Ed Cryptozoology and megafauna

Hellbound said:
Actually, I like the fact that the coelecanth was brought up. I think it nicely illustrates a mis-understanding involved when it comes to discovering species (or finding species thought extinct).

It was absolutely NOT a case of "no one had ever seen one, then somebody found one". It was a combination of factors:
1. The species was thought extinct, so there was never much effort to find them (why look for something that died out millions of years ago?).
2. It wasn't as if no one had seen them, but rather no one recognized them. The local fishermen would often have these fish in their catch, but they aren't paleontologists or icthyologists (sp?). It was just a wierd fish.
3. When the first person saw one in the market, and recognized what it might be, research started. Knowing the area where they were (the places where the fishermen fished), they were found very quickly. In fact, another species in the same order has been found in Indonesia. It was also found initially in a fisherman's catch at market.

Compare this to bigfoot:
1. Not thought extinct, but rather there's no evidence of anything like it existing (and no, gigantopithicus isn't like the descriptions of bigfoot, except superficially at best).
2. While there are claims of them being seen, the stories often contradict each other on sizes, colors, behaviors, and similar. And there has, to date, been no physical evidence to point to a large primate. No bigfoot hides found in Native American archeological sites, for example.
3. We know the supposed range, yet can find no trace of them. Additionally, the ranges proposed tend to be pretty well populated and explored.

So, with the coelecanth, there were physical samples of them all along, they just weren't recognized for what they were. Once discovered, they were quickly found in the wild. Within 50 years, a second species was found in a widely dispersed part of the world.

With bigfoot, we have no reliable physical evidence. No body or body parts. No scat, hair, blood, or anything else that points to a primate. Nothing can be found in the supposed range, a range that is also much more heavily populated than ocean. In over a hundred years of stories, not only have no additional species been found, the original still can't be located.

So bringing up coelecanth as support for bigfoot...well, to me, that'd just a declaration that the speaker has little to no understanding of the subject they're discussing. It's window dressing to make it sound more plausible to those who don't know the details. Because knowing those details only points even more stongly to the problems with bigfoot belief.
Click to expand...

I'm far from an expert on Bigfoot. However, I'm open minded on the topic while some people here seem to have closed minds. For you to say "nothing can be found" is simply not accurate. The evidence of dermal ridges from many castings is strong. You can choose to ignore that evidence, but that's an unscientific position that surprises me to find on this board.

You also say, "the stories often contradict each other on sizes, colors,". So what? Haven't you noticed the even wider variation in dogs? Who says all Bigfoot must look alike? That's a very strange notion to advance.
 
Live&Learn said:
I'm far from an expert on Bigfoot.
Click to expand...
Well, no one is.

However, I'm open minded on the topic while some people here seem to have closed minds.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think you'll find minds are wide open; for good evidence, not ******** shoveled by myriad hoaxers.

For you to say "nothing can be found" is simply not accurate. The evidence of dermal ridges from many castings is strong. You can choose to ignore that evidence, but that's an unscientific position that surprises me to find on this board.
Click to expand...
I'd certainly be interested in reading what science has to say on this subject. Trouble with that is that it seems to be mute save for one or two very faint voices.

You also say, "the stories often contradict each other on sizes, colors,". So what? Haven't you noticed the even wider variation in dogs? Who says all Bigfoot must look alike? That's a very strange notion to advance.
Click to expand...

Plenty of specimens for different dog breeds. Exactly zero (0) bigfoot examples of any kind. Ever.
 
I do wish Woo Slingers would stop using "Open Minded" as some sort of code word for "Don't question my Woo."
 
The Shrike said:
It is? Perhaps you could enlighten us by providing some peer-reviewed journal articles that specifically address the strength of that evidence.
Click to expand...

Apparently it's because scientists don't believe in bigfoot therefore they wouldn't pass a paper.
 
Last edited:
Live&Learn said:
I'm far from an expert on Bigfoot. However, I'm open minded on the topic while some people here seem to have closed minds. For you to say "nothing can be found" is simply not accurate. The evidence of dermal ridges from many castings is strong. You can choose to ignore that evidence, but that's an unscientific position that surprises me to find on this board.
Click to expand...

The evidence on dermal ridges is questionable, at best. But that's a topic for another thread. The unquestioned acceptance of any data that supports the pre-held belief, and the insistence on a particular interpretation, is not scientific. The data doesn't provide evidence of bigfoot. Even assuming ridges are there, it simply provides evidence of something. Given the distinct lack of any signs of a breeding population of large primates, assuming that a few impressions with some wrinkles in them is "strong" evidence simply highlights the point that most 'footers argue from a position of ignorance.

You also say, "the stories often contradict each other on sizes, colors,". So what? Haven't you noticed the even wider variation in dogs? Who says all Bigfoot must look alike?
Click to expand...

And this simply finalizes the argument. I can't think of anything more ignorant, in regards to eolvutionary theory and similar, than comparing variation in a species that has been artificially and selectively bred for hundreds of years to that within a species not undergoing those pressures. It shows several points of ignorance, such as a complete lack of understanding of how selection occurs, a lack of understanding of the mechanisms required for that selection to take hold in a population, a complete lack of the rate of change that can occur with selective breeding, and many, many other things. Basically, at this point, the only way you could reasonably compare variation in dogs to variation in Bigfeets is to expand the proposition to include not one, but a multitude of distinct breeding groups, each isolated (either physically or behaviorally) from each other, when there is no good evidence for even a single such group existing.

Trying to make your argument even more absurd doesn't strengthen your case.

That's a very strange notion to advance.
Click to expand...

I understand that, having come from footer discussion boards and similar places, the ideas of evidence-based theory and scientific method must be strange to you. I can assure that what passes for scientific method at those places bears as little relation to reality as the idea of large primates tossing pigs around the Pacific Northwest.
 
Last edited:
Live&Lear said:
However, I'm open minded on the topic while some people here seem to have closed minds.
Click to expand...
My mind is neither open nor closed, in the sense that anyone uses the terms. I'm a scientist--show me the data and I'll determine if it's sufficient to convince me. So far, nothing presented for Bigfoot has been convincing. The most damning absence is the complete lack of fossils. Even if we assume that Bigfoot (Bigfoots? Bigfeet?) are shy and hide so well that no modern one--not even a corpse--has been or can be found, the fossils shouldn't move so they're another issue all together. If they evolved on or migrated to North America there should be bones recording that event. Where are they? They're certainly not in "Evolution of Tertiary Mammals of North America" (This book), which is the most comprehensive reference for...well....Tertiary mammals in North America. It's also not in Jefferson's compilation of fossil finds in California, which is the OTHER relevant bible on this topic. Seems the entire paleontological community has missed them.

Modern evidence can be easily faked. It's trivial to make something that simulates footprints (and all the casts I've seen look VERY fake; real footprints do not look like that--they're what you get when you get someone unfamiliar with fossil footprints, in that they made a replica of a foot and pushed it into the dirt), and all the rest is as bad. But it's irrelevant as well. Show me the fossils. Give me an ape jaw--or even tibia or rib--I'd take a blood TOOTH--from North America of the right size that's not human from the right time period. Until you've got that, you really don't have anything.

By the way, the place to start looking is caves. There are many caves where animals have been preserved for tremendous periods of time, often to the point where their skins are preserved. Or ancient lakes, since they've got to drink.

You also say, "the stories often contradict each other on sizes, colors,". So what? Haven't you noticed the even wider variation in dogs? Who says all Bigfoot must look alike?
Click to expand...
Wide variation in DOMESTIC species is entirely logical--we've broke them down into various populations (at minimum; I'm of the view that dogs have undergone speciation at the hands of man, and it's not as controversial a view as some here think), and what you're noting is the variation between those populations. There aren't enough Bigfoot--CANNOT be enough Bigfoot, given the way large animals work in an ecosystem--to undergo such a dramatic process. Wolf descriptions don't contradict one another. Neither do descriptions of mountain lions.
 
^Glad to see another who shares my opinion that the lack of extant bigfoot evidence pales in comparison to the significance of its absence from the fossil record.
 
Live&Learn said:
Bigfoot sounds like a Gigantopithecus that forgot to go extinct. :D
Click to expand...

It's unusual that the only people in active pro-Bigfoot argument right now on JREF both think that Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus.

You and LazarusTaxon are saying the same thing.

You've really come on strong all of a sudden arguing for Bigfoot and with insider knowledge (dermal ridges) after being a member here for 3 years. Is Bigfoot a new belief for you?

Interestingly, a great number of Bigfooters are also religious and specifically Evangelical Christian. I thought maybe you are also after reading a couple of your earlier posts...

Live&Learn said:
I love science. It shows us a little bit of how remarkable our Creator really is.
Click to expand...

Live&Learn said:
1. Crucifixion is certainly a gruesome way to die. However, Jesus saved me from something far worse. An eternity in hell as punishment for my sins. If a person saved your life by pulling you out of a burning house, you would be forever thankful. I have that same gratitude to Jesus.

2. I understand your point. However, you're not God. Here's a human comparison that will have some exceptions. When we were children, most of our parents gave us specific commands because they wanted the best for us. God's the same way, just on a much higher level.
Click to expand...

Are you a Creationist who believes that God created Bigfoot?
 
My mind is neither open nor closed, in the sense that anyone uses the terms. I'm a scientist--show me the data and I'll determine if it's sufficient to convince me. So far, nothing presented for Bigfoot has been convincing. The most damning absence is the complete lack of fossils. Even if we assume that Bigfoot (Bigfoots? Bigfeet?) are shy and hide so well that no modern one--not even a corpse--has been or can be found, the fossils shouldn't move so they're another issue all together. If they evolved on or migrated to North America there should be bones recording that event. Where are they? They're certainly not in "Evolution of Tertiary Mammals of North America" (This book), which is the most comprehensive reference for...well....Tertiary mammals in North America. It's also not in Jefferson's compilation of fossil finds in California, which is the OTHER relevant bible on this topic. Seems the entire paleontological community has missed them
Click to expand...

Well the answers I've heard from proponents is that full fossil skeletons are rare and that there could be fossil parts of a sasquatch could have been found but are thought to be human since humans and ape bones are almost identical (they say that there are several fossils in museum drawers are not closely examined and sasquatch could be some of these).

I have to wonder, are fossil humans (not buried skeletons) so relativity common in North America that paleontologists just toss them in drawers like they're no big deal?
 
Sockpuppet?
Too polite to be Huntster...
Is Munns a creationist?
Not wacko enough for Historian...
Too articulated for Makaya...
 
Jerrymander said:
Well the answers I've heard from proponents is that full fossil skeletons are rare and that there could be fossil parts of a sasquatch could have been found but are thought to be human since humans and ape bones are almost identical
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that underestimates the abilities of taxonomists to identify incredibly small and otherwise-unnoticeable details. They're remarkably good at that sort of thing; after all, they've had a few centuries to perfect the art. The fact that we can differentiate humans and our closest relatives on all other continents where they appear together sort of proves this answer wrong.

I have to wonder, are fossil humans (not buried skeletons) so relativity common in North America that paleontologists just toss them in drawers like they're no big deal?
Click to expand...
HELL no! I've encountered human remains on a dig before. It's a HUGE deal. First thing you do is shut that part of the site down. No one so much as scrapes the dirt. Then you call the county coroner's office. They have to let you know how to proceed from there. The sheriff's office is also getting a call, and it's best if it comes from you and not the coroner. Then the Native American tribes get contacted. They're the ones who ultimately get to decide what happens to the remains--they need to ensure that they're shown proper respect.

Fossilized human remains aren't terribly uncommon in North America, but they are INTENSELY studied by experts on identifying human remains. If they weren't human, we'd catch it. We have very, very good reasons to do so--not identifying them as non-human actually is against the best interests of the folks paying for people like me out there, so we're actually following the data despite some pretty strong incentives to do otherwise (not saying that I've received pressure to mislabel finds; I'm just saying that my job is to shut down multi-million dollar construction projects if we find anything, and we have to have a very, very, very good reason to do so).
 
MikeG said:
:) Is Mayaka unarticulated, then? Rigid and unbending....
Click to expand...
Its the interwebs... You can be anything you want.
That hot young blonde woman at the forum may actually be a fat ugly guy which is actually a hot young brunette woman.

You can pretend to be a scientist, a bigfoot eyewitness or a bigfoot enthusiast pretending to be a fence-sitter or a skeptic.

The possibilities are endless.
 
The Shrike said:
Impossible. Everybody knows that you don't find things you aren't looking for. That's 'footer logic 101.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was technically an archeo dig, not a paleo dig. I was there as a stratigrapher.
 
Fossilized human remains aren't terribly uncommon in North America, but they are INTENSELY studied by experts on identifying human remains. If they weren't human, we'd catch it. We have very, very good reasons to do so--not identifying them as non-human actually is against the best interests of the folks paying for people like me out there, so we're actually following the data despite some pretty strong incentives to do otherwise (not saying that I've received pressure to mislabel finds; I'm just saying that my job is to shut down multi-million dollar construction projects if we find anything, and we have to have a very, very, very good reason to do so).
Click to expand...

Haven't there been cases of new fossil species being discovered by looking through museum drawers or does that just happen with small inverabrates?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom