How does it prove evolution? It does no such thing. This whole forum has been about Dr Ketchum’s study of what is purported to be Sasquatch DNA. Her study analyzed both the mitochondrial [female] and nuclear [male] DNA. As a result, they concluded that the nuclear DNA was not from ANY KNOWN species. So obviously they compared the DNA with other species, including all the apes.

If evolution were fact, there would be no point in comparing DNA because it would always be in a state of readiness to change, or in an actual state of change, wouldn’t it? Living things would always be in the process of changing, or preparing to change, into another form of life.

Show me where that is happening. I’ll wager you can’t. Why? Because DNA acts like a blueprint for the cell, ensuring its integrity. Where an error occurs in the genetic code [like 1 in 10 billion], disease or the growth of an appendage may occur. But there has never been found an instance where that error has worked to the advantage of the living creature. Rather the opposite has consistently been observed to be the case.

The facts show that DNA prevents organic evolution from happening, thankfully. You cannot cross any ape with any human, because, as I said in my previous post, their genetic makeups are too different for that to happen. Apes are not hominids, so, just as homo sapiens cannot procreate with them, neither can Sasquatches. According to Dr Ketchum, their DNA would not allow it.

There are several reasons why your assertion is false. To begin with, there is the observational fact that, in the Patterson-Gimlin footage, ‘Patty’ is seen walking upright as a human does, with a human gait, not the outward bent-legged ambling gait of any of the apes.

I agree that the footage is genuine, the sinews at the base of the right arm as it swings and the hernia bulge in the right thigh upon contact with the ground not things that could be replicated in a man-made suit back in 1967.

But what you have to understand is that Dr Ketchum’s analyses involved 110 samples and, according to Jim McClarin on crytomundo.com, “she was very thorough in explaining what steps were taken to insure quality results, everything from washing and rinsing samples and repeat tests to contracting seven independent laboratories to run tests on the samples without divulging their supposed source to see if they got concurring results.” He adds, “The samples she tested were collected by field researchers who either stated or suspected they came from a Bigfoot/Sasquatch creature. They came from 14 states and two Canadian provinces and included hair, blood, saliva, and one piece of skin with hair attached.”

The conclusions she reached do NOT allow for any possibility of Sasquatch being derived from apes. The mitochondrial DNA is passed down from the mother in all cases, and according to Dr Ketchum, was found to be modern human [homo sapiens]. The nuclear DNA [male side] she claims is from an unknown hominid [that excludes apes, who, while they are hominoid, are not hominins or hominids].

Humans cannot reproduce with apes [chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans], their genetic makeups being sufficiently different to prevent that from happening, thankfully.

I have my own theory as to the advent of Sasquatch, but it isn’t one that I would choose to share on this forum.

Nonetheless, they do exist, and it is obvious to me that they are hominids; not pans, not pongos, not gorillax3s, and not homo sapiens.

I would only be slightly surprised if this argument is eventually used by someone in the bigfoot community (that blurriness is an actual feature of bigfoot), similar to the way that “The Onion” articles are occasionally treated as legitimate articles by unknowing people.

Years ago on the JREF forums, I had the pleasure of reading a (probably mentally unstable) troll arguing that all photos of Bigfoot are blurry because bigfeet are supernatural aliens who shapeshift 10,000 times a second. They’re “obviously” supernatural because there’s no evidence of a natural animal. He also posted a lot of photos of nothing in the woods in the dark, claiming that various shadows/blurry shapes/areas of negative space were bigfeet.

Though I reckon that is more an example of motivated reasoning, rather than ignorance…

Very nice. I like it. I would only be slightly surprised if this argument is eventually used by someone in the bigfoot community (that blurriness is an actual feature of bigfoot), similar to the way that “The Onion” articles are occasionally treated as legitimate articles by unknowing people.

Randomly came across this.

And of course I don’t think Dr. Novella would care much, nor is it really that big a deal. I was merely pointing out that while an innocent and completely inconsequential oversight can easily explain it, such a tactic is indeed used around these parts as an ad hominem argument. And for some reason, the rest of the post just struck me as being in line with such use. I could be completely wrong and will be happy to admit it if that is the case.