I came across this article by Richard Dawkins, the British scientist, in the UK newspaper, The Guardian. He assesses the impact that the discovery of a relict population of Homo Erectus and Australopithecus, or the creation of a human/chimp hybrid would have on our ideas of what it means to be human. It's an interesting read.

Even though Dawkins is clearly a sceptic and writes: "The world is now too well explored for us to have overlooked a large, savannah-dwelling primate" I am surprised that he even gives the notion any house room at all. In Britain, he has the reputation as an arch-rationalist and recently made a TV series debunking all kinds of paranormal phenomena. I would not have expected him to speculate on the existence of relict hominids any more than I would the tooth fairy. The fact that he is clearly prepared to do so enhances the scientific credibility of the subject, in my opinion.

See?

That's what I've been saying. It great to hear an expert is thinking seriously about it too.

I would have to agree Strick.

this is very inportant informative new article indeed.. thanks bill

Dawkins is best known (notorious) for his evangelical atheism and pugnacious debunking of all things paranormal and weird. He is also one of the few scientists and academics whose popularity, wealth and fame allows him to say exactly what he wants, even though he upsets millions of people.

Unfortunately, most academics and scientists do not find themselves in this happy place. Theirs is a scrappy business where research funding, threat of cuts, promotion considerations and the potential ridicule of peer review constantly modify behaviour and what they are prepared to state in public, especially when this means stepping beyond the orthodoxy.

What I am trying to say here is that I imagine there are many more scientists sympathetic to the notion of relict hominid populations than we are generally led to believe, but there are genuine reasons why they are slow to come forward. Really, if the arch-sceptic Dawkins does not reject the subject out of hand, then there is room for hope indeed.

I think you're right, 'strick'. But I'll add that perhaps the reason he is reluctant to completely dismiss BF out of hand is his staunch support for all things concerning Darwinian Evolution.

He believes in the 'standard' working model of the evolutionary 'tree of life' as it insists upon earlier, more primitive hominids gradually over time becoming later, more 'evolved' hominids, until, presto, mankind evolved onto the scene. So for him, virtually anything that falls within the bipedal hominid/hominoid typology -- including BF -- is a further confirmation of the road to connected speciation leading ultimately to mankind being at the apex of biological creation. While some might claim this an elitist and exclusively homocentric point of view, nonetheless BF would be a living example and confirmation of our own ancient evolutionary connections. How closely connected would we be?

The proven existence of BF might actually provide a moment of triumph for Dawkins because some of the the proposed hybrid body morphology characteristics of BF -- half-man, half-ape hand and foot structures, for example -- are not found in any other fossils or living hominids/oids today. This could be a coup for both the Darwinians and for Dawkins, so he may just want to keep BF in his back pocket as a trump card, if and when the day of BF 'discovery' arrives.
Dudlow

Dudlow, you make some excellent points. I had never before considered the discovery of Bigfoot as persuasive evidence of classic Darwinian evolutionary theory as it relates to us Humans.

Another point that fascinates me is the notion that, if Bigfoot does not exist, those that are fascinated by the subject can, putting ethics on one side, take heart because it will not be very long before it is possible to artificially create one in the form of a Human/great ape hybrid. As Dawkins states in the article, this is very much science fact now and will be possible well within the lifetime of many of his readers.

So what is he de facto difference between Bigfoot and such a hybrid? Absolutely nothing, except for the fact that creating it in a test tube rather than that catching a specimen in the woods seems to have diminished the creature to some degree.

Food for thought.