Lot's of people believe that bigfoot is the 'missing link' between humans and apes. How is that possible? Apes are not as tall as most humans, and bigfoot is huge compared to most humans. So why would it go low, high, medium? If evolution was true, then wouldn't humans be the giants rather then bigfoot?

Think of evolution as branches. Limbs that go out, come in and cross again. This is a very SLOW and COMPLEX issue.

Have you ever heard of a "liger"?

Did you know a poodle is a "wolf-hybrid"?


Read Some Darwin,
The QuatchWatcher

great question, My argument would go like this

Evolution is the betterment of an organism.. look at the human of today vs the human of the 20's 40's 60's. The average male now is a giant in comparison, thats just the last 50 years or so. as far as the Giant stature of a squatch my guess would be as the homosapien "evolved" there was more of a need to be smaller to conserve body energy, and many other reasons not to be HUGE rather then the alternative of being HUGE.

Yeah..evolution does not favor large things..it never has..ask the dinosaurs.

Not my area of expertise, but here goes...

According to our contemporary understanding of evolution, we really didn't evolve from apes (or bigfoot). Humans, apes, and (presumably) sasquatch all evolved from common primate ancestors. The difference is subtle, but important.

Evolution isn't sequential from species to species, like some unfolding genetic blueprint. So, QW is correct in the branch analogy. Whatever environmental forces were present favored successful mutations for each species that came forth from the common ancestor species (the part of the branch closer to the tree). But, those mutations and selective forces were different for each branch. My bet is that the "sasquatch" branch split off a long time ago (i.e. millions of years).

All of that goes to say that we didn't evolve from sasquatch. Whatever traits we share are (most likely) traits that we shared with our common ancestor.

Is there a biologist in the house?

B.S. in Biology from Willamette University (1993)


Also A Musician,
The QuatchWatcher

Maybe we both have our own niche in evolution's survival of the fittest game.
He's strong, we're smart.
We're both fit enough to thrive on the planet, just in different ways.

The Bible talks of humans like modern men though. So if we have 'evolved' in height, then in the time of the bible we would all be tiny. Look at all the buildings and man-made structures from that day. They were suited for modern men, not extremely short people. Evolution just doesn't make sense to me. Life is so complex and it works so well that it seems impossible that it could just happen. If you took the pieces of a clock and scattered them on a beach and came back after a big storm, would there be a working clock? No, chances are there wouldn't be. And every bit of life, right down to individual cells, is more complex then a clock. Also there are other things that make you wonder, such as male and female. How could male and female just happen? They fit together so perfectly. Why not male, female, gorbale, foogale, etc. I've read books comparing creation and evolution, and I've learned that the theory of evolution is filled with errors. There are even books written by evolutionists who looked deeper into both ideas and realised that creation makes more sense. Also in the Bible (Genesis) there is talk of giants. Those, in my opinion, are today's sasquatches.

I'll have to disagree with you here. Just look at existing dwellings which were constructed 200 even 150 years ago (there's still plenty of them around). You'll notice significant differences in various dimensions (lower ceilings and doors particularly).

I think your looking at this picture in kind of a warped way. Rather than relying on the Bible (most of which was written well over 2000 years ago) to help you extrapolate how things should be today, just look at the available empirical data on this subject.

Anyway, I think you drew everyone in here with a question regarding what appeared to be a discussion on an aspect of the theory of evolution. Now it appears your turning it into a debate as to the validity of the theory all together based on religious beliefs.

Not to worry, the theory of creationism is also filled with errors.

To put is simply, evolution = nature + a lot of time + trail and error.

God = man's interpretation of nature when they can understand the math above.

Snakeman...

Evolution, as a working theory, goes back way further than the Bible. Try thinking of it in billions of years rather than in thousands of years. Man has been breeding animals for longer than we can imagine and that in itself is "forced evolution". ALL primates, YES, had a common ancestor. That is different than saying that we evolved from bigfoot or that bigfoot is a "missing link." I have studied Genetics and it is VERY complex.

Moreover, the theory of "mutation" should be addressed. "Genetic Mutation" occurs when the "outcome" of an organisim's genotype and/or phenotype is not as expected. Sometimes this "surprise" turns out to actually benefit that organism and it, the mutation, is possibly passed on to the next generation. Sometimes the mutation does not benefit at all.

Furthermore, you must understand the concept of dominant and recessive genes. They will code for the outcome of the organism as well in their own unique ways.

As mentioned before... a "genotype" is the actual genetic code make-up of the organism in terms of genes. A "phenotype" is the way the organism "appears."

Do you REALLY think that we ALL evolved from Adam? Eve was once a rib?
While we are here, "Where did Abel's wife come from"? Hmmmm?

Yes, we have changed "a little" since the Bible and we will continue to do so in the future. But, really, I believe that the Bible is just a book. Just a story with morals and life lessons. People back then did not live to be 600 years old. NO WAY.

Really Snakeman... check out some books on evolution, genetics, animal breeding, crop production, AKC bloodlines or your own family tree. THEY ALL HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.


Questions? Fire Away,
The QuatchWatcher

The thread is going in a different direction than I had anticipated. I suspect any in-depth conversation regarding evolution vs. creation would get heated rather quickly and locked down (as it should be if things got out of hand).

I'll just say this and stop. There is debate even within scientific circles regarding the mechanics of evolution (the "how"), but mainstream scientists do agree that there has been change over time in the development of species.

That being said, many Christian denominations (including Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) do not have a problem with accepting evolution as part of God's design. The Genesis accounts are viewed as the Word of God, but metaphorically and symbolically. So, there's no need to seek for some sort of resolution of disparities between creation and evolution.

If the accounts are viewed literally, that's when these questions become paramount. The accounts are then mutually exclusive of one another and cannot be consonant. One has to be wrong.

If that's where you are with this question, I don't envy you. Just be careful.

I hope folks will tread lightly in this thread.

Me too.

We're not going to go into a creationism vs. evolution debate. See the forum guidlines for more info.

That said, I think the increase in human stature over the preceeding centuries has a lot more to due with better disease control and nutrition than it does with evolution...

<---- could care less for debates ^^ agreed ^^






as for disease and nutrition its probably a large factor, but I couldn't attribute all of it to that

but good point, Iagree its prolly a large part of it. But I have to imagine our athletes of today are Bionic compared to the olden days, and thats not 100% attributed nutrition...

btw as for athletes.. I'm talkin bout all each and every athlete.. not just the genetically engineered professional

Minor point, but this is patently untrue. For one thing, the dinosaurs were pretty damn successful (they were around for far longer than we have been), and one can't say that 'evolution favors 'x' trait', at least, not without a lot of evidence backing it up. Evolution simply favors traits that help a species to reproduce sucessfully and pass their genes on to as many similarly sucessful offspring as is possible. In some situations, large size is an advantage, for various reasons(thermal efficency, predation, locomotion, etc etc).

Discussion of Bigfoot as 'missing link' or 'ancestor' is usually precipitated by people with a vague or flawed understanding of the theory of evoltion (or, as i suspect here, Creationists looking for a fight..). As Judaculla and Quatch have pointed out, evolution rarely proceeds in a straight line, but rather produces many 'versions' of an organism (which, when enough differences accrue, are deemed new species), branching off from previously existing species. Humans, for example, did not evolve from chimps (a common misconception), but rather, they and we are both different 'versions' of some extinct species of ape (the 'missing link', if you will). Presumably Sasquatch is yet another version (or version of version, or version of version of version, etc) of some extinct ancestral species that might also be an ancestral species to Homo sapiens. The most exciting possibility, in my mind, is that this 'last shared ancestor' might be msre recent than the the last shared ancestor of humans and chimps, making Sasquatch our closest relatives.

-robin

On the contrary..If you look it up you will find that the saurian predators were all becoming smaller as we go up through the eras and/or periods.
The Tyanasaurus-Rex which we are so familliar with, was the smallest of its predecesors!
Look up another predator..the Allosaurus....this creature too was the smallest of his/her amcestors!
They all became modified with smaller bodies...shorter arms..as well as tails. So evolution was indeed downsizing the predators.

Robo beat me to it GC. Size is evolved to adapt to a variety of
reasons. It's happened repeatedly throughout the animal AND
plant kingdoms.

Sometimes climate drives size. On this continent several species
have used size to increase volumes drastically while increasing
surface area minimally (bears, elephants, bison, to name a few).
This allows the body to more easily maintain an even (and warm)
body temperature.

Sometimes size increases allow easy predation on larger prey, thereby
decreasing competition for food sources (sharks, dinos, cats, crocodilians
among others, and redwoods reaching for unimpeded sunlight)

Nature abhors a vaccum. Create an opportunity and given time it'll
be taken advantage of

Had to check my copy of Paul's "Predatory Dinosaurs of the
World" to make sure I had my facts straight on the next one.

Sorry to ding on ya tonight GC, but T. Rex is the largest of
the breed. Tyrannosaurs compose a family actually, not a
single species, but potentially 14 species! T. Rex is out at the
end of that lineage, and with a estimated weight 12 tons for the
largest known specimen, that more than quadruples the next
largest species (several Albertosaurs and a Daspletosaur)
at a mere 2.5 tons.

Great book by the way, for you paleo nuts

Yer kidding!
Well I'll be a monkey's.......

Let me check that out!

Thing is, even if it was true that predatory dinosaurs got smaller over the eons, it would have more to do with environmental factors favoring smaller animals than to do with 'evolution arbitrarily favoring smaller organisms', which, when you think about it in relation to the basic theory of natural selection, doesn't really make any sense.

Also, there is the question of how dinosaurs evolved to be so big in the first place if size wasn't an evolutionary advantage for some species (there were, of course, small dinosaurs as well). They didn't start out huge!

-robin

SABRE- I apologise. I was getting off topic, and I am sorry for that. I am not having a good day. Here is the last I'll write on this topic.



I'm afraid all of the branches I've seen in my life just grow straight out.

If there are humans in North America, and a link between man and apes in north America (bigfoot), then why are there no apes?



In that time there was no problems with reproducing with your sister, wife, uncle, brother, etc. This was before the commandments and before the Bible was written.



I have. I've read many books on evolution, creationism, and even more books comparing the two. I am also very interested genetics and animal breeding as I am planning on starting a herp breeding business. I have spend a lot of time reading on those subjects.

What's a herp?

And no matter what the Bible says, I'd have a very hard time reproducing with my uncle!

That is assuming that BF is not an ape. Many BF researches believe that the sasquatch is a great ape.

To answer your question: herps (herptiles) are reptiles and amphibians.



LOL...it's great that you are so positive. I feel like I was starting to get negative in my posts. I am sorry. I think that enough has been said under this thread to answer my original post. Perhaps this should be locked as to prevent further arguments. I don't want to create a bad atmosphere, and since I am 15 and have raging hormones, that will probably be the case. These days my emotions are being tossed like a ceasar salad . Thanks

P.S. I apologise to anyone who felt that I was picking a fight. I would rather not have enemies on these boards; I am sorry.

Oh, wow! 15...*SIGH* I remember being 15...

SNAKEMAN:


All is good brother. Your posts are welcomed. I'm just a nerdy scientist-type, that's all.


No Harm Done,
TQW

Well, that is a big part of the story, but by no means all of it. Random and spontaneous mutations to the DNA base sequence can and do occur. (The assumption that they occur at a constant rate over time is the theoretical foundation of mtDNA divergence studies.) Depending upon where the error occurs, one or more genes will be read differently and correspondingly different proteins will be manufactured. The resulting alterations can run the gamut. They may be catastrophic and life precluding or they may be insignificant and unobservable above the molecular level. Sometimes they produce a morphologically observable change, and sometimes this kind of change can have positive or negative effects on the ability of its possessor to survive in its environment. This is where natural selection may come into play. The possessor of a trait which has positive implications for survival is more likely to be around to pass it on to offspring. In time a new trait may spread through a population. Ultimately a collection of such mutations may result in a population which is sufficiently genetically and morphologically distinct to consider it a new species.

Mutation is not a necessary condition for evolution however. If there are two adjacent populations which are capable of successful breeding but which have not historically interbred (which together with "sufficient" morphological difference satisfies the conditions to consider them as separate species) suddenly come into genetic contact, the process of hybridization and back crossing itself may in time produce a new species. Natural selection may or not play a role in this kind of evolution.

There is also the possibility of speciation through genetic drift--mutations which have no particular survival value can quickly become established in small and isolated populations. Over time, a collection of these mutations may produce a new species even though the mutations collectively and individually have no survival value.

-Vern

A certain southpark song comes to mind

snakeman - i'm sorry that i thought that you were trying to pick a fight. I guess i've just seen to many endless creationism vs. evolution arguments online.

You mention that you've read many books comparing creationism and evolution. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that most books that are about comparing the two are going to be pushing a creationist view, mainly because evolution is the scientifically accepted theory (for the most part), and therefore creationists often feel the need to justify their position by comparing and defending creationism as against evolution. Those who accept the theory of evolution generally don't take creationism too seriously, on the other hand, so you are unlikely to find many serious books comparing the two that won't come down on creationism's side.
I just wanted to let you know that in case you were thinking that by reading as many books 'comparing' the two ideas, you would get a balanced view. It might not be the case.

I myself am an atheist, so i have no problem accepting the theory of evolution as a valid theory (and one that seems to explain things quite well), but it sounds like you are a Christian who takes the Bible fairly literally. That means that you'll have to do some thinking about _how_ literally you are going to take the things you read in the Bible. Most Christians, i think, would agree that there is a limit to how much in the bible is meant literally, and how much is meant allegorically.

It's a tough question - i take the easy way out by not believing any of it, but that is not an option for some.

-robin

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../the_human_gene

I posted this link on another mailing list today, but it talks about how a certain gene affects the growth of the jaw and the corresponding muscles and how in humans the particular gene resulted in smaller muscles and weaker jaw which may have allowed for more space for the brain to grow in to.

Not taking any sides, but Robo, doesn't just about every book written about evolution, by definition, take the side against creationism? So to gain an objective opinion reading a book with a different bias might be worthwhile if you're inclined to study both theories.

Howling, you too have Pauls book?
Seperated at birth, I tell you...
I am hoping he follows through on his idea of doing a similar volume on the other clads...particularly, I am hoping for one on marine reptiles(not dinosaurs, I know..but interesting all the same..)

Factoid (for the uninformed): The reason buildings from a few hundred years ago were build for shorter people is because people back then were indeed shorter, but this was due to malnutrition, not evolutionary changes ! Evolution takes much longer than that. Earlier ancestors were as tall, if not taller, than most people today. Malnourished children will not grow as large in adulthood as well fed ones.

Opinionoid (for those with open minds) : Darwinian evolution has several rather large flaws, that tend to get brushed under the carpet.

Darwinism requires that species somehow cling onto beneficial mutations before the benefits are realised. For instance, the evolution of the eye (which has occurred independently at least three times) is pretty much inexplicable. An eye requires the simultaneous evolution of light receptive cells, a lense, iris, cornea, and visual nervous system. None of these things are any use without the other, yet Darwinian evolution states that only beneficial (or non-detrimental) mutations survive. A little far fetched, don't you think ?

A much better theory can be found here. It also has the side benefit of giving creationists something to cling to (that DNA arrived 'pre-packaged') . Everyone is happy.

The pansperia solution to the eye problem is that the genes for making a retina, a lense, etc, are already present before they are required. The organism received these gene packets pre-packaged and ready to go - when the eye 'jigsaw' was complete, presto, an eye was evolved. This also helps explain away all that 'junk DNA' we have - it's not junk, it's just genes for things we don't need (yet).

Seriously, panspermia is even better than Bigfoot when it comes to the potential to blow the lid of everything.

Awesome book. One of the best.

Gee4orce,

Could you expand on that statement? It seems to contradict much of what I've been taught over the years regarding the evolution of the human species. Thanks.

Snakeman,
I am what I call a ZenBaptist. I belong to a Baptist church(generally considered evangelical and fundamentalist) and believe the general Cristian outlook of the Baptist denominations, however, I retain the right to question, and I believe that just because the preacher or Sunday school book says it don't make it so. I believe in the truths of the Bible and that much of it is factual. I also believe that much of the Bible was intended to be taken allegorically or even metaphysically and not necessarily literally. God gave us a brain and I believe he fully intends for us to use it, and to blindly accept a mans literal interpretation of specific passages is both disingenuous and an insult to God (see Taliban, et al). Asking questions and seeking answers is not the same as rebelling. In my view science and religion are complimentary, not contradictory. Both attempt to understand the universe, but different perspectives. Ask yourself this question - If you were transported back in time 4000 - 5000 years, how would you explain things like Big Bang and Quantum Mechanics to a group of people who didn't know where the sun went at night? How would they then record that knowledge and transmit it from generation to generation?

Ouachita

Sabre,
If I can jump in here. It's my understanding that Cro-Magnon peoples were on average at least as tall as modern humans and in some cases taller. When humans began to gather in communities, towns, and cities and switched to a grain based diet they started to get smaller and more prone to disease. Increased tooth wear and decay was one of the major problems with the new diet and that led to a decreased ability to take in proper nutrition. Lower protein intake also contributed to smaller size and diminished health. Population concentration increased the risk of transmissable infections which exacebated the problem.


Hey guys, don't forget the impact of sexual selection in evolution. Some features may indicate good health or ability to procreate and raise a family, but others may be selected on, for lack of a better term, fashion whim.

Ouachita,


I've always had a problem with people who forget that the bible is actually mans interpretation of what God said.

JayLee,

Yeah, a lot of lives are ruined because folks prefer to take the easy way out and let someone else do their thinking for them. That's true of believers and secularist.

Gee4orce - as to your first point, i agree. I don't think there have been very large evolutionary changes in humans over a few hundred years. Evolution happens over thousands to millions of years. People being shorter on average 10 or 20 generations ago probably does have a lot more to do with diet than with genes. You can still see this happening today. Remember the stereotype of the short Japanese person? Look at young Japanese people today. They aren't so short anymore, as a result of a higher protein, higher calorie diet.


As for your second point, about evolution falling short of explaining complex structures like the eye, i think evolution does fine. From my fuzzy memories of biology courses, i remember that cephalization (the concentration of nervous tissues in one area of the organizm: the 'head') occurs in some primitive organisms, and was evidently an evolutionary advantage. Then there are some primitive worms and other invertebrates that do not have fully developed eyes, but have pairs of light receptive cells on their heads. At a glance, they resemble eyes, and even in that primitive form, they are an evolutionary advantage. Taking this further, it's not hard to see how a primitive lens, or incremental 'upgrades' to the nervous system that would allow more complex responses to visual stimuli would also be incremental evolutionary advantages, that would lead to the modern vertebrate eye in all its glory.

I think people espousing a non-evolutionary view, be it creationism or alien-DNA as you suggest, are sometimes too quick to dismiss the evolution of the eye as impossible.


-robin

Yes, you're right. I was half asleep when i posted that and assumed that he had mostly been reading 'Christian' books on evolution. I could be totally wrong.

Thanks ouachita for that clarification. Gee4orce made it sound like all early ancestors had those characterisitcs.

I retract my statements regarding the dimensions in older dwellings. Wasn't thinking about the big picture.



Couldn't haver said it better myself!

Could'nt be more well said. Good Job

When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

(Not intending this as an insult, just something clever that my gym teacher showed me)

I believe in God myself, but let everyone believe what they wish! I see one big difference between Humans and animals.....each human is different, while all animals are the same. The chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas all look and act alike. If you've seen one you've seen 'em all. Same way with all animals...you may find different colors and some slightly larger or smaller, but they're all pretty much identical. Almost as if they were made on an assembly line. But the same can't be said for humans....we all look and act differently. My question would be, if evolution is how we got here, why don't all we humans look and act the same? And i really wish we'd evolved with wings! We could fly through the forests and corner sassy in no time!

The Chihuahua and St. Bernard?






The pit bull and the labrador have pretty different dispositions.

Manster...

Maybe... oh I don't know... THE TOWER OF BABEL?!?!

The Tower of Babel would certainly explain why i can't understand what the Mexican man standing behind me in the Walmart check-out line is saying! But if i look at him close enough i'll be able to recognize him on sight the next time i see him.

Manster...

I see HUGE differences between animals of the same species as well as animals of the same breed.

Look here is a wolf-hybid cub.