• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot, an evolutionary argument for it's non-existence.

Drewbot

Philosopher
Drewbot
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
7,719
We have tried to show that Bigfoot does not exist, but, because of the difficulty of convincing believers that that the existence of the beast is absurd, based on lack of evidence, I think it should be attacked based on evidence that does exist

For example, evolution does not seem to promote the existence of large bipedal or terrestrial mammals. Is there a record of large bipedal mammals somewhere?
some large dinosaurs werw bipedal, however, were their bones more birdlike and lighter? Could a ten foot tall, 600lb biped maintain its need for locomotion long enough to reproduce?

Is bipedal, gigantic, mammal, an impossible evolutionary success story?
 
FWIW, these are bipedal dinosaurs. The leg bones are hollow. Spinosaurus may have weighed 12,000 lbs.
 

Attachments

  • 800px-Largesttheropods.jpg
    800px-Largesttheropods.jpg
    15.8 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
Drew
U should read the Why Don't They Kill Us thread and realize the nature of the beliefs and the things that footers accept as evidence of bigfoot. Camera starts and stops and elbow reach are no more or less silly than the rest. There are quite literally no arguments that will affect the beliefs of the committed at the BFF. As long as there is money to be made at book signings and tv shows by the charlatans the cult will persist.
 
dinosaur evolution does not factor in this, 1. they have hollow birdlike bones, 2. the bipedalism of bigfoot is humanlike "Just like you or I" is how they run. humanlike bipedalism was developed on the plains of Africa for long distance movement, dinosaur bipedalism is different, the hips are located laterally of the body, not directly under the body.

Have we found an ancient giant bipedal humanoid in Africa? Is the trend of humans getting larger because of lack of evolutionary pressures keeping us small? Bigfoot doesnt get to buy food at the market, it has to run down its food under all sorts of conditions detrimental to its overladen joints.
 
Very large human beings have terrible physical problems. "Giants" invariably have short lifespans and are often almost crippled by adulthood. Even healthy large human still have problems with joints, especially knees and hips.
Gorillas get quite large, often in excess of 600 pounds...But they are not bipedal and spend a lot of time either sitting and munching plant foods or walking short distances on all fours.

The idea of a very large bipedal and humanoid creature being "successful" is pretty much of a stretch. One book I read long ago speculated on such a creature's food source. Without weapons, it wouldn't be much of a hunter, and it would have to eat a lot of plant foods to maintain that body size... The dense forests of the North and Northwest might provide adequate cover and habitat...But what would they eat that didn't leave signs?
 
I haven't followed the bigfoot threads, so I'm curious to know whether a good reason has been presented as to why a large primate(?) living in dense forest or wooded mountainside would be bipedal?

Bipedalism is normally associated with the need for speed, as in hunting - which also implies a more savannah-like enviroment and a relatively slim, lightweight body form. The known large forest-dwelling primates are generally relatively slow moving herbivores, not built for bipedal motion. What ecological niche would a bigfoot fill?
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Could a ten foot tall, 600lb biped maintain its need for locomotion long enough to reproduce? Is bipedal, gigantic, mammal, an impossible evolutionary success story?...

Have we found an ancient giant bipedal humanoid in Africa? Is the trend of humans getting larger because of lack of evolutionary pressures keeping us small? Bigfoot doesnt get to buy food at the market, it has to run down its food under all sorts of conditions detrimental to its overladen joints.
Click to expand...


Somebody might argue that you've created a strawman argument by going too far with your hypothetical Bigfoot.

Grover Krantz proposed that Bigfoot is "our closest living relative" and that its height is typically 7' to 8'. I don't know how you'd argue that that would be an "impossible evolutionary success story".
 
dlorde said:
I haven't followed the bigfoot threads, so I'm curious to know whether a good reason has been presented as to why a large primate(?) living in dense forest or wooded mountainside would be bipedal?

Bipedalism is normally associated with the need for speed, as in hunting - which also implies a more savannah-like enviroment and a relatively slim, lightweight body form. The known large forest-dwelling primates are generally relatively slow moving herbivores, not built for bipedal motion. What ecological niche would a bigfoot fill?
Click to expand...


Bigfootery has already been inhabited by degreed anthropologists who are/were believers. They created various evolution stories that don't break obvious "rules" or require impossibilities, so to speak.

Bigfoot would have an "Out of Africa" story and would have walked bipedally across the Bering land bridge to arrive in North America. Bigfoot represents the omnivorous bipedal great ape (or hominoid if you prefer) that is adapted for rugged forests and the ecological environment found there.
 
William Parcher said:
Bigfoot would have an "Out of Africa" story and would have walked bipedally across the Bering land bridge to arrive in North America. Bigfoot represents the omnivorous bipedal great ape (or hominoid if you prefer) that is adapted for rugged forests and the ecological environment found there.
Click to expand...
Adapted how? presumably they were omnivores that have become herbivores?

I don't want to go too deep into this, I just want to get an idea of current informed thinking along these lines.
 
dlorde said:
Adapted how? presumably they were omnivores that have become herbivores?
Click to expand...


I think more folks would propose that they remain as opportunistic omnivores. Maybe occupying a niche like a bipedal bear with grasping hands and apelike intelligence. Adapted to move about in rugged forests and nearby zones and possibly with seasonal movements.
 
For myself, what is most unrealistic about the Bigfoot situation is that we don't have a specimen or even a piece of one after many centuries of "European people" exploring and inhabiting North America. It's unrealistic that we didn't acquire multiple specimens in the 19th Century, let alone the 20th.
 
William Parcher said:
For myself, what is most unrealistic about the Bigfoot situation is that we don't have a specimen or even a piece of one after many centuries of "European people" exploring and inhabiting North America. It's unrealistic that we didn't acquire multiple specimens in the 19th Century, let alone the 20th.
Click to expand...

Yes, however, they wont listen to that reasoning. Perhaps an evolutionary reason for its non existence would be more easily recieved.
 
Wow, I didn't realize that the Bigfoot enthusiasts were arguing for 7' to 8'. That's HUGE! I mean, even if we assumed that the musculature was more like humans than apes (that is, a much lighter muscular structure) such a creature would weigh over 200lbs at the very least. Probably more like 300lbs. As others have already stated "What the heck do they feed those things?!"

From an evolutionary standpoint I would argue that unless you are a tool using species the human form of bipedal locomotion (fully upright without a balancing tail) is terrible. It's only real function is to be able to see long distances and to carry objects while traveling long distances. Since no one has claimed that Bigfoots are serious tool users (and something that big doesn't need to be a tool user) I see no evolutionary reason why they would be bipeds.
 
Parcher = bingo.

First, if there was such a thing as bigfoot, one of the few things that could be definitively known about them is that they'd be much smaller than the tall tales make them out to be. Shaquille O'Neal is my model for the proportions of a hypothetical, adult, male bigfoot. Females and juveniles would be smaller. So I see no evolutionary obstacle for something like a bigfoot to have evolved.

Second, diet and habitat would have to be far more varied than "herbivorous" and "Pacific Northwest forests." Bigfoots would have to have been adaptable enough for generations of them to disperse through Beringia's tundra and grasslands before settling into the current North American distribution with a niche breadth reported to be wider than that for black bear.

So no, I don't see any reason there can't be bigfoot, there just isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom