Archaeologica.org

Ok, just hear me out on this one. Suppose we do discover bigfoot/yeti/sasquatch? In your opinion will it be a higher form of ape or a lower form of human? What will we call it? Maybe it's a higher form of human, meaning it evolved down a different path and is more "one with nature" than us. What will be the implications for evolution?
There's more to this than a buncha rednecks traipsing through the woods looking for a big hairy monster.

Come on people. Gimme your ridicule, your scorn, maybe even a few intelligent ideas. It is a legitimate area for discussion. Talk to me! I don't care if you think I'm an idiot as long as I get something out of you. Just give me your thoughts.

will it be a higher form of ape or a lower form of human?

How could you tell the difference?

Minimalist wrote:

will it be a higher form of ape or a lower form of human?

How could you tell the difference?

That's all you got?

Ok, let's go with that. How WOULD you know the difference? Would language make it human? Would lack of same make it ape? Lack of clothing? Would that make it ape? Would some semblance of culture make it human? Would any of our usual yardsticks for these things measure this thing?
Where would it fit in the chain of evolution? Would it fit at all? Post anonymously if you like or PM me.

George Carlin noted that humans are "just jungle apes with automatic weapons and baseball caps."

But seriously, some apes have used tools, some seem to communicate with each other, and I'm not sure that an awful lot of humans are capable of higher reasoning after hearing the health-care debate.

I imagine it to be maybe closely related to us, but who knows, and I wouldn't like to say whether it would rate as 'higher' or 'lower'. If there is such a thing as bigfoot or sasquatch or whatever, I hadn't really considered it in terms of intelligence I must admit, imagining something sort of half-way between us and chimps: problem-solving, tool-using, but probably not about to write an opera. Then again, I wonder if its apparent scarcity could be a clue to that intelligence.

I have no real idea, and neither am I really sure what it could mean.

In terms of the church, I suspect bigfoot would actually have to be zipping around in custom-built Flintstones cars, before it was viewed as anything other than an animal (see debates about soul etc - chimps have yet to get called up on that one and they're pretty smart as you know). If this creature exists, I don't think it is something which could ever become integrated with our world even as a zoolgical specimen or 'harmless local curiosity' - if that were possible it probably would have happened by now.

Frank Harrist wrote:Come on people. Gimme your ridicule, your scorn, maybe even a few intelligent ideas. It is a legitimate area for discussion. Talk to me! I don't care if you think I'm an idiot as long as I get something out of you. Just give me your thoughts.

That would be wasted energy because as long as we don't know* more, speculation can, and will/would, be boundless.

*and my speculation is we never will, because it's pure BS/imagination.
Just like Santa Claus, Tokeloshe and Jesus are.

It does seem that after all this time there would have been a carcass or some actual footprints found. Again, this can't be a single individual as it would have died out long ago. That means a breeding population would have to exist.

That's more like it! I simply want to get some more intelligent minds on this problem. I don't put a lot of stock in the opinions of the usual trailer trash bigfoot theorist and that's about all you have. If intelligent people would study this phenomenon, as I have, then perhaps someone would figure something out. Most so-called educated experts simply dismiss it out of hand as a fairy tale or myth. I tried to do that, but there's just too much evidence, albeit shaky, saying that there is something out there. The same things that are said of these creatures were once said about gorillas. They were thought to be myth until early in the last century. Maybe there's nothing out there. Maybe it's all some kind of mass haleucination. But, I have read and heard literally thousands of reports from everyone from hillbilly joe from the Ozarks to respected and educated people who would have no reason to lie. My best friend swears he's seen one and I have no reason to doubt his word. I started out as one of the biggest sceptics you could ever meet, but I studied this thing and, although I'm not convinced 100%, I do believe it's worth looking into. But, having said that, we need smart, proffesional people doing the research, not deer hunters looking for some thing to kill during the off season. I appreciate every opinion and every point of view. It's good to see things from a different angle. People see what they want to see sometimes so everything is evidence to them. Thanks for contributing and please continue to do so.

For the record, I think calling them "sub-human" or "higher ape" and things like that seem sort of arrogant, but it was the only way I could thibk of to get the message across. My lack of education hampering me, I guess. They don't have to be above or below anything, just a seperate species, perhaps related to one or the other and actually to both. Seems to relate to evolution, anthropology, palaeoarchaeology, I think.

BTW, what's a Tokeloshe? And, we waste a lot of energy here anyway, RS.

Minimalist wrote:It does seem that after all this time there would have been a carcass or some actual footprints found. Again, this can't be a single individual as it would have died out long ago. That means a breeding population would have to exist.

Many breeding populations would have to exist. Check out these maps of reported sitings: http://www.penn.freeservers.com/bigfootmaps/

to respected and educated people who wo ... on to lie.

They don't have to be lying. They could simply be mistaken. People have an amazing capacity to scare the shit out of themselves by letting their imaginations run wild.

I don't buy UFOs, ghosts, or the Loch Ness Monster, either.

I'm with you on ghosts and Nessie. I've seen some things in the air I can't explain, so I'm reserving judgement on UFOs.
Mis-identification surely explains some sightings, but I don't believe it explains all of them. Trust me, when I read a new report I try my best to rule it out somehow, but you just can't with all of them.

Mis-identification surely explains some sightings,

And booze probably explains a lot of others.

BTW, what's a Tokeloshe?

From Zulu mythology.....a little evil dude.

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokeloshe

I thought Lord Chelmsford was the evil little dude of Zulu mythology?