of stone tools (the Oldowan industry), and thus by definition with the beginning of the Lower Palaeolithic; however, recent evidence from Ethiopia now places the earliest evidence of stone tool usage at before 3.39 million years ago.^[5] The emergence of Homo coincides roughly with the onset ofQuaternary glaciation, the beginning of the current ice age.

I've never seen a bigfoot flint axe. 

[norseman]

^^^^^^

To be Homo one needs to have "stuff". We have been packing stuff around for over a million years.

Where is the evidence that squatch has stuff?

It's not human, think about it, if it was a human? It would be competing with humans for resources.

How does a human survive without human acoutraments? I think this is what proponents of human like species need to prove .

[MIB]

What exactly is the criteria for classification as genus Homo?

 

Arbitrary it seems.

 

I would think really hard about the number of chromosome pairs.   We have 23 pairs, 46 total.   Chimps and gorillas have 24 pairs, 48 total.   That's one of the reasons we're not genetically compatible with them.   If BF turns out to have 23 pairs they're almost certainly vastly closer to us than any currently known primate is.   On the other hand, that would make their DNA very much tougher to distinguish from human contamination.  

 

MIB

[southernyahoo]

 

Humanity is not morphology. It's mental. 

 

 

I think this is just plain wrong, how could taxonomy assume anything from an absence of something demonstrable in a dead specimen? 

[Guest]

You're dancing all around my point but pretending like you're rebutting it. Wood apes, along with every other animal on the planet, have none of the base characteristics that define the human experience. Zero. They are not in any shape, way, or form human. No matter how badly you'd like them to be. 

 

You guys have a nice time, now. I'm heading to Disneyland. 

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I must agree with Bipto in the current line of reasoning, Sasquatch would not be an entirely obscure specie if they matched our

capacities to any extent.  Just from the cultural standpoint alone we know they do not exhibit behaviors most often associated

with our ancestors, such as tool making, use of fire, ect.. I know that they may have some type of proto language but that is not

really all that unique in the world of intelligent mammals.  I am not making this argument based on anything than the obvious observations

of their behavior.  Meldrum and Bindernagel have lumped them in with the group of hominiods that were precursers to our more

modern ancestors, such as neanderthal.  I think the gigantipithicus notion would preclude an advanced mental state such as found

in the other homo groups that created art and advanced tool use, and used fire.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot

[southernyahoo]

You're dancing all around my point but pretending like you're rebutting it. Wood apes, along with every other animal on the planet, have none of the base characteristics that define the human experience. Zero. They are not in any shape, way, or form human. No matter how badly you'd like them to be. 

 

You guys have a nice time, now. I'm heading to Disneyland. 

 

speech is a wholey human capacity and it's evident in many accounts of bigfoot, You are ignoring that and dismissing it by citing it's not proven, well neither is anything else in your own subjective pile of circumstantial evidence. You just see what "you" want in spite of what the evidence clearly demonstrates.

[Guest DWA]

Speech is not present in the human sense of a means of sound communication sending complex messages through a sophisticated facial architecture.  Or whatever big words they use.

 

"Jibberish," which is the closest I've read to it having any meaning, isn't speech.

 

Nothing bipto's talking about is proven, but all of it is observed and the observations taken at face value.

 

Speech is a huge leap.  From, um, what?

[dmaker]

DWA, in this thread you said that  "Parrots can speak English." Yet, any reports of language by bigfoot you call jibberish. Surely you understand that parrots are not truly speaking English, they are only mimics? I would imagine that if bigfoots exist and there is any validity to the language reports that what people are reporting is either on a par with parrot mimicry or maybe even closer to actual language. 

[Guest DWA]

Parrots use actual English words.  I haven't read any reports of a bigfoot asking the witness whether the 5:15 has been by yet, whether mimicry or actual inquiry.

Sorry, speech is something we're just not talking about at this stage.  Some interesting sounds, sure.  But not speech.

[dmaker]

Some people are talking about it. Do you dismiss their claims?

[Ike]

speech is a wholey human capacity and it's evident in many accounts of bigfoot, You are ignoring that and dismissing it by citing it's not proven, well neither is anything else in your own subjective pile of circumstantial evidence. You just see what "you" want in spite of what the evidence clearly demonstrates.

Not true at all. According to the American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association:

Language is different from speech.

Language is made up of socially shared rules that include the following:

-- What words mean (e.g., "star" can refer to a bright object in the night sky or a celebrity)

-- How to make new words (e.g., friend, friendly, unfriendly)

-- How to put words together (e.g., "Peg walked to the new store" rather than "Peg walk store new")

-- What word combinations are best in what situations ("Would you mind moving your foot?" could quickly change to "Get off my foot, please!" if the first request did not produce results)

Speech is the verbal means of communicating. Speech consists of the following:

Articulation

-- How speech sounds are made (e.g., children must learn how to produce the "r" sound in order to say "rabbit" instead of "wabbit").

Voice

Use of the vocal folds and breathing to produce sound (e.g., the voice can be abused from overuse or misuse and can lead to hoarseness or loss of voice).

Fluency

The rhythm of speech (e.g., hesitations or stuttering can affect fluency)

Using these definitions, all animal life has some sort of "speech" capability. Language however, is a whole different matter. To date, only humans have demonstrated the ability to create, write, organize, and develop rules for a true language. I have no doubt that if BF exists, then it has the ability to vocalize speech and communicate in a primitive, instinctual fashion as do all other animals. To claim that BF have "language" though? There is no proof of that, and yes, I am familiar with Scott Nelson and his work with the Sierra Sounds. The problem there is, he is a solitary "expert" that has only found indicators of possible language. Nothing definitive. On top of that, I take no stock in a solitary mans assertions with no other "experts" to back him up. You can find a "rent-an-expert-witness" on almost any topic, just spend some time around a major urban courthouse. How about getting some other linguists on board, or some primatologists who have studied ape speech? Then you might be able to make your case that BF has "language."

[Cotter]

DWA, in this thread you said that  "Parrots can speak English." Yet, any reports of language by bigfoot you call jibberish. Surely you understand that parrots are not truly speaking English, they are only mimics? I would imagine that if bigfoots exist and there is any validity to the language reports that what people are reporting is either on a par with parrot mimicry or maybe even closer to actual language. 

 

HOLY COW!  Plus for dmaker for responding to a post and using the words 'if bigfoot exists', then offering a hypothesis based on the 'what if'.

Good job!! Never dreamt I'd see the day!!  

:-)