Fair points. And in that case, you might as well toss the DNA as evidence, as well. And no one can say there are no such things as Sasquatch, Yetis (non-cooler kind), unicorns, centaurs, etc. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and like UFOs, none has ever been produced.
You are confusing evidence with proof. DNA found at a particular sighting that cannot be definitely shown to belong to Specie X is still evidence, it just isn't proof. Skepticism is healthy. Skepticism that makes you an idiot is idiocy.
Oh. And I am learning not to try to debate while taking muscle relaxers for a jacked up back. My head feels like it is full of oatmeal.
If you just saying words like "DNA" and confusing proof and evidence, then, I'd say yes. And I say so only because I know DNA isn't a foreign concept to you, and I know you know the difference between proof and evidence; and yet, in less than three posts, you've managed to flub on all. And I can only blame that on a blinding level of skepticism that has caused you to say things an idiot would say. So what I'm saying is don't do that. Be skeptical, but don't be so skeptical you say things an idiot would say.
Here is one for you, if time is infinite, and there are infinite multiverses, then the probability of BigFoot existing approaches 1. So the argument is not whether it is real or not, but whether it is real on this plane of existence, at this time. But that also isn't argument, unless we can definitively prove that multiple planes and multiple times cannot momentarily interact. Meaning, for this moment in time, our position in space, if overlapping with the Bigfoot dimension would cause both to exist simultaneously, and only for certain periods. And even that isn't the full debate, so just accept that it is real, or reject science.
Has such a sample ever been produced? Every example I've seen has been definitively linked to a goat, bear, beaver, etc.
I would be comparing it to the phylogenetic tree. If it were a bigfoot, then it would have unique DNA. So right there, I could compare it to bear, raccoon, and every other possible source in the forest. It would be unique to known mammals, and possibly share genes with existing great apes. I don't need to know a specific sequence to compare to know that it could be compared to existing mammals and would need to come back as being a new organism. show. me. dat. D.N.A. Also, OJ was guilty. The Law is as fallible as humanity.
I will say this, I went fishing here in middle TN about a month ago in a large creek/small river, and as I was making my way to the prime location in pitch black (but full moon) conditions, I heard an enormous splash about 35 ft ahead. This part of the creek is only accessible via wading through crotch-high water for about 1/4th of a mile. Anyway, it sounded exactly like someone throwing the largest rock he could handle into the middle of the water, but I'm sure it was just that monster smallmouth that's been eluding me for years or perhaps some aquatic rodent. The dense brush on either side pretty much rules out a person throwing something. Still, it was a disconcerting experience and I did an impression of Butters walking through the forest until I made it to land. Does anyone have any alternative explanations?
This is very, very incorrect. You and I and your dog, and my dog, and BigFoot, and the Ape at the zoo are 99% fruit fly. In that 1%, we separate out because we have KNOWN human markers. If you never had a human marker, how would you separate us out from fruit fly? You test it against goat, beaver, dog, wolf, bonobo, and fruit fly, and guess what? You find huge signatures on bonobo. So what do you do? Can you say it's human? No, you don't have markers for human. But instead you say it's 98% bonobo, and since you've never seen human, it must be bonobo. And that is how every DNA study on BigFoot is done. Because there is nothing to compare it to, but idiots think DNA has meaning here, and it doesn't. Only an idiot would think it does.
Every study you've seen says it shows markers from animal X at a concentration of Y%, so it's reasonable to conclude that the DNA must have come from X. But that's only because there is no filter for BigFoot, because there is no definitive BigFoot DNA. What that study actually says is this DNA's CLOSEST KNOWN MATCH is animal X. That doesn't mean there can't be a match that is closer, but unknown.
