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

William Parcher said:
You are making an argument that is logically weak. You are saying that anything that could happen would have already happened. All possible animals will already exist as real animals with no potential for change over time.

If you look at prehistory you will see a time when therapod dinosaurs (bipeds) exist in variety but none are gigantic like Tyrannosaurus or Spinosaurus. If you Drew, existed at that time, you would say that T. rex can't exist because it isn't already on the scene. You would be right about it not existing at that time, but your argument goes further to say that nature simply can't make one. That there is something inherent about "therapods or therapodism" that prevents gigantic size.

Somebody could even argue that Bigfoot's size is sexually selected.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is the excellent argument of having a niche of prey. Bigger carnivores evolved back then, because there were big juicy animals to eat that the smaller predators couldn't tackle effectively.

But therapods are actually a pretty good example of what's wrong with bigfoot. E.g., since the arms weren't used for tools or hunting or living in trees, the most advantageous configuration was for them to to evolve towards comically small sizes, and with very resticted mobility too, so as not to add useless weight. Meanwhile they got some pretty nasty claws on their feet, so they could bring those massive leg muscles to bear offensively, in addition to the very nasty bite. They didn't evolve into a Bigfoot configuration that maintains some big arms just as natural weapons, while having some big legs only for locomotion. But even the foot configuration for theropods was very different from a human foot. It was the high heel configuration you see on a cat or dog for example, rather than a heel you actually step on like in those bigfoot footprints. It's a configuration that's more advantageous for speed, for something whose only way to catch prey involves actually chasing it.

So, yes, therapods existed, but they were a completely different body configuration that a scaled-up human. That's kinda the point.
 
William Parcher said:
IMO, the big problem is that we have no form of specimen after over 400 years. I think it's a fatal problem for Bigfootery. It is what gives confidence to the position that Bigfoot does not exist.
Click to expand...
yes Parcher, we know this, this thread is about evolutionary arguments against the existence of a Giant Hairy Bipedal Mammal. It is not about "what is your favorite reason Bigfoot doesn't exist."


Parcher said:
If you look at prehistory you will see a time when therapod dinosaurs (bipeds) exist in variety but none are gigantic like Tyrannosaurus or Spinosaurus. If you Drew, existed at that time, you would say that T. rex can't exist because it isn't already on the scene. You would be right about it not existing at that time, but your argument goes further to say that nature simply can't make one. That there is something inherent about "therapods or therapodism" that prevents gigantic size.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that I am saying Bigfoot could not exist in the future?
I am not saying that, I am saying that because of evolutionary limits, Large Bipedal Mammals do not exist, and have not existed in the past. Now, let's say that someone unearthed a fossil of a large, hairy mammal that was bipedal, then I would say that a large bipedal animal could, or did exist.

Perhaps in future-world, they could exist. But they don't now, and they haven't in the past.

I'm not saying nature couldn't make one. But it would be a poor design in todays world. Unlike the T. Rex, which lived on the earth for 20 Million years.
 
HansMustermann said:
And humans survived and were good at hunting because they used tools too. You can't pummel a deer to death with your fists...

The same goes for natural weapons. Chimps can tear prey apart with those arms, because they're arms selected for use for locomotion in trees. But then they also have the feet for that. Bigfoot doesn't...

So, really, how would bigfoot hunt? Why would their selection have favoured a configuration which isn't particularly suited for either trees or ground level, yet doesn't have the tools and stuff to need those arms free for? If nature keeps them having arms strong enough to tear prey apart without tools or pummel a deer to death, then they're arms suited for living in trees.
Click to expand...


The predatory behavior of Bigfoot might be like chimpanzees and bears. They favor smaller animals and the young of larger animals. Preying on healthy adult deer and other larger ungulates might be rather rare because its just too difficult.

The method of killing could be almost identical to that of chimpanzees. Their most useful "tool" for killing is their bite. The most common prey species is the red colobus monkey. Chimps pursue these in the trees, grab them and bite the head and/or neck. They can also grab and smash them against branches. Pulling monkeys apart with the immensely strong hands and arms would generally be done after the dispatching bite.

The biggest animals that chimps naturally kill are probably other chimps. They have been known to cannibalize but this is generally preying on juveniles. Chimps don't kill other adult chimps by punching, smashing or pulling apart. They do it by biting.

One could imagine a Bigfoot using its bite to kill larger prey animals. The hands and arms are used to capture and hold the animal while massive powerful bites are applied to the head and/or neck. You would need to imagine teeth, jaws and muscles that are adapted differently than for modern humans. This can be seen in other great apes. But it's really the chimpanzee that is engaging in active predation as opposed to gorillas, orangutans and gibbons.

The craniocervical killing bite: Toward an ethology of primate predatory behavior.

It is argued that systematic ethological study of primate predatory behavior, neglected to date, is possible and potentially valuable. The point is made through an investigation of a particular predatory motor pattern. The craniocervical bite is a killing bite directed toward the head and/or neck of the prey. It is widespread among a variety of predatory mammals. Evidence is presented that a similar pattern is widespread among the primates.
Click to expand...

Among the primates, it isn't just the chimpanzee that kills by biting.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Then what good is your argument?
Click to expand...

Because I can't predict what evolutionary pressures will happen in the future.

I can foresee humans getting larger and larger, due to the reduced amount of physical stress in obtaining neccessities.

However, bigfoot supposedly eats deer, and doesn't have Kraft Dinners, so it's large body type would be a detriment to it's existence.

Bipeds don't sneak up on deer and pistol whip them, so unless deer or other prey comes into existence that doesn't require physical stress to acquire, large size is not going to benefit a biped, in a physically demanding environment.
 
William Parcher said:
IMO, the big problem is that we have no form of specimen after over 400 years. I think it's a fatal problem for Bigfootery. It is what gives confidence to the position that Bigfoot does not exist.
Click to expand...

Also given that we've finally photographed the giant squid amid its elusiveness in the world's oceans, the above is a pretty good reason.
 
One of the advantages of a carnivore being quadrupedal, is that it's soft vital regions are protected underneath it's body. It does not expose them in a face-off with a cornered oryx, or a warthog.

By become upright tool users, we offered our undersides to our prey, if they could get close enough to us to harm us. The advantage of the tool usage outweighed the danger of being run through the guts by a food source. The advantage of tool use, was so great, that our hips became poorly designed for childbearing, the advantages of tool use overcame this problem as well.

Now we have a Bigfoot, which strides around in low population densities, it's guts exposed to a cornered elk or deer, with no tools to keep the creature at bay, and it can overcome the poor birth canal design of the biped. It does not compute.
 
Drewbot said:
One of the advantages of a carnivore being quadrupedal, is that it's soft vital regions are protected underneath it's body. It does not expose them in a face-off with a cornered oryx, or a warthog...

...it's guts exposed to a cornered elk or deer, with no tools to keep the creature at bay...
Click to expand...


Quadrupedal predators break off their attack or change strategy when a formidible prey animal faces them. They come from behind or the side.
 
The Shrike said:
What proportions? 10' tall and 1000 lbs? If that's the case, I'm with you. 7' tall and 300 lbs? That's not an evolutionary obstacle at all.

Footers have two outs here: One is Gigantopithecus, an ape that some think may have been bipedal and was significantly larger than modern gorillas. If bigfoot is an ape, Giganto is the hypothetical ancestor.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. As from a post of mine back in Nov 2008.
First and foremost of the scientific data against the probability of BF existing is the lack of an adequate ancestor for such an animal to have evolved and there is nothing in the fossil record of a large hominid ever existing on the Americas. Further, there is no scientific evidence for a large hominid ever migrating to the Americas.
​
That was the case then and, as far as I am aware, still the case now.

Certainly not pro-footers have ever found any evidence to dispute the fact that there are no large primate, let alone hominid fossils, found on the North American continent.
 
dafydd says "It is flawed because there is no such thing as a bigfoot."

And you've studied and researched this topic to reach such a conclusion, or just because you don't "believe" what you don't want to believe?

The latent print examiner I talked to worked with Grover Krantz. And because of responses like dafydd, I am not at liberty to give out his name, since I have not talked to him recently about this. I have not read Gover Krantz's books, but I have seen the physical evidence and talked to the latent print examiner about it.

Now, if you totally discard Grover Krantz's evidence, then, well, I'm not going to convince you any better.
 
William Parcher says: the big problem is that we have no form of specimen after over 400 years.

I would agree with this, although I'd compress the time period to about 200 years. Before that, the scary stories of a large hairy beast were not ones where people would go out and search for evidence. Over the last 200 years, as scientific exploration expanded, then there was interest in these beasts. Footprints, markings on trees, and still more stories continued. More scientists were willing to search over the last 50 years in a more rigorous environment. The best evidence is still the footprints.

And if we know where some of these things live, I agree that we SHOULD be able to get better physical evidence.
 
OldBlueMoon said:
dafydd says "It is flawed because there is no such thing as a bigfoot."

And you've studied and researched this topic to reach such a conclusion, or just because you don't "believe" what you don't want to believe?

The latent print examiner I talked to worked with Grover Krantz. And because of responses like dafydd, I am not at liberty to give out his name, since I have not talked to him recently about this. I have not read Gover Krantz's books, but I have seen the physical evidence and talked to the latent print examiner about it.

Now, if you totally discard Grover Krantz's evidence, then, well, I'm not going to convince you any better.
Click to expand...
Well, since u haven't presented any evidence there is nothing to discard.
 
GT/CS says: OldBlueMoon seems to be combining two so-called experts into one mythical person.

Perhaps you misunderstand the work of latent print examiners. They can tell by how the imprint is made what physical forces create the imprint.

And perhaps I misunderstood the person I talked to. He may have collaborated with anthropologists to show the underlying bone structure.

Thanks for catching that, and allowing me to clarify.
 
parnassus: Well, since u haven't presented any evidence there is nothing to discard.

I was just telling you what I know by actually seeing the physical evidence, and talking to a knowledgeable person about it.
 
Drewbot says: "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?"

I'm thinking you have a harder job than those trying to prove the existence of a large primate. Trying to prove a negative is fairly impossible in most cases.
Especially trying to use evolution, you can ALWAYS be fooled. How to explain a platypus?? One could easily say "based on evolution, this animal is IMPOSSIBLE".
Now, giant spiders the size of a house. . . you'll have a better chance at succeeding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom