So, if Bigfoot really did exist, would we know about it by now? And if it takes a "unique kind of person", then that implies that the vast majority of Bigfoot researchers would not be able to do this work, right, even if BF did exist? In other words, they would not be able to prove BF's existence, even if it did in fact exist. So then if you ask a layman(!) for proof of their BF claim, what do you expect them to give?
As for us knowing about it by now, not necessarily--but we'd have a LOT better evidence than we do now. Say, some evidence of apes in North America before humans arived. We've dug up a lot of Cenozoic rock, and haven't found anything. Or legitimate footprints, or hairs, or evidence of feeding, that sort of thing.
As for the Bigfoot researchers, they may be able to but they demonstrably are unwilling to do the work real scientists consider necessary. They demonstrate this by their continued refusal to do it.
If a lay person claims to have found Bigfoot, I expect the same as I'd expect from anyone else. I do not lower my standards because the person in question isn't a biologist. If they claim to have seen something weird, on the other hand, my threashold is lower. I won't go out and look on the basis of a campfire story, but if they had a photo or something it'd make it worth exploring. And if they only had the story I'd point them towards others who are more able to follow up on it. The difference is, the guy claiming to have seen something weird isn't claiming to have a new species--just to have seen something weird. I've seen a lot of UFOs--I study rocks, so I suck at identifying flying things. Got a friend who I don't think ever has--he can tell you from the sound of the engine what vehicle it is. As long as I say "I saw something odd", I'm being perfectly rational--it's only when I go on and say "....therefore aliens" that I dive head-first into the crazy.
Zippy Omicron said:
To the assembled's knowledge base, has there ever been an animal species accepted by science on the basis of only one sighting of the creature (yes, in the historical context)?
I'm not sure. I have a vague recollection of the zoological nomenclature people considering removing the requirement to have an actual specimen, due to the fact that a lot of the species we're naming right now tend to be highly endangered. I don't recall if that went anywhere or not, though. That said, while a sighting can be enough to get people looking--the ivory-billed woodpecker proves that--I don't think that a single sighting is ever considered proof.
MikeG said:
Can someone tell me if this is right, and how fresh it has to be before scat ceases being of any use for DNA sampling purposes?
DNA studies have been done on fossilized sloth, mammoth, packrat, and human scat that I know of. So into the Pleistocene under the right conditions.
Also, I want to point out that there's nothing like most cryptids in their proposed environment. There are no apes in North America, and to my knowledge no native monkies in the areas Bigfoot is proposed to live in. Loch Ness has nothing that could be confused with a Pleisosaur. The Chupicabra's proposed killing mechanism is unique. The list goes on. While some new species--or relics of old species--may be similar to modern ones, most cryptids can't hide that way.
As for biologists being in the field, if there were enough apes in North America to form a breeding population you'd see more evidence of it in the biological surveys done for construction (often done in the middle of nowhere [people don't like to live next to power plants or oil pipelines] so there's no danger of scaring them away). These people ARE in the field and ARE prepared, and given the number of them working at any given time it takes a huge dose of rationalizations to explain away the failure to see them. One team? Sure. The number we have out right now (given how many my company has out, I'd say it's in the thousands)? Not a chance.
