Look at the cast of the Mountain Gorilla foot. Small changes.
Look at the comparsion below and tell me if those are "small changes"...
They don't look human. They're a third wider, the toes are proportionately longer, the heel is elongated and wider, there's no arch, and where there is dermal ridge detail, it isn't a match for humans or any known ape.
Oh, they don't look human?
To me, they look much more similar to humans than to gorillas, chimps and australopithecines. Toe shape (specially the big toe) and relative lenght are much more similar to what can be seen at the feet from humans tha at the feet of gorillas. Same is valid for the rest of the foot.
But you might be correct, superposed bear prints and prints of fakefeet are not really a match for humans or known apes...
None have been shown here so far.
There have been hoaxes. Even the method is known. In one, a tenager put feet on backwards and ran down a hill. The shape gave him away. In another college students carved prints, cast them and impressed the resulting casts in soil for 16 prints. Ingenious, but transparent. In a more recent case in Pennsylvania, there was evidence of much beer drinking. They had the number of toes wrong on some of the prints they'd made by sculpting them into the soil.
Those are the only known hoaxes?
You think all possible hoaxing methods are known?
Perhaps you are being a bit too bold here...
Both. Gorillas have been evolving too.
Gorillas are evolving, of course.
But first demonstrate bigfeet are real, than we can say they have been evolving. Of course, the bigfoot mythos and lore evolve...
There would be no reason to lose it in the mountainous regions of China, and none in crossing the land bridge. The largest population in the US seems to be in the Cascades. Those are mountains.
Georgia is flatter and so is Ohio, but still swampy or forested. Aside from not possessing the genetics to build a rigid arch, a heavy animal wouldn't find such an arch very usefull on any terrain.
First, how can you say they don't have the genetics to buil a rigid arch? Do you know the genes that are responsible for it in primates? Has bigfoot's DNA been obtained and decoded?
Second, assuming they evolved in Asia, mountainous regions are a small part of it. And don't forget that even in mountainous regions, only a small part of the terrain is rugged enough to justify such adaptation.
Even assuming
Gigantopithecus are indeed bigfeet, I am not aware of any evidence that they lived only in mountainous terrains.
Flatfooted humans walk quite well, by the way.
So what?
Gracile Australopithecines.
Do we have feet for much other than the gracile Australopithecines? They were smaller than humans.
My toes are nothing like theirs... Neither are the toes seen at alleged bigfoot tracks...
What known large bipedal apes were you talking about?
What genus of large bipedal apes you know?
Hint: The members of one of the species use a tool called internet to debate, information exchange and storage, fun, work, etc.
Oh, yes... But what influences which specific mutation "types" will be passed to the next generations?
In an article on a possible Orangutan ancestor found in Thailand, it mentions fossil apes weren't adapted to an arboreal lifestyle. I'm having search engine problems, but I'll post it when I can search without disconnecting. There's been a discovery since then of a possible common ancestor that seem to have been arboreal, but the midtarsal break may have evolved in ground-dwellers.
AFAIK, the bipedal extinct apes were at least semi arboricolal.
And since flexible feet do not provide an advantage to ground-dwellers...
I can produce the link, but I need time to do the search. I'm surprised you don't seem to remember it. I'll never forget it.
I'm not trying to ridicule you, but I do think you sometimes get a little carried away.
Assuming I wrote it, why you'll never forget it?
BTW, whenever you find the quote -if it actually exist- please provide the propper context.
On an OT digression, "top-of-the-food-chain" species are actually more prone to experience problems with chemical polution. The bald eagle is an example.
http://www.usflag.org/baldeagle.html
http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle11.html
Aniway, one thing is to say species that have elevated "status" in the food network
may suffer from pollution, but to say the the species
should die by pollution is completely different.
I think maybe you got a little carried away...
Not imaginative at all. The pro side has the evidence. About all the opposition can do is reiterate variations on "Looks like a suit/fake foot/elk lay to me".
That was a major understatement.
If the evidence is as good as you claim, we would not be discussing its quality here. Neither you would have such a difficult time attempting to counter the reasonings we present.
Mountain Gorilla's are more terrestial and their feet are already showing changes. What's so imaginative about that?
And still their feet are very different from ours... Because they still spend a lot of times at trees... We don't.
We share about 99% DNA with Chimpanzees, but look how much difference is in that 1%. Our feet are really different.
Check RayG's post.
You mean Freeman? Marx? What about Tollgate, Ore.? Those people had no connection with Paul Freeman at all, yet a cast they took is like the print in Freeman 1994.
Marx certainly, and Freeman possibly resorted to some fakery when interest waned. Stupid, but that does not negate the value of evidence both brough in. (I disagree with John Green on that. But throwing out all their evidence doesn't hurt the case much.
To "produce" evidence to "warm up" things is unethical and puts every piece of "evidence" the are involved in quarentine.
I've seen similar arguments from UFO and paranormal folks when their psychics or contactees are caught with their pants down. And some UFOlogists and paranormalists still insist "the rest of the evidence the produced should not be dumped just because it was proved some evidence was hoaxed".
Naïve reasoning. Or dishonest.
Again: if there's a suspect of fraud, drop the evidence, or at least put it in to quarentine.
Cliff Crook's assessment of the Skookum Cast, sight unseen, was good enough for Daegling. Crook's a known hoaxer.
Is it okay when sceptics do it?
Check RayG's post.
