Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Woodwose wrote:There are two issues here.

1. When claiming that Patty's physiology falls within normal limits for a hominid, you did it in such a way that suggested you believe this to have some bearing on the authenticity of the PGF.

2. There are no 'normal' or consistent limb ratios that apply to all hominids, so your statement makes no sense.

Really? lol Try looking all HOMIMIDS up once you figure out what a Hominid is. Only Humans (Homo-sapiens and Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens) do NOT have the proportions of Patty.

Every last complete skeleton we have found were built the same as far as arm and leg length and all of them shared the same torsos that apes do.. The only Oddball out of all of them is us. The others mostly only differ in the skulls and I would not rule out the possibility that even those skeletons that they pieces together belonging to different species. Such a goof has happened before. (Brontosaurus)

Tzieth,

The term Hominid refers to ALL members of the family Hominidae. The dictionary definition is notoriously out of date and is referring to the old taxonomy before bipedal primates were reclassified as a sub set of the family Hominidae i.e. Hominini.

Regardless of the taxonomy, my point is that even if Patty's proportions don't match with those of humans (or the diverse physiology of other Hominins) they do not fall within a norm for any other group of known apes either - mostly because there is a wide range of physiology that makes it impossible to define a normal range of locomotion or limb ratio. There are also limited fossil examples for extinct species (let alone complete skeletons), making it very difficult to even define any norms for individual species.

Woodwose wrote:Tzieth,

The term Hominid refers to ALL members of the family Hominidae. The dictionary definition is notoriously out of date and is referring to the old taxonomy before bipedal primates were reclassified as a sub set of the family Hominidae i.e. Hominini.

Regardless of the taxonomy, my point is that even if Patty's proportions don't match with those of humans (or the diverse physiology of other Hominins) they do not fall within a norm for any other group of known apes either - mostly because there is a wide range of physiology that makes it impossible to define a normal range of locomotion or limb ratio. There are also limited fossil examples for extinct species (let alone complete skeletons), making it very difficult to even define any norms for individual species.

Yeah I see you are right and you make a different point of mine on another topic.. "How Modern-science is trying to change things to fit it's views." If it wishes to change it's own theories, that is one thing.. But to rewrite a definition, that is another...

From Webster :
"Definition of HOMINID

: any of a family (Hominidae) of erect bipedal primate mammals that includes recent humans together with extinct ancestral and related forms and in some recent classifications the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan"

And I my self question some of these skeletons. But what we do have, such as Neanderthal, have the same type ratio. And the partials we have such as entire arms of H. Heidelbergis, also have the same huge upper arm and smaller forearm.

This is something that I do not think Patterson even knew back then. But it's more than that. The feet on video walk inline. We know early Hominids walked inline because we have the foot-prints. Just as Bigfoot prints show the sign of a mid-tarsal break so did theirs. Even so called Anthropologists are not addressing this.

So I will continue to use the word "Hominid" as it was originally intended. My belief is that most of them are still living so in that case apes have no place under that title that was given to Bipedal primates.

Scientific disciplines define terminology (not Websters or the OED) and this terminology often changes in the face of new discoveries. These changes and discoveries are so frequent that dictionaries can't keep up. For once Wiki is actually useful in ths respect.

If you sat an exam in paleoanthropology and used dictionary definitions you would fail miserably.

So I will continue to use the word "Hominid" as it was originally intended. My belief is that most of them are still living so in that case apes have no place under that title that was given to Bipedal primates.

Then you will be using it incorrectly and no one with a basic understanding of human ancestry will follow what you are talking about. Why not use the correct term 'Hominin'?

Even under the old taxonmy alll hominids are apes. You and I are both apes.

It's one thing to contemplate a population of unknown bipedal apes living in the US or Asia, but the notion that most Hominini species are still around today is stretching things beyond the bounds of credibility.

Woodwose wrote:Scientific disciplines define terminology (not Websters or the OED) and this terminology often changes in the face of new discoveries. These changes and discoveries are so frequent that dictionaries can't keep up. For once Wiki is actually useful in ths respect.

If you sat an exam in paleoanthropology and used dictionary definitions you would fail miserably.

So I will continue to use the word "Hominid" as it was originally intended. My belief is that most of them are still living so in that case apes have no place under that title that was given to Bipedal primates.

Then you will be using it incorrectly and no one with a basic understanding of human ancestry will follow what you are talking about.

Even under the old taxonmy alll hominids are apes. You and I are both apes.

It's one thing to contemplate a population of unknown bipedal apes living in the US or Asia, but the notion that most Hominini species are still around today is stretching things beyond the bounds of credibility.

Oh no.. I do not agree with that at all. You don't just make crap up as you go along. If Hominid was defined as Bipedal Primates. Science has no right to back track and change the definition. That is not science, that is making stuff up as you go along. And that is also agenda driven.

As far as ancestry goes, I doubt very serious that this new definition applies. Actually it can't apply.. Hominids were distinctly different from apes. Just as if Sasquatch is proven to exist, and if it is multiple different Hominids from record, then what?

However...
Definition of HOMINID

: any of a family (Hominidae) of erect bipedal primate mammals that includes recent humans together with extinct ancestral and related forms and in some recent classifications the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan

I see the key word of "some" in there, so it seems to me like this is YOUR definition.. thus it is not THE definition. So I will stick to what is obviously still the MAIN Definition, and you can go on and continue telling people they are wrong

As I stated above terminology changes to reflect new discoveries (a better understanding of genetics in this instance). That isn't the same thing as 'making it up' and is not something that is agenda driven (it wouldn't survive peer review).

It seems that you are the one making things up as you go along and the only reason to reject the current mainstream definition of Hominid would be if you have an agenda. Otherwise why not use the term Hominin?

With all this arguing over terminology, rejecting scientific consensus and your rediculous notion that humans are not apes, you are beginning to sound like a creationist of FB/FB.

Archaeology Current definition:

Definition: Hominid is a general term used consistently by archaeologists and paleontologists for humans and any member of the species of animal we are most closely evolved from, including Homo neanderthalensis, Australopithicus, and Ardipithecus.

A fossil ape is identified as a human ancestor, in general, if it stood on two legs (was bipedal), and had relatively smaller teeth and bigger brains than the rest of the apes. As you might imagine, there is a great deal of debate over which creatures are our ancestors. Many paleontologists have begun using the term Hominin for this group, which is not exactly a synonym.

Sorry Wood this is a generic term used By 2 divisions of science archaeologists and paleontologists
lets see both of these study the PAST
If they can use the generic term so can we.

Make yor mind up CMcMillan

Again you are referencing an outdated use of taximony. And again you avoid addressing the problems with your argument regarding Patty.

What's with all the evasion and why ignore science on this matter. You are constantly going on about science not knowing everything and when we have a clear example of science adapting to new discoveries, you want to turn back the clock and hold science to dictionary definitions that no longer apply.

You are right Hominid and Hominin are not synonyms. At no point have I made that claim - my point is that they have specific meanings that apply to different groupings of animals and that the trm Hominin was created to make a clear distinction between bipedal human species and other apes.

Wood.

Is the term HOMINID family (Hominidae) still scientifically used to describe the upper family that the tribe Homo, and Gorillia are in?
The answer is yes!
So how am i ignoring science?

You want to classify the bigfoot in the tribe of Hominin then you can.
I at present do not classify them as Hominin since my opinion is they will be its own tribe when all is said and done.
So they will fall under the Family Hominidae

Again I am not ignoring or dismissing science.
I just am not agreeing with you where they should be placed in the Hominidae Family

What's with all the evasion and why ignore science on this matter. You are constantly going on about science not knowing everything and when we have a clear example of science adapting to new discoveries, you want to turn back the clock and hold science to dictionary definitions that no longer apply

please show me links where the new term is used. I dug the definition up from 2 scientific sites they match the current definitions so Show me.
But again I am up a level in the tree while you want to place it down more.

Here is the thing......yesterday I thought we had agreed about the use of the term Hominid. Now you have changed your mind again....just to back up Tzieth? We'll just forget that he/she is flatly wrong and wilfully rejects what science has to say on the matter.

How about a reference to back up your claims, because everything I have read about current taxonomy suggests that your supposed generic use of Hominid is outdated. I've seen this issue discussed many many times (usually involving creationists) and heavyweight qualified paleoanthropologists have always used hominid and hominin in the way I have described.

I'm not debating the family which is Hominidae: consisting of the likes of bonobos (Pan), gorillas (Gorilla), humans and human ancestors (Homo) and orangutans (Pongo). All members of the family Hominidae are known as Hominids. The larger family is Hominoidea, which also includes gibbons and lesser apes.

If you argue that Patty is consistent with a norm for Hominids, then you are saying that there is a norm for all of the animals within the family Hominidae. If that were the case, locomotion and limb ratio between humans and gorillas would be consistent.

Hominini species are those animals belonging to the tribe of Homininae, which in turn belong to the family Hominidae. If you are comparing Patty to the norm for Hominins then you are restricting yourself to a comparison with bipedal human (Homo) ancestors.

Hopefully you can see that the distinction between Hominid and Hominin is extremely pertinent to your comments about Patty and that I am not just arguing the toss about taxonomy.

I have good reason to be fussy about the terminology being used. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, but rather attempting to clarify the classification for different ape species so that we can get on the same page and not talk at cross purposes. Do you understand where I am coming from?

Woodwose wrote:Make yor mind up CMcMillan

Again you are referencing an outdated use of taximony. And again you avoid addressing the problems with your argument regarding Patty.

What's with all the evasion and why ignore science on this matter. You are constantly going on about science not knowing everything and when we have a clear example of science adapting to new discoveries, you want to turn back the clock and hold science to dictionary definitions that no longer apply.

You are right Hominid and Hominin are not synonyms. At no point have I made that claim - my point is that they have specific meanings that apply to different groupings of animals and that the trm Hominin was created to make a clear distinction between bipedal human species and other apes.

You still going on with that? It's not outdated. According to Websters, classifying Non-Human Great Apes as Hominids is a only small sect of people who think they are apes.

http://gfbaev.org/tag/hominids/

Paleoanthropologist Berhane Asfaw provides insight into what the crania of of early Hominids can tell us, and Ronald Clarke chronicles the discovery and impact of discovering “Little Foot,” the oldest Australopithecine find in Southern Africa. Series: “CARTA – Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny” [2/2011] [Science] [Show ID: 20685]

Renowned paleoanthropologist Tim White of UC Berkeley, who is widely credited for his role in the discovery of Ardi, gives a fascinating overview of the search for the origins of Hominids in Africa, and Andrew Hill provides insight into the environments in which our earliest ancestors lived. Series: “CARTA – Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny” [2/2011] [Science] [Show ID: 20682]

http://www.archeolog-home.com/pages/content/reconstructing-the-diet-of-african-hominid-australopithecus-anamensis.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/referenc.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10683305

http://humanorigins.si.edu/

Just a few

No what I said is this

That it is possible for Patty to have norms of Human since she may fall into the Hominin Subfamily line.
I don't see what people see in the film of Human norms. With out great effort or faking involved which I do not believe the film maker was knowledgeable of at the time

I also stated that since we have several descriptions of Bigfoots several saying the creature was on all 4's much like an ape.
This is why I place Bigfoot in the Hominidae Family but not a specific subfamily yet.

I haven't flip flopped my view.

Tzieth wrote:According to Websters........

Please try to pay attention .

CMcMillan wrote:No what I said is this

That it is possible for Patty to have norms of Human since she may fall into the Hominin Subfamily line.

You emphatically stated that Patty was a Hominid - that's why I asked for clarification. I wanted to know if you were talking about all the great apes, or just the Homininae subfamily.

I don't see what people see in the film of Human norms.

I've seen different examples of analysis that fall either side of the coin. I strongly suspect that selection bias makes either conclusion unreliable.

This is why I place Bigfoot in the Hominidae Family but not a specific subfamily yet.

That's what I understood as of yesterday and I've got no argument with that.

I haven't flip flopped my view.

Then why support Tzieth's misinterpretation of the taxonomy? According to Tzieth only humans (Homo) belong to the family Hominidae. Tzieth is arguing that Homo and Hominidae are synonyms.

I am not supporting him. I am supporting him in his belief and his right to assume science made mistakes. Which they have as he pointed out.

Homo is a subfamily of the Hominidae.
All i am supporting is ME being able to use the term Hominid since the definition is correct and is used as a broad term to talk about Human and Human ancestors and Bigfoot or apes

I understand how something like this can escalate....as I've been guilty of the same desire to prove someone else wrong....

Can we just agree to put this one to bed? Hominid.....Hominin...term association...is truly a mute point with an undiscovered species anyway.

Let's get back to the thread topic please.

CMcMillan wrote:I am not supporting him. I am supporting him in his belief and his right to assume science made mistakes.

You could have fooled me. You supported Tzieth by repeating the same outdated definition - implying that he is correct in insisting that only Homo species can be described as Hominids.

By all means defend his misguided distrust of science in general, but if you disagree with his use of the term Hominid I would expect you to have the backbone to call him on it.

Homo is a subfamily of the Hominidae. All i am supporting is ME being able to use the term Hominid since the definition is correct and is used as a broad term to talk about Human and Human ancestors and Bigfoot or apes

But that isn't how Tzieth is using the term. He asserts that only Homo species belong to the family Hominidae and that other apes do not belong to that family.

Giggles
Well I guess it is kinda on topic. But yes I agree we should just let it be as it is.


WOW so now I have no backbone? ~scratches my head~

I didn't read TZ view as you did. ~sorry~ I was reading it as the way I view it.

~Shrugs~

I agree with him that science even NEW science theories can be wrong.
I also believe that Evolution of Man still has many holes in its theory. Missing pieces of the puzzle.
Just as I said to StankApe. Science can not tell me WHY I am a Human and not a worm since we all supposedly came from the same Single cell organism
to have so many species on the planet and yet we all have similar genetic cells. you can only say environment changed them so much.
If this is the case why can't science force when they clone an animal or fruit fly force changes in environment to create a new species?

NobleSavage wrote:Hominid.....Hominin...term association...is truly a mute point with an undiscovered species anyway.

I've said as much from the beginning of the discussion. Furthermore I have used every opportunity to try and bring the discussion back on topic.

Instead all I get is juvenile dictionaries at dawn nonsense and a telling avoidance of the original question I raised.

I think that it is very important that we understand the correct taxonomy, otherwise we end up talking at cross purposes. As an example, I once witnessed a lengthy and bitter arguments about gorilla incisors and the difference of opinion eventually turned out to be down to the fact that one contributor had confused incisors with canines.

If CMcMillan had simply answered my initial question (hominid or hominin?) we could be having an interesting discussion about the pitfalls of comparative anatomy and the problems making such an analysis from the PGF.

CMcMillan wrote:WOW so now I have no backbone? ~scratches my head~

It came across as if you were only supporting TZ because he is a member of your tribe regardless of whether or not he is right or not.

I didn't read TZ view as you did. ~sorry~ I was reading it as the way I view it.

And therein lies the problem.

If CMcMillan had answered my initial question (hominid or hominin) we could be having an interesting discussion about the pitfalls of comparative anatomy and the problems making such an analysis from the PGF.

GRRR I did I said HOMINID and I meant HOMINID since Hominin is a Sub-Family of Hominid. So I used HOMINID as the Broad FAMILY term

TZ uses it different But Still you FAIL to show us your resources where SCIENCE USES HOMININ over HOMINID I have shown you several sites were scientists USE HOMINID. And it was as late as August 2012. SO apparently ALL SCIENTISTS are still having the debate.
OVER WHAT IS the proper TERM!

CMcMillan wrote:GRRR I did I said HOMINID and I meant HOMINID since Hominin is a Sub-Family of Hominid. So I used HOMINID as the Broad FAMILY term

Yes I know. Above you claimed to have said 'Hominin' and I was merely reminding you of what you had originally stated. Also, I have already explained why I asked you to confirm whether you meant Hominid or Hominin. Many people get the terms mixed up and I merely asked you to confirm what you meant. Why would you get so riled over a simple question?

I have shown you several sites were scientists USE HOMINID.

I haven't said that the term Hominid is no longer used. It is the application of the term that has changed in reference to the classification of species. Your references do nothing to change that as it's perfectly acceptable to describe homo habilis etc as hominids since they belong to the family Hominidae.

You have agreed that Hominini are a subfamily of Hominidae and that the great apes also belong to the family Hominidae, so what on earth are you arguing about? Do you even know?

I would sincerely appreciate a return to some generosity here on the the part of both of you. You are both valuable contributors to this forum, and you both have made your stance crystal clear. Thank You both in advance....

Woodwose wrote:

Tzieth wrote:According to Websters........

Please try to pay attention .

I do find it funny that you are laughing Webster's off though.. Because so far it is the only one that is backing up your Hominid claim.

I did however find that this is not only still in debate, but it looks like the classification of "Hominid" is about to change again based on Body structure.