Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Corwin · 08-16-2002, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
Yeah, being asked for physical evidence is a real bitch. People shouldn't do that, I suppose.

No.... asking for real evidence for something nutball fringe 'researchers' claim is completely rational and realistic. While we're at it... before I accept evolution why don't you show me an example of a dog giving birth to a cat?
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]

Mageth · 08-16-2002, 12:50 PM

Sorry, Corwin, you lost me there. I don't get how asking for a scat sample (an entirely possible and expected artifact that could help establish the existence of a cryptobeast such as Bigfoot, if such exists, and given that Bigfoots shit in the woods, like bears

) is analogous to asking to see a dog giving birth to a cat (a feat which no scientist would ever claim as possible, and which would in no way support modern evolutionary theory; quite the contrary).

Maybe things would be clearer for you if you'd quit banging your head against that wall.

Corwin · 08-16-2002, 01:01 PM

** watches the point go sailing over mageth's head **

Let me break it down for you here.

Several anthropologists have suggested that the creature that native american myth refers to as 'sasquatch,' and that tibetan myth refers to as 'yeti,' may in fact be examples of a species of hominid, yet nonhuman ancestor primate called gigantopithicus. To the best understanding of mainstream anthropology, giganto has never been observed in the wild, and is believed to have become extinct approximately 35,000 years ago. However, biologists have been mistaken about whether or not a creature was extinct before, and there have been cases where a creature believed to be extinct was in fact simply extremely rare and found only in isolated areas, and hence had escaped notice by mainstream science. (And in at least one case, had even escaped notice by fringe science...) Bearing this in mind, several people have theorized that giganto may in fact not be extinct, and may in fact simply be extremely rare. Add to this that the areas where 'sasquatch' and 'the abominable snowman' are supposedly found are within the known range of giganto, (the range in which the fossil remains of the creature are found) and the creature itself bears a striking resemblance to the legends in question, (taking into account the unavoidable exaggerations of the creature's attributes by untrained, amateur observers) and the theory makes a great deal of sense.

Now.... the meat of the point.

The fact that a group of fringe 'researchers' has gone so far as to claim to have found the creature, even to the point of describing its feces, does NOT in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, obligate anthropologists to provide proof that these fringe researchers have in fact done this, as real anthropologists don't claim this. In short, your asking me for proof of these wild claims that I do not in fact make is roughly equivalent to a creationist demanding that evolution be proved by showing a dog giving birth to a cat.

If all of that was too scientific, or had words that were too big, let me summarize:

Don't expect me to attempt to prove points that I am not, in fact, endorsing.

Mageth · 08-16-2002, 01:37 PM

Corwin:

I didn't originally ask you for proof of anything. The scat reported by "fringe" cryptozoologists wasn't even in your posts, and I didn't claim you believed the content of Zetec's post. You picked up the gauntlet.

However, while my scat question was directed at what "fringe" researchers have claimed, it could also be directed at what you appear to support (the top paragraph in your last post).

To support this theory that gigantopithicus may be wandering our woods, scat is something that would be looked for as excellent evidence. It's not as easy to fake as footprints or photographs, and it tends not to hide when anthropologists ("fringe" or otherwise) go looking. Hell, you can even get DNA samples from scat. It's excellent evidence that cryptozoologists (legitimate or fringe) would look for.

This is nothing like a creationist asking to see a dog give birth to a cat. If gigantopithicus exist, they shit. Dogs don't give birth to cats, and evolutionists don't claim they do. Is that science too complicated for you?

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Corwin · 08-16-2002, 01:43 PM

Fine. YOU go search 500,000 acres of isolated mountains looking for bigfoot poo.

Most anthro departments have neither the time, the manpower, nor the budget to do so.

Needle in a fucking haystack doesn't even BEGIN to describe such a search.

Mageth · 08-16-2002, 01:58 PM

I don't recall requesting that anthropology departments organize massive scat searches.

However, if gigantopithicus is there, some scientist, cryptozoologist, or naturalist who would recognize it for what it might be (undoubtedly it would be noticably different than any other animal's scat) sooner or later should stumble across a massive pile of gigantopithicus dung (or other physical evidence). Regardless of what you think, there are quite a few of those wandering the woods of the NW United States.

Until that happens (if it ever does), the possibiliy of gigantopithicus wandering our woods is interesting speculation backed by nothing more than folklore.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Corwin · 08-16-2002, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Until that happens (if it ever does), the possibiliy of gigantopithicus wandering our woods is interesting speculation backed by nothing more than folklore.

Actually it's referred to as an hypothesis.

And there's virtually NOBODY wandering these areas. People don't even camp that far out.

Blinn · 08-16-2002, 02:13 PM

What about all of these footprints?

Quote:

Throughout the twentieth century, thousands of eyewitness reports of giant bipedal apes, commonly referred to as Bigfoot or Sasquatch, have emanated from the montane forests of the western United States and Canada. Hundreds of large humanoid footprints have been discovered and many have been photographed or preserved as plaster casts. As incredulous as these reports may seem, the simple fact of the matter remains -- the footprints exist and warrant evaluation.

So here we have an expert in primate locomotion checking out these prints. He concludes,

Quote:

Human walking is characterized by an extended stiff-legged striding gait with distinct heel-strike and toe-off phases. Bending stresses in the digits are held low by selection for relatively short toes that participate in propulsion at the sacrifice of prehension. Efficiency and economy of muscle action during distance walking and running are maximized by reduced mobility in the tarsal joints, a fixed longitudinal arch, elastic storage in the well developed calcaneal tendon, plantar aponeurosis and deep plantar ligaments of the foot.
In contrast, the Sasquatch appear to have adapted to bipedal locomotion by employing a compliant gait on a flat flexible foot. A degree of prehensile capability has been retained in the digits by maintaining the uncoupling of the propulsive function of the hindoot from the forefoot via the midtarsal break. Digits are spared the peak forces of toe-off due to the compliant gait with its extended period of double support. This would be a efficient strategy for negotiating the steep, broken terrain of the dense montane forests of the Pacific and Intermountain West, especially for a bipedal hominoid of considerable body mass, The dynamic signatures of this adaptive pattern of gait are generally evident in the footprints examined in this study.

Now, it doesn't say that "therefore Sasquatch exists," but it does say to me that if the prints that this biologist examined are fakes, then they're pretty good fakes and were done by someone who was knowledgeable enough to include details such as a midtarsal break.

And they included that in this fake that they made in 1967:

It's intriguing...

Corwin · 08-16-2002, 02:18 PM

What about them? A huge number are known to be fakes.... others can't really be determined either way.

Mageth · 08-16-2002, 04:17 PM

The footprints are interesting, but are far too easy to fake. Hence the need for other evidence to back the claims.

Actually it's referred to as an hypothesis.

I prefer speculation, but I'll grant that some have proposed gigantopithicus as an hypothesis to explain various legends.

And there's virtually NOBODY wandering these areas. People don't even camp that far out.

Then do you rule out the "could be occasional sitings of extant gigantos" you mentioned in an earlier post? If no one goes where they are, how could there be occasional sightings?

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

08-16-2002, 01:37 PM	#34
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Corwin: I didn't originally ask you for proof of anything. The scat reported by "fringe" cryptozoologists wasn't even in your posts, and I didn't claim you believed the content of Zetec's post. You picked up the gauntlet. However, while my scat question was directed at what "fringe" researchers have claimed, it could also be directed at what you appear to support (the top paragraph in your last post). To support this theory that gigantopithicus may be wandering our woods, scat is something that would be looked for as excellent evidence. It's not as easy to fake as footprints or photographs, and it tends not to hide when anthropologists ("fringe" or otherwise) go looking. Hell, you can even get DNA samples from scat. It's excellent evidence that cryptozoologists (legitimate or fringe) would look for. This is nothing like a creationist asking to see a dog give birth to a cat. If gigantopithicus exist, they shit. Dogs don't give birth to cats, and evolutionists don't claim they do. Is that science too complicated for you? [ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

08-16-2002, 01:58 PM	#36
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I don't recall requesting that anthropology departments organize massive scat searches. However, if gigantopithicus is there, some scientist, cryptozoologist, or naturalist who would recognize it for what it might be (undoubtedly it would be noticably different than any other animal's scat) sooner or later should stumble across a massive pile of gigantopithicus dung (or other physical evidence). Regardless of what you think, there are quite a few of those wandering the woods of the NW United States. Until that happens (if it ever does), the possibiliy of gigantopithicus wandering our woods is interesting speculation backed by nothing more than folklore. [ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

08-16-2002, 04:17 PM	#40
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	The footprints are interesting, but are far too easy to fake. Hence the need for other evidence to back the claims. Actually it's referred to as an hypothesis. I prefer speculation, but I'll grant that some have proposed gigantopithicus as an hypothesis to explain various legends. And there's virtually NOBODY wandering these areas. People don't even camp that far out. Then do you rule out the "could be occasional sitings of extant gigantos" you mentioned in an earlier post? If no one goes where they are, how could there be occasional sightings? [ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-16-2002, 12:50 PM	#32
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Sorry, Corwin, you lost me there. I don't get how asking for a scat sample (an entirely possible and expected artifact that could help establish the existence of a cryptobeast such as Bigfoot, if such exists, and given that Bigfoots shit in the woods, like bears ) is analogous to asking to see a dog giving birth to a cat (a feat which no scientist would ever claim as possible, and which would in no way support modern evolutionary theory; quite the contrary). Maybe things would be clearer for you if you'd quit banging your head against that wall.

08-16-2002, 01:01 PM	#33
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	watches the point go sailing over mageth's head Let me break it down for you here. Several anthropologists have suggested that the creature that native american myth refers to as 'sasquatch,' and that tibetan myth refers to as 'yeti,' may in fact be examples of a species of hominid, yet nonhuman ancestor primate called gigantopithicus. To the best understanding of mainstream anthropology, giganto has never been observed in the wild, and is believed to have become extinct approximately 35,000 years ago. However, biologists have been mistaken about whether or not a creature was extinct before, and there have been cases where a creature believed to be extinct was in fact simply extremely rare and found only in isolated areas, and hence had escaped notice by mainstream science. (And in at least one case, had even escaped notice by fringe science...) Bearing this in mind, several people have theorized that giganto may in fact not be extinct, and may in fact simply be extremely rare. Add to this that the areas where 'sasquatch' and 'the abominable snowman' are supposedly found are within the known range of giganto, (the range in which the fossil remains of the creature are found) and the creature itself bears a striking resemblance to the legends in question, (taking into account the unavoidable exaggerations of the creature's attributes by untrained, amateur observers) and the theory makes a great deal of sense. Now.... the meat of the point. The fact that a group of fringe 'researchers' has gone so far as to claim to have found the creature, even to the point of describing its feces, does NOT in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, obligate anthropologists to provide proof that these fringe researchers have in fact done this, as real anthropologists don't claim this. In short, your asking me for proof of these wild claims that I do not in fact make is roughly equivalent to a creationist demanding that evolution be proved by showing a dog giving birth to a cat. If all of that was too scientific, or had words that were too big, let me summarize: Don't expect me to attempt to prove points that I am not, in fact, endorsing.

08-16-2002, 01:43 PM	#35
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Fine. YOU go search 500,000 acres of isolated mountains looking for bigfoot poo. Most anthro departments have neither the time, the manpower, nor the budget to do so. Needle in a fucking haystack doesn't even BEGIN to describe such a search.

08-16-2002, 02:18 PM	#39
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	What about them? A huge number are known to be fakes.... others can't really be determined either way.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.