southernyahoo Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) . . . And if you took a moment to look up the source of that story, it's about a family in Turkey. The reasons for the odd gait are complex, but a neurological condition that affects balance when they attempt to walk bipedally plays a big role. So, unlike bigfoot, they don't seamlessly switch between 2X4 and 4X4 mode. You may feel free to find some other group of humans (perhaps circus performers) who can do that and draw some other strange link to bigfoot. Saskeptic, Your argument has been doing the switching. It 's gone from this.. A personal favorite of mine, 4X4 mode, is clearly out the window with a human bigfoot. Which implied no seemless switching. So, unlike bigfoot, they don't seamlessly switch between 2X4 and 4X4 mode. to switching , then it needed to be faster than bipedal, for it all to make sense. I guess you missed my Youtube link, the guy goes pretty fast on all fours. It doesn't have to be about speed, ....though I bet it can be faster in thick brush and it could help keep a lower profile in the open. Edited November 13, 2011 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Saskeptic, Your argument has been doing the switching. It 's gone from this.. Which implied no seemless switching. It did? What did you think I meant, that bigfoots have to stop and spin the little knob on their hubcaps when they want to go back to bipedal locomotion? to switching , then it needed to be faster than bipedal, for it all to make sense. I guess you missed my Youtube link, the guy goes pretty fast on all fours. It doesn't have to be about speed, ....though I bet it can be faster in thick brush and it could help keep a lower profile in the open. I don't need to see your YouTube link of a guy who's very fast moving on all fours: I believe that such people exist. They are, however, anomalies. If humans were designed to run on all fours, that's how we train our boys to run the bases in Little League. (In fact, we wouldn't need to train them to do it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Parn, "human" is the adjective for the noun "homo". Wouldn't you call Neanderthals human? You will find that no one involved with the study has claimed that the nuDNA was homo sapiens. In fact, to the contrary, there have been allusions that the nuDNA brought in quite different results than the mtDNA (which was ancient sapiens). I didnt say that humans are not homos. But using the term "Homo" implies that the DNA they have is some member of the genus other than modern human. The DNA is Modern human. Its not neanderthal or some other homo. That is why it is misleading. There is no reason to use the broader term when it implies something that isn't true, unless you are trying to deceive. Please read Paulides' posts and Stubstad's site (with tbe diagram) and I would suggest you not insult the intelligence of the members by suggesting that these two are talking about Neanderthals or neanderthal DNA. They are talking about modern humans (Native Americans) and modern DNA. Of course, you are free to do whatever you like. For instance, I actually watched part of a political debate the other night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (Pardon me thread, but I thought this needed to be addressed.) Yes, and back in high school when I jumped out of the block at the starter's pistol my forelimbs never touched the ground again. If they had, it would mean that I had fallen down and I was free to wince on the ground and watch the backs of the other sprinters many lengths ahead of me in an instant. If you would like to consider jumping out of the starter's block to equate to running on all fours, be my guest. Perhaps we'll tune into an NFL game this afternoon and see the receivers running down the field on all fours before jumping up into the slower bipedal mode after they've blown past their defenders, but I doubt it . . . Enjoying another incredible week on the BFF, in which I've been challenged by more than one poster about my opinion that humans run faster on two legs than on four. Calgon, take me away! So far in the Ravens-Seahawks game I've seen no bipedal receivers.That doesn't mean that the quickest way to go from a dead stop isn't to launch in 4x4 mode as sprinters do. For all I know, bigfoot might make a couple "strides" (or cycles, whatever term describes 4x4 locomotion actions) to get up to the speed where changing to bipedal locomotion is initiated. A different species may well have a different pattern to accelerate to top speed. To make definitive statements regarding this seems ill advised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 It did? What did you think I meant, that bigfoots have to stop and spin the little knob on their hubcaps when they want to go back to bipedal locomotion? No , I don't think humans have to either, which is evident in the video. I don't need to see your YouTube link of a guy who's very fast moving on all fours: I believe that such people exist. They are, however, anomalies. If humans were designed to run on all fours, that's how we train our boys to run the bases in Little League. (In fact, we wouldn't need to train them to do it.) It doesn't look that hard, It"s more likely just as much a matter of practice and fitness as it is about biomechanical function or limitation, which makes it somewhat behavioral. If you believe such people can do this, how does it negate the possibility that BF could be human or from the genus homo? I'm not arguing that our adaptations don't favor bipedal locomotion, It's just not limited to it. You know, Bigfoot could have alot more four legged influence in their lives than we do, and there is one thing we know about young humans, they mimic the world around them and develope similar habits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 You need to remember that sprinters have "starting blocks" that they put their feet into. I am not sure a sprint from all fours would be ideal if one is starting on a flat surface. bf has longer arms than human and that would change the physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Not to mention that once you start having to make allowances for a difference in behaviors,locomotions....etc The more likely you are describing a unique species... Animals who have sprung off of a central animal (for example Darwin's Finches) tend to have only one or two specific adaptations that can be directly traced to their environment/food sources...etc It would seem unlikely that a human would run on all fours if Bigfoot is indeed human. I tend to think that there may be some relation, but I doubt it's any more recent than a few hundred thousand years if that. In other words, i can't see how human DNA (and I mean modern human DNA) could possibly explain Sasquatch. It just doesn't "feel" right based on some of the other stuff. I could see a "splinter" species that's related to Australopithecus or one of the Neanderthal types that retained it's fur and size to survive the harsh winters of Canada and the PNW. But it would seem that this would show in the DNA. But I don't completely know exactly how the taxonomy works with DNA... so I'm just pulling this out of my ...AHEM!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) I didnt say that humans are not homos. But using the term "Homo" implies that the DNA they have is some member of the genus other than modern human. The DNA is Modern human. Its not neanderthal or some other homo. That is why it is misleading. There is no reason to use the broader term when it implies something that isn't true, unless you are trying to deceive. Please read Paulides' posts and Stubstad's site (with tbe diagram) and I would suggest you not insult the intelligence of the members by suggesting that these two are talking about Neanderthals or neanderthal DNA. They are talking about modern humans (Native Americans) and modern DNA. Of course, you are free to do whatever you like. For instance, I actually watched part of a political debate the other night. Both Native and non-Native American's and any other human races have modern? We, none of us, including BF, have neanderthals' DNA? BF and humans have similar DNA, or exact DNA? HTG, Hubby will never believe this! He already thinks that we are all a whole lot of loony tunes here, me included. I tried explaining the groups and the education, he just looked up at the ceiling, looked at me with my hands on my hips confronting him, and said: "Oh, Really", and left for church. Hubby is smart also and well educated.. He deals daily with complex human illnesses and identifies problems and is well respected. This is going to cause him problems, not with his or my faith, just everything else. But he just cannot grasp this. Seriously, is this how everyone else is going to react? Will it easier for people like me who are familiar with this issue? Edited November 14, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Well Susi, if it comes back modern Human (and there's nothing specific to differentiate it from you or me) then the community will just say that it's just a load of malarky and that will be the end of it. No one will believe it's all modern human DNA yet also a sasquatch. They will think it's all just people making stuff up (in fact a result that comes back modern human and is only different on an individual basis from you or me is not really evidence....) It will look and sound very bad. (regardless of the validity of the findings) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 You need to remember that sprinters have "starting blocks" that they put their feet into. I am not sure a sprint from all fours would be ideal if one is starting on a flat surface. bf has longer arms than human and that would change the physics. Right, I don't discount the reports that say the arms are longer, or appear longer. I think bigfoot has been in it's niche long enough to have some divergence, I just wouldn't rule out it having DNA from our lineage because of it. I don't know about anyone else, but when I look at this guy, I say he could have alot of human DNA in him, considering that chimps are like 95% alignable with humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 So far in the Ravens-Seahawks game I've seen no bipedal receivers. Zoinks! . . . A different species may well have a different pattern to accelerate to top speed. Of course, but if so that different species is not human, i.e., it should not be placed with us in the genus Homo. That genus is defined by its structural modifications to accommodate bipedalism as much as its enhanced cranial capacity. We members of that genus have rigid, arched feet, a unique hip structure, larger and more robust hindlimbs than forelimbs, the foramen magnum placed directly beneath the skull, etc. Our gross skeletal morphology has been modified for bipedal walking and running. If bigfoot is so close to us that its DNA indicates it should be considered a subspecies of Homo sapiens (if I read that right today), then that DNA does not square with an animal with a skeleton that must be quite different than our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Well Susi, if it comes back modern Human (and there's nothing specific to differentiate it from you or me) then the community will just say that it's just a load of malarky and that will be the end of it. No one will believe it's all modern human DNA yet also a sasquatch. They will think it's all just people making stuff up (in fact a result that comes back modern human and is only different on an individual basis from you or me is not really evidence....) It will look and sound very bad. (regardless of the validity of the findings) Thank you my friend...The cards will fall where they will fall. The scientists will hopefully explain this *much* better than I am able to do. Yikes, We're going to see more attention on this issue of BF's DNA than I had thought would happen with this type of reality. I thought that just verifying them would be enough excitment, now this DNA curve ball...Yikes Twice!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Which is why I can't believe that IF Ketchum's samples were valid and IF they weren't contaminated and IF they were really taken from various Sasquatches known or unknown that the result would be modern human. It would seem to me to maybe be a relative, but it couldn't possibly match us 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 I never stated bigfoot deserves to be classified in the genus homo. While I don't dismiss the 4x4 reports out of hand, those reports don't preclude a distinct subspecies somewhere in the homo woodpile. The opening post just asked what if the DNA evidence is convincing to define it as a stable type, would that prove existence? I guess we will know soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 The DNA is Modern human. Its not neanderthal or some other homo. That is why it is misleading. Stubstad's site says that the mtDNA is human but related to and divergent from a population that has never left Africa. He implies that the nuDNA he saw shows something VERY different. It's misleading to reference the part you agree with and ignore the part that doesn't suit your personal opinion. I've tried to wade through Paulides' site and it seems his religious beliefs and previous publications lend him to state that "bigfoot" are another race of human that have lived side-by-side with the Native American populations in North American and have occasionally interbred. I like his method but his conclusions don't seem "conclusive" to me. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts