The "Finding Bigfoot" crew will be coming to Pocatello next month to look for it, they will be visiting the lab I am currently working in. Any questions you want me to ask for you?

Cool. I was in Port Alfred, South Africa back in 2007 and I recalled reading about the lobe finned living fossil fish, the "coelecanth" netted in the 1920's near there and the stir that caused...I'm sure we'll have some more surprises yet, as they always find some new life form in Sumatra, Borneo, New Guinea, etc. or underwater, those "tube worms" by those undersea thermal vents and so on. My first wife, at one time a stewardess, saw along with the whole flight crew, a UFO over Spain, which was also seen by a nearby Swissair flight, but they did not report it because of the obvious repercussions to their employment and this has been often stated. I've seen a couple of unexplained objects while duck hunting for sure. We have the "skunk ape" phenomenon down here, nothing verifiable. One exotic pest here are the Burmese and other assorted pythons wreaking havoc in the ecosystem- I've taken one out I encountered. Two obvious question surface in my minde regarding a "bigfoot" simian/hominid; one- there have to be breeding pairs more than one individual, so these lone creature sightings are difficult to accept without evidence of multiple forms; second- food sources- the apparent dimensions of purported evidence suggests large creatures which require extensive caloric intake and there should be more evidence found of foraging, predation, etc. but I have not seen this convincingly presented. I am a skeptic but I have an open mind.

Your first question also stands out as a large problem in my mind. There would need to be a fairly sizable population to prevent inbreeding and ensure continuation of the species. It is not impossible that these things have for the most part remained undiscovered, a rarely seen species of gorilla was just recently filmed for the first time.

I have talked with Dr. Meldrum from the video above, he is a professor here at ISU and is a cool guy to talk with. His expertise lies in foot mechanics so he analyses all the tracks found around the world. He has presented some interesting findings in some of the tracks that would be very hard to fake...

In Iowa the dnr denied that there were mountain lions here till one was hit by a car. How many you spose are here that they are road kill.

Idaho is apparently now very "squatchy".

Paleo, as I am not very familiar with Idaho in general, what predator competition would these "bigfoot" creatures face? Seems with their suggested size they might be able to fend off wolves, cougars, and maybe bears. Another factor about their viability is the ability to deal with the temperature extremes out there. Let us know if there are any further reports.

What size shoe do they wair?

i wonder if they believe in GOD!....

Ask em if they have ever sexed a female big foot to the point of her orgasm and if so what did it sound like

LMAO! I will do that and report back

Thank Science this thread got entertaining at the end! I was about to kick myself in the ass for reading another one of Paleo's threads there for a minute...

1) Humans are entirely God's construct, therefore lower animals are not aware of him.

2) While god created all life, the only ones he gave a soul to and awareness of him is humans, so again a "lower" primate would not be aware of his existence.



How do we know this, was anyone of us a squirrel, deer, or other animal at some point in time. Maybe they do, who are we to say.

Paleo,


........Reckon your gonna like Hell?

Paleo...I think your response was very diplomatic-not that you care much what I think

I have a serious question, not f'n with you. I believe in God, and, yes, I believe whole-heatedly in evolution, so this question is not at all about proving the existence of God or disproving evolution, but I was thinking about micro vs. macro-evolution. Certainly micro-evolution is an easier concept to visualize, if you will. Macro is a little more difficult. Not at all doubting that is does occur. Although I'm aware that evolution opponents often site it as evidence against evolution. That's not my point. I don't doubt it. What is the explanation for the apparent lack of intermediate species? It seems like the fossil record of the development of new species would be more linear than step-wise. Secondly, take thumbs for example...did they develop evolutionarily starting as nubs then get longer? Or did they just sort of appear suddenly (I know nothing happens suddenly, but you get my point). Two points about that...to increase in frequency, the nubs would have to impart some selective advantage, which would be hard to imagine, but could happen, I guess. Secondly, if they developed "suddenly, there would have to be an incredible amount of genetic change-in muscles, bones, tendons, etc. not to mention changes in the brain to allow the thumb to function. Same thing with girraffes' necks-I see how a long neck offers an advantage, but I struggle to see the selective advantage of an incrementally longer neck, advancing only a few millimeters at a time, over millions of years.

Again, I ask the questions as a scientist (of sorts;), not a doubter or in any way attempting to argue against evolution, which is scientific fact.

There is a god.

No there isn't.

Yes there is.

No there isn't.

Yes!

No! ......ad infinitum.

In a nutshell I've summarized this whole thread.

One cannot prove a belief only that he does.

I belive lawyers are crooks.

Hehe. Thanks, paleo.

BTW, I'm available to answer any OB/GYN questions

Ok, this is going to most likely end up as a long ass post. CB I will scatter a few pictures in there for you...

Docott, I know what you are asking, however your use of macro-micro is a bit wrong. When discussing evolution micro refers to small critters from amoeba through insects, and macro generally refers to larger animals.

When looking at the fossil record the first issue is how really incomplete it is. Fossilization only occurs in special circumstances and only a very small portion of all animals that die will become fossilized. So sometimes there will many many millions of years between fossil layers in the same location. To use your giraffe example, a paleontologist finds an early short necked variety, then the next layer that holds fossils there is a long necked variety. While they may come from the same general area the layers are separated by several million years. From the outside looking in so to speak they found a short necked giraffe, then found a long necked one, so it appears that a jump was made from sort to long, and the "transition species" is missing. Now as far as the stretching by mm's per cycle that is not as unlikely as it would seem. Take domestic dogs for an example. Before domestication there were essentially 2 species of dogs, wolves and coyotes. People started selectively breeding traits they found desirable and eliminating traits that they didn't approve of. Evidence has shown that domestication of dogs by humans began a little less than 20,000 years ago, in just 20,000 years look at all the different varieties of dogs there are now and that time span is a blip in the fossil record. Humans did the same thing with cattle, sheep, several varieties of plants, and even other people. It is not very inconceivable that the same thing could happen naturally over a few million years with animals spread over a continent or two.

The question about the thumbs also goes back a very long time. As hard as it is for people to accept that we evolved from an early primate, the truth is that we really evolved from a long line that can be traced back to an early lobe finned fish called tiktaalik. Tiktaalik is found in rocks dating back to 375 million years ago, before life moved out onto land. Tiktaalik was the first animal to have identifiable linb bones that were neccasary for life on land.

Tiktaalik arm and hand, the critter on the right is a tetrapod, one of the first animals to take a walk on land.


After tiktaalik the arm and hand elements continued to evolve until they were adequate to support the weight of the animals as they encountered a new force, gravity. Amphibians were the first to successfully make it on land, however they needed to stay close to the water just like modern amphibians. A group of animals called Anapsids were the first to habitat dry land. They had well developed arm and hands and a thick skin that prevented them from drying out.

Anapsid hand and arm. notice the similarities with our own anatomy


This process continued for another 300 million years with slight changes here and there, as certain adaptations were required. Our earliest primate ancestors were exclusive tree dwellers, they had to be to escape some of the nasty predators sharing the land with them. At some point our ancestors needed to move onto the plains to find better provisions for survival, this necessitated walking upright to better look for predators. With the shift in pelvis and spinal alignment, the need to carry food over long distances occurred. A chimp is not very efficient at carrying very much for very far because they lack the oposable thumb necessarily. Over time the already present thumb changed position to facilitate the need to carry items. This had the benefit of added dexterity, which led to tool making, and weapons to better kill game, and of course the ability to utilize fire.

Do they prefer Gatortail or Prodrive?

This thread is about bigfoot and now a bit of evolution, not god. What are your thoughts on sasquatch.

Go to the other thread to argue about God.

Thanks paleo. Those explanations both make a lot of sense. I knew that, of course, fossilization only occurred under very specific conditionas, but I hadn't thought of that as the reason for the apparent gap in development.

The thumb explanation makes sense too-that the initial advantage was not dexterity, but weight baring, and that that adaptation set the stage to allow for those changes to, in turn, to provide for even further selective advantage. I imagine that's the case with many other adaptations.

Thanks again for the explanation.

BTW, Do you do any teaching? You're good at it.

What came first, the chicken or the egg ????

BYU-yes, it should be. What exactly is the Morman stance on this issue? It's of paramount importance to me bc if they deny evolution, I'm gonna vote for...never mind

Came first...HAHAHAHAHA

The official stance within the church is pretty much the same as most other religions, evolution just didn't happen. Within the university it is a little more excepted and it is embraced in the biology department pretty much like any other university. they have a view similar to your own, that religion and evolution isn't really an either-or scenario.

I'm Catholic, and you are correct about my beliefs, although I'm somewhat of an "atheist" on the issue of God's involvement in evolution (not on the issue of the existence of God). That is, I don't insist that He is involved, but I don't deny that He could be. The Catholic church seems to hold a similar view:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

I guess it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. I believe in fact; I believe in science. Religion relies more on faith, not fact-very convenient, I'll grant you that

At the end of the day, rationalism is not enough for me. Thank God or Hathor for beer!