Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
In the case of the Denisovans we lack a skull or other bone that would help us determine morphological features. We can't do that with a finger bone or teeth.
Click to expand...

Yes Chris, we can. There are these people called paleontologists who are quite good at determining the morphological features of teeth and fingers if you give them a tooth and a finger bone.

Recall that there are people like Krantz who perpetuated a notion that Gigantopithecus was bipedal - and therefore bigfoot - simply from teeth and a couple of lower laws. We don't even really know if Giganto was all that big. It might have been much smaller than people generally suspect but had unusually robust jaws and teeth - not that far-fetched considering that its diet seems to have included a goodly amount of bamboo.

So complete morphology from a tooth and a finger bone? No, of course not. Enough to prove such a thing existed? From the DNA obtained, yes. So . . . find a bigfoot tooth, we'll describe it morphologically, and we'll sequence its DNA to determine where it sits on the branch of the Hominin family bush.
 
Cervelo said:
Maybe Chris needs to start with some basic facts
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/fyi-why-are-there-no-native-monkeys-america
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's actually a good article and theory. I particularly liked this part:

"Primates are often intelligent, but that doesn't translate into adaptability. Think of the mountain gorilla, restricted to a few populations in forested central Africa, unable to live anywhere else. Adaptability is often a sign of intelligence, but intelligence in a species is no guarantee of adaptability."

Higher reasoning is one of the factors that likely can be attributed to any primate currently residing in North America. Without it, we certainly could have never adapted to the climate. Chris B.
 
No, he is mistaken about the mystery DNA.

The 8 year old girl's finger bone was Denisovan population

The tooth was from another member of the Denisovan population

The Toe Bone was Neandertal

The green stone bracelet found earlier in Layer 11 had almost surely been made by modern humans.

This is all laid out in this article.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/125-missing-human-ancestor/shreeve-text

For a while they thought they might have her toe too. In the summer of 2010 a human toe bone had emerged, along with the enormous tooth, from Layer 11. In Leipzig a graduate student named Susanna Sawyer analyzed its DNA. At the symposium in 2011 she presented her results for the first time. To everyone’s shock, the toe bone had turned out to be Neanderthal, deepening the mystery of the place
Click to expand...
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Higher reasoning is one of the factors that likely can be attributed to any primate currently residing in North America.
Click to expand...
Here's a big, fat softball, coming right over the plate, and I can't think of a punchline. Something about politicians would probably be apt.
 
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/altai-neandertal-genome-2013.html

This is what Chris is taking to equate to Bigfoot:
The high-coverage Neandertal genome shares many derived mutations with sub-Saharan Africans, while the high-coverage Denisova genome shares fewer. If these archaic populations were equally related to Africans, they would have the same number of shared derived mutations with Africans. Prüfer and colleagues infer that the Denisovan genome had ancestors who belonged to a yet more ancient hominin population. They suggest this population represents around 4 percent of the ancestry of Denisovans, and that it diverged from the common ancestors of Neandertals and sub-Saharan Africans sometime around a million years ago. The confidence intervals on both estimates are large.
Click to expand...
 
The article from the BBC that Chris posted also claims
About 6% of the genomes of Aboriginal Australians, New Guineans and some Pacific Islanders can be traced to Denisovans, studies suggest.
Click to expand...

Which probably means that Aboriginal Australians, NG, and PI, must still have a portion of an unknown human ancestor as well. In fact I think it means that all of us do, if we have any portion of our DNA that is from the Denisovan Population.
 
The Shrike said:
Yes Chris, we can. There are these people called paleontologists who are quite good at determining the morphological features of teeth and fingers if you give them a tooth and a finger bone.

Recall that there are people like Krantz who perpetuated a notion that Gigantopithecus was bipedal - and therefore bigfoot - simply from teeth and a couple of lower laws. We don't even really know if Giganto was all that big. It might have been much smaller than people generally suspect but had unusually robust jaws and teeth - not that far-fetched considering that its diet seems to have included a goodly amount of bamboo.

So complete morphology from a tooth and a finger bone? No, of course not. Enough to prove such a thing existed? From the DNA obtained, yes. So . . . find a bigfoot tooth, we'll describe it morphologically, and we'll sequence its DNA to determine where it sits on the branch of the Hominin family bush.
Click to expand...

Since I was referring to a skull and jaw bone I thought with the use of that context everyone would understand I was talking about the morphological features of the skull. As in what did they look like. I'm sorry, I should have been more specific.

Of course morphological features of the hand can be determined by a finger bone. I agree completely. I have the deepest respect for the guys that can put these reconstructions together.

As far as the Krantz speculation. I believe he based this on a model of a Giganto skull he studied. This of course would be completely dependent on if his model was/is the correct interpretation of Giganto based on the jaw bones. As you already know, particularly the placement of the spine in relation to the skull. Personally, I agree with Krantz, but that is placing alot of faith in the model being correct. If it's not, he's wrong. But, I have faith in the reconstruction abilities of these guys. Chris B.

Edited to add: I see what I did now. I said in the previous post "skull or other bone" , my mistake. I should have said "skull or jaw bone" to clarify.
 
Last edited:
So what he's saying is... porcupine farmers eat Aborigines as a folk remedy?

We're so deep in nested special pleadings trying to excuse away the previous nested pleading it's sad.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Thanks, that's actually a good article and theory. I particularly liked this part:

"Primates are often intelligent, but that doesn't translate into adaptability. Think of the mountain gorilla, restricted to a few populations in forested central Africa, unable to live anywhere else. Adaptability is often a sign of intelligence, but intelligence in a species is no guarantee of adaptability."

Higher reasoning is one of the factors that likely can be attributed to any primate currently residing in North America. Without it, we certainly could have never adapted to the climate. Chris B.
Click to expand...

Well, not any primate...

I can has more irony?
 
Again, what does any of this have to do with an alleged extant 9-ft bipedal ape with a claimed continent-wide distribution for which there is zero (0) reliable, confirmed physical evidence?

It seems the herring is red.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I believe the title of the thread is "Latest Bigfoot 'evidence'"

Chris do you have any evidence (not excuse, not special pleading, not tangent topic, not cop-out, not side track, not parable, not anecdote, not unverifiable personal story, not meaningless question about the quality of evidence for something that isn't Bigfoot, not the cost of tea in China) for the existence of Bigfoot?
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
No, he is mistaken about the mystery DNA.
The 8 year old girl's finger bone was Denisovan population

The tooth was from another member of the Denisovan population

The Toe Bone was Neandertal

The green stone bracelet found earlier in Layer 11 had almost surely been made by modern humans.

This is all laid out in this article.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/125-missing-human-ancestor/shreeve-text
Click to expand...

No, I most certainly am not. I would suggest you may be in error due to skimming other non related articles thereby adding to or attempting to add to the confusion for whatever purpose.

I believe the presence of multiple species in the same layer from the Denisova dig is the gist of of your presentation. That is an incredible thing in itself, but has nothing to do with the genome findings I have referred to. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
That is an incredible thing in itself, but has nothing to do with the genome findings I have referred to. Chris B.
Click to expand...

You know what else this point or the last points you've attempted to make have had nothing to do with?

Any evidence for flippin' Bigfoot.

Did you know that the little tips on the end of your shoelaces are called Aglets? No? Well therefore Bigfoot.
 
These threads and this forum is really working out well for Chris. He doesn't even post on pro-Bigfoot forums anymore. This place is a fantastic way to pass the time. Read. Post. Read. Post. Read. Post.

It can go on forever.
 
The only thing I can see relevant about the Denisovan DNA divergence is that a DNA sample from a Bigfoot would indeed highlight a "missing" primate, and any argument not to get a possible DNA sample tested has to be viewed with suspicion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom