Author Lisa A. Shiel Chimes In On Ape-vs-Human Debate [Bigfoot Debate]


As the debate about whether or not Bigfoot is more human or more ape heats up, we're starting to see more prominent players in the Bigfoot community stepping forward and speaking out. Recently Dr. Meldrum, in response to Robert Lindsay's article "misquoting" him, wrote these statements on Facebook:

[...]
I will say that humans are primates. No primates have underhairs. No human populations adapt to elevation by sprouting underhair.

Also, there are a lot of misconceptions and misrepresentations about my ideas concerning what sasquatch are -- more ape-like or more human-like. I don't appreciate others putting words in my mouth, who don't have a grasp of the principles involved.

- Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum

It seems this latest comment from Dr. Meldrum has sparked the attention of Lisa A. Shiel, author of Backyard Bigfoot and The Evolution Conspiracy. In an article today, Shiel wrote that she does not believe that Bigfoot is a human. "I like the theory that Bigfoot may be a type of hominid—but not Homo sapiens," wrote Shiel.

According to Shiel, the biggest pitfall in the ape-vs-human debate centers on a misunderstanding of the word human:

What is a human? Some of the folks in the Bigfoot-is-human camp actually mean that they think Bigfoot is a human being, but others clearly suffer from an ignorance of what the term human really means. Who can blame them? Even scientists can’t decide what is a human and what is not. When we see a headline that declares “3-million-year-old human remains discovered” or “new member of human family found,” it’s easy to get confused. Even reading the articles may not clear up matters. Scientists often toss around the word human with all the caprice of children playing catch.

While researching my books, I’ve delved deep into this issue. What have I found? Well, I needed a whole chapter in The Evolution Conspiracy to explain it, so I’ll have to encapsulate the issue here. A human is a primate that walks upright as its standard mode of locomotion and exhibits advanced language and reasoning capabilities. We speak, we write, we create sophisticated artwork, and we invent complex technology. The nonhuman hominids, those allegedly extinct species whose fossils inhabit museums, seem to have walked upright. They seem to have used sophisticated stone tools. Any artwork found at ancient sites, however, is attributable to members of our species, Homo sapiens. The available evidence tells us that nonhuman hominids never made computers or even compound bows.

Does this make them less intelligent than humans? No. The fact is, the available evidence tells us very little about their mental abilities. However, the evidence does suggest they lacked the key traits that make us human. Even species crammed into the same genus as humans, such as Homo erectus, seem less like humans than like Bigfoot. (Scientists assign hominid species to the genus Homo rather arbitrarily, for reasons too complex to get into here.)

What’s the point? A hominid is not necessarily a human. So when I say Bigfoot might be a hominid, I’m not saying it’s a human.

What about the idea Bigfoot might be a feral tribe of humans? Whenever I hear this idea, I can’t help but chuckle. Proponents of this notion have apparently taken their cues, whether on purpose or unwittingly, from the newspaper stories of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Articles about sightings of “wild men” (aka Bigfoot) often dismissed hairy, bipedal creatures as escaped lunatics gone feral. The escaped lunatic hypothesis represents one of the earliest efforts at debunking the Bigfoot phenomenon.

The issue boils down to this—the available evidence for Bigfoot is inconclusive and too malleable to fill our balloons with anything but water. Perhaps instead of arguing over whether Bigfoot is an ape or a human, we should spend the time figuring out what those terms actually mean and what the evidence actually illustrates.

[via jacobsvillebooks.com]

Comments

  1. great follow up article Shawn, and Lisa...hence the penname...apehuman!
    My excitement is about those fine cultural distinctions, the who are they part.
    I think as the bar is raised and the view from professionals more illuminating there will be still be room for many amateur contributios/websites because the topic remains fascinating.
    It will only become more relevant. And, the standards/ethics of study will hopefully improve, regardless of classification.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with this post even if Bigfoot is a hominid it doesn't make human if they were human they would speak and use weapons like spears and if they did we would find them also they would use fire witch they dont. So I believe they r more ape then anything

    ReplyDelete
  3. Love it! I'm currently 'geeking' on the discrepancies in the theories of human ancestry/evolution about as hard as I'm 'geeking' on Sasquatch. I feel we are on the brink of great discoveries in BOTH areas... Sasquatch could potentially clear up a thing, or two.
    I might have to check out Lisa's book!
    David from the PAC/NW

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes this is great post.

    And Dave..........Dave, Dave, Dave.
    LOL! Discrepancies in the theories of human ancestory/evolution! Say it isn't so! Lol!

    As much as you have to apprietiate all that science does, there are just so many gaps that are not filled in. So, like the way science goes, the best theory is chosen, and then taught in the hopes that more scientific date will be found to support the theory. The problem is with evolution, the start of life still has yet to be figured out? For me, personally, I don't call myself a a creationist, or an evolutionist, I'm just confused and at the same time intrigued by any new science that becomes available. I have a hard time that all life forms started form the same cells of life and then somehow, even through millions of years became crodidiles, humans, whales, blue herons etc........... for me, an HVAC guy, just hard to put my mind around.............maybe not enough education in the right area.....?

    But on the other hand creation is something on a totally different level. We are talking miricles of life! Wow!

    I am very excited to hear all the evidence in the DNA study. I really hope it brings some new light into the scientific world, and we as a human race might get some new answers to so many questions out there.

    Keep up the investigating Dave. When you compile some some of your findings, maybe you do a "guest post" on this blog to open up some great discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm always concerned when people are coming from a place of a belief system. Everything they interpret, every bit of evidence they pull forward is to support their belief system which is why anti-evolutionary people make me cringe when they try to talk scientific. They have a belief system they need to back, so they have to grab bits of evidence and make them fit to support their personal agenda. I don't think there is room in the field of Bigfoot research for people with belief systems. They will be shot down when hard evidence slaps them in the face and then will scramble to make things fit their ideology once again, contorting the facts and making a case that is flimsy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a puzzle with an infinite number of pieces for which we hold just a handful.
      The temptation is to assemble those pieces into some semblance of a picture and use our crayons to fill in the blanks.
      We are always wrong
      Best to leave it blank and continue an honest search for pieces. We are less likely to dismiss truth simply because it doesnt fit into our picture of reality.

      Delete
  6. This notion that a hominid HAS to use weapons and fire is ludicrous.

    We don't need weapons or fire to gather and eat fruit, scrounge for greens, roots, etc .... Does that mean we're only part-time hominids?

    What if a particular hominid was better equipped, better suited for it's environment than we are? Would it cease to be a hominid just because it could survive without? If I could run an elk or moose down, break it's neck then eat the meat raw, I wouldn't needs weapons or fire either. And if had a nice, shaggy coat and didn't have to worry quite as much about freezing to death, I wouldn't even need clothes. In fact, I wouldn't need a house, or a car, or a job or anything. I could just free roam the forest, live in caves or make-shift shelters and hunt and forage all day. But I would STILL be a hominid.

    Maybe it's time to stop looking for fire or tool use. It's an outdated notion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So true Autumn! I am not saying I am a creationist, cause that, like you said is just a belief, not much science behind it. I do accept evolution in some aspects, but it seems there are many holes that need to be filled........ but the teaching continues.(maybe thats the issue I have) I hope that Sasquatch plays a roll in some of those gaps.

    I find it interestig that it never comes up, with all the "leaks" that are reported, that there is no mention of any grounding breaking change in idealogy, or the science of evolution. Maybe its beacause there isn't going to be any? Maybe what has been being taught will stand up when the science comes out. It will put a lot of people to rest like myself, who does believe, this is the scientific discovery of the century.

    It will definately make for more interesting discussion........to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ALL THIS IN-FIGHTING BETWEEN COMMUNITY MEMBERS MAKES ME LAUGH *TILTS HEAD BACK AND CACKLES LIKE BIGFOOT*

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nice article Lisa and I agree with you. I also met you briefly last summer in Comins, Michigan. Frankly I don't care what category the powers that be end up putting the Bigfoot into, because this won't change who Bigfoot is. I personally think it is much closer to a human than a gorilla or orangutan, but it is not human like us, thus putting it into hominid status. I am most interested in its true nature and culture and how we will interact and protect it so that we do not wipe it out like we did all the other hominids, and we are currently doing to the big cats, gorillas, and many many others.

    Several really good posts above, and there is much to agree with.

    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shawn,

    You've done a nice job of pulling together all the comments on this issue from across the web. I'd like to point out that my blog post was not a response to Dr. Meldrum's comments, as I hadn't seen his remarks when I wrote my post.

    Keep up the good work!

    And to Chuck -- it was nice meeting you last summer!

    Lisa A. Shiel
    author of Creature of Controversy

    ReplyDelete
  11. The first anon's wrong. The Sasquatches do speak, ever hear of the Sierra Sounds? Dr. Scott Nelson found they're not fakes and it's indeed spoken language, that means culture. What kind of human, who knows, but ape it sure as hell ain't. And don't start all that 'we are apes' stuff, yeah technically we are classified as apes or even as an animal if you insist, but then let's agree we're all animals. And some species are called apes, some are called humans. That's us alone. So far. We're the humans, the chimps and gorillas are ape apes, the Sasquatch will be in our own human group. They're a people with their own language, a hitherto unknown completely different species evolved differently from us of course, but they have no need for creating things like we do. That is what the coming DNA will show you as fact, there's not a grain of animal/ape in them apart from hair and body shape, hence the old Bigfoot guard's stubborn beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Beer-Man, I'm totally with you on that. I have no belief system at risk, but I do also have trouble with some issues with evolution. I'm not sure about adaptability, so much as certain "breeds" of creatures don't make it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The biggest problem, and in my opinion, the ultimate killer for evolution is there is absolutly no scientific proof of macro evolution. NONE. Not even in the fossil records. Unlike micro evolution which can be proved easily with germs and cells changing all the time. Many people do not even know there are different types of "evolution". So in my opinion Bigfoot is not only not human like Lisa states, they are NOT some kinda "missing link". That's my belief.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I doubt Bigfoot have starving members,or homeless brethren.
    I'll bet they don't kill each other over clumps of land,or charge a fee to eat their fruit or drink their water.
    They don't rape the land like parasites,they live in harmony with nature.
    They are reliant only on themselves with no need of technology or polluting vehicles,or weapons that can obliterate the planet and it's inhabitants.
    Obviously they have an intelligence we do not understand and we must neatly fit everything in to a tidy little box,so therefore Bigfoots cannot be "human" because they don't act like us.
    By all accounts,Bigfoots have reasoning,language,family units,dwellings that are made by their own hand and do,or have tried to communicate with humans in one form or another.
    Stick structures and rock stacks are attributed to Sasquatch,and while we have theories on what they mean,we really have no idea what the significance is or what it means to the individual or the species as a whole.
    I doubt they are apes and I doubt they are humans as we understand the term.
    Perhaps they are an intelligent hominid content with living free,without constraints that us humans have put upon ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  15. New post of the day! Well put Sasquaination!

    You summed it up great. Amazing when you take a step back and realize how destructive the human race can be. Blows me away!

    @AF Thanks for the response. Its such a huge topic, and can require so much energy. Good to hear that some other people do feel that there is some flaws evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  16. SasquaiNation, Great GREAT post!

    I am a creationist and I did not descend from an ape.

    I think there could be several origins for Bigfoot, including a type of Bigfoot that resulted from Nazi scientific experiments. Ever read all those experiments etc? After all they were determined to create the super soldier.

    I also agree with Anon at 2:11pm they do have language and communicate.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yeah all the talk about Bigfoot not being human because they don't do things like we do sounds really familiar. If we look back in our not so distant past people said the same things about Native Americans. Savages,less than human,wild animals. Look what we tried to do to them. Our ancestors tried to wipe them out and then we confined them and taught them how they were suppose to live. When they did just fine on their own. I just hope we don't let history repeat itself.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Scientists throw around the term human? Not sure which scientists you are referring to, but the ones I know are referencing the genus Homo which is part of the Hominidae family. This entire debate is ridiculous without DNA from a specimen. Right now, about all one can even venture to guess is that Sasquatch appears to be a primate of which Hominidae is a family and Homo is a genus in the Hominidae family.

    ReplyDelete
  19. James--brilliant! That is a point I've been trying to make. It will show how much we've learned from the past by how we treat BF

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story