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

[William Parcher]

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.

You can't compress it to 200 years if you think that Bigfoot lived in the East. This is where Europeans settled and they did have guns. "Searching for evidence" has nothing to do with spontaneously shooting a giant hairy man-ape. Anybody could come across a Bigfoot body at any time.

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.

The past 200 years can be used in argument if you think that Bigfoot was limited to the West (or Northwest). Again they could be shot or found dead.

And if we know where some of these things live, I agree that we SHOULD be able to get better physical evidence.

We should have already had that even long before the PGF of 1967 or the Crew cast of 1958.

 

[GT/CS]

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.

It hasn't worked yet. Giant apes hiding in the middle of Oklahoma grasslands???? Giant apes with huge bones never leaving any of those bones or even waste. Giant apes are going to have giant poops! Never getting hit by cars or trains, never being shot by a hunter, or attacking a human???

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Now, giant spiders the size of a house. . . you'll have a better chance at succeeding.

They'd just invoke Leo G. Carrol.

 

[The Shrike]

Actually, no. As from a post of mine back in Nov 2008.

If you want to trade dates for publicly expressing the opinion that there is no fossil precedent for bigfoot, I'd be surprised if I didn't have you beat by several years.

The point, however, is what kind of traction such arguments have against the committed 'footers, and the answer is "none." One of my favorite road trip pastimes with the graduate students is to use 'footer logic to convince them that bigfoot is real. I usually have to break character after awhile because I can sense it starting to work on them.

If we want to make the case that the body plan of a bigfoot would not be selected for, we should first state what that body plan is - and what they do with it. But we should proceed cautiously because it's very easy to strawman our way into making foolish arguments that would only give the 'footers more fodder. For example, some have claimed bigfoots 12' or more in height. The great majority of bigfoot believers, however, find such claims just as outlandish as I do.

Other items of dispute within the bigfooter community:

the nature of bigfoot dentition - do they have big canines like a chimp?
the amount of time they spend in trees
the primary diet
the degree to which they can be quadrapedal
the frequency with which they use tools

 

[William Parcher]

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.

Somebody could argue that Bigfoot is really like a black or grizzly bear. An opportunistic omnivore that doesn't commonly go after larger adult prey such as deer, elk, bison, etc. They might prefer juveniles or the weak such as is the situation with bears. Animal protein might come more commonly from rodents, other small or young mammals and insects. Maybe they would scavenge or steal kills from other predators.

 

[River]

You guys/gals are taking the wrong perspective here. Bigfoot is alive and well. We are bigfoot, and bigfoot is us. The legend will continue to thrive in certain arenas. Bigfoot is a ghost. (because no one pulls off good hoaxes these days) I think the time is right for a new one done with modern technology and perhaps with a "blind" witness.

 

[EHocking]

So, illegal immigrants?

It's thought that Gigantopithecus became extinct, what, 100,000 years ago and the Bering Strait land bridge disappeared 16,500 years ago.

Fossils "officially" arbitrarily must be older than 10,000 years old.
Numbers just don't add up - if they had migrated more than 16,500 years ago - there'd be fossils.

 

[EHocking]

The point, however, is what kind of traction such arguments have against the committed 'footers, and the answer is "none.".

Agreed. Science is certainly not high on the agenda.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's thought that Gigantopithecus became extinct, what, 100,000 years ago and the Bering Strait land bridge disappeared 16,500 years ago.

Fossils "officially" arbitrarily must be older than 10,000 years old.
Numbers just don't add up - if they had migrated more than 16,500 years ago - there'd be fossils.

We can find fossils from 1/2 billion years ago. Only difference is those were real animals, not figmentasauruses.

 

[William Parcher]

Science is certainly not high on the agenda.

There are a significant number of Bigfooters who are religious and fundamentalist. They are creationists and evolution is not on their radar at all. This OP argument cannot even get onto Square 1 with them.

This situation is so common with Bigfooters that the BFF had to enact a rule against discussing religion on their forum. It's because of evolution vs. creation flame wars on the Bigfoot site.

 

[kitakaze]

I agree. No offense, Drew, but the OP is like looking for a bullet to shoot at The Hulk. No matter what you pop off, it will only make him madder. We had a thread from a couple years back or so where someone did the same thing making an OP trying to set out an argument why Bigfoot could not physically exist. We ended up showing that Bigfoot could certainly exist physically, but just not as commonly described.

The religion aspect WP mentions is very important. It's deeply woven into the fiber of Bigfootery. I remember talking with a well-known female Bigfooter about Gimlin being a Good Christian Man and asking how goodly Christian it was to show up at your best friend's funeral and approach his widow who's grieving with three children saying you want your cut of the take from the PGF and it's time to settle up.

Not even joking, they said so what, where was that in the Ten Commandments?

 

[William Parcher]

We had a thread from a couple years back or so where someone did the same thing making an OP trying to set out an argument why Bigfoot could not physically exist. We ended up showing that Bigfoot could certainly exist physically, but just not as commonly described.

I think that thread may be "Reasons why Bigfoot can't exist in America".

 

[Drewbot]

While I agree that you are correct, in that Footers will not accept it, It seems like an easy win, if we could come with some reason that they simply could not have evolved 'that way'.

For example, if someone was claiming a bug existed of an immense size, and we could show that person that it is known that bugs have a maximum size, because their shells will crush them if they grow over a certain weight. How could they argue that?

I think the claim that a large Bipedal primate, that engages in intense physical activity; fighting bears, ambushing deer, running down wild hogs etc..., would not be able to maintain healthy joints long enough to reproduce enough to survive.

Another one I found as well, The advent of bipedalism, and the subsequent loss of opposable thumbs on the feet, led to another problem, babies could no longer hang onto their mother. Perhaps this is why hair was no longer needed in homo sapiens. Did bigfoot keep it's hair despite the babies having no ability to cling to it? Another odd evolutionary thing that Bigfoot kept.

 

[Drewbot]

Bigfoot has no appetite for hippos, African buffalo or warthogs.

At one time, Bigfoot's ancestors came from Africa, whether you believe the Giganto theory, or the H. erectus theory.

I highly doubt bigfoot had tool usage in Africa, and then lost that trait as it migrated to N. America.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

At one time, Bigfoot's ancestors came from Africa, whether you believe the Giganto theory, or the H. erectus theory.

I highly doubt bigfoot had tool usage in Africa, and then lost that trait as it migrated to N. America.

Problem is, there is no link to either and Bigfoot. Just a lot of empty spaces. Unless we have somebody who has compared the skeleton of BF with that of Giganto or erectus.

 

[Drewbot]

Problem is, there is no link to either and Bigfoot. Just a lot of empty spaces. Unless we have somebody who has compared the skeleton of BF with that of Giganto or erectus.

Well, we know THIS foot came out of Africa.

Isn't the BigFOOT nearly the same?

 

[OldBlueMoon]

William Parcher says: You can't compress it to 200 years if you think that Bigfoot lived in the East.

I haven't seen the physical evidence for a large bipedal hominid in the East. I have seen it in the West/ Pacific Northwest.

Drewbot says: "I think the claim that a large Bipedal primate, that engages in intense physical activity"

I haven't seen those claims as apart from what activity is needed to survive. To a large animal "intense" means something totally different than what you would call "intense". Orangutan muscles are MUCH stronger than a human's, as evidence of their ability to throw extremely heavy object with apparent ease. (recollecting the stories about an orangutan wrestler who would throw ANYONE out of the ring, even the most. . . robust opponents.

 

[William Parcher]

For example, if someone was claiming a bug existed of an immense size, and we could show that person that it is known that bugs have a maximum size, because their shells will crush them if they grow over a certain weight. How could they argue that?

A Bigfooter (like Meldrum) might agree with you. Agree that there is some theoretical maximum size for a bipedal hominoid. Then say that that maximum size is represented in the creature called Bigfoot.

I think the claim that a large Bipedal primate, that engages in intense physical activity; fighting bears, ambushing deer, running down wild hogs etc..., would not be able to maintain healthy joints long enough to reproduce enough to survive.

They might say that there are tall tales within Bigfootery which may mislead you on what the creature actually is. That Bigfoot really isn't equipped to chase down pigs or deer other fast prey. It must ambush them alone or maybe cooperatively hunt in groups. Bears are not too good at catching fast ungulate prey either. Bigfoot may get into occasional unavoidable fights with bears but would prefer to just stay away from them like we do.

Then the argument goes straight to "but we should have shot one or found one dead". For this, Meldrum simply suggests that they are very rare creatures and their carcasses decompose rather quickly. You could pound him on those points but he wouldn't budge or go belly up. He might even agree that it is a problem but you will be forced to end the argument at some point, with him still in his position and you in yours. It's already at that point now.

You can't kill Bigfootery even with your evolutionary argument - the most you could likely do is force any particular Bigfooter to more specifically define their own position.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

William Parcher says: You can't compress it to 200 years if you think that Bigfoot lived in the East.

I haven't seen the physical evidence for a large bipedal hominid in the East. I have seen it in the West/ Pacific Northwest.

Drewbot says: "I think the claim that a large Bipedal primate, that engages in intense physical activity"

I haven't seen those claims as apart from what activity is needed to survive. To a large animal "intense" means something totally different than what you would call "intense". Orangutan muscles are MUCH stronger than a human's, as evidence of their ability to throw extremely heavy object with apparent ease. (recollecting the stories about an orangutan wrestler who would throw ANYONE out of the ring, even the most. . . robust opponents.

Dude, if you hit the " marks on posts you want to quote, then hit Quote, they'll be quoted in your reply. Just sayin'.

 

[William Parcher]

I haven't seen the physical evidence for a large bipedal hominid in the East. I have seen it in the West/ Pacific Northwest.

Bigfooters in the East and Midwest have presented the same kinds of secondary evidences that have come from the West and PNW. Maybe the only major difference is the promotion of the PGF (from Northern California) as the most famous evidence of all.

Many Bigfooters from all parts are now hanging their hats on the optimism that Bigfoot DNA is soon to be confirmed... from Kentucky!