It is most rational to believe there is a 'Bigfoot'

Pro makes several claims concerning evolution so I will try to gather them into one point. Species do not evolve in the way Pro suggests. Please remember populations evolve, not individuals. A creature that underwent a mutation that lowered its reproductive chances is not likely to survive. His example of the "first" member of a species is a misrepresentation of evolution. All species do not go through a period of inbreeding depression as the population as a whole becomes modified by descent, not just a few members. We do have instances of what is called the "founder effect" and, yes, it can be triggered by traveling long distances. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Human populations are subject to this effect, but it is mainly found in island populations. Such events are rare though because inbreeding depression is usually detrimental to the species. I did not say inbreeding depression made the existence of GB in modern times impossible. I don't use that word often and use it more rarely when discussing science. I made clear what phenomena we must accept in order to put GB in North America and showed that, without evidence, this position is not the most logical to hold. In addition, Pro makes much of a dissenting scientist concerning the bipedal movement of GB. I cannot think of one idea in science that did not, or does not presently, have detractors. All the scientists studying this creature concede that bipedal movement is possible, but, other than one, consider it unlikely. So much like the necessity of the founder effect, and overcoming inbreeding depression, GB must be bipedal to be Bigfoot unless Pro wishes to add yet another assumption in respect to GB developing bipedalism in the last 300,000 years. We have no evidence of any of these events, nothing. I do not find accepting these events, without evidence, just to get GB into North America to be the most rational position concerning this issue. Very quickly, I do not accept the results of lie detector tests. The courts agree with me on this one too. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Living Fossils: I explained very clearly that living fossils were not ones thought to be extinct and were later found alive. My opponent suggests that I hoped others would not review my source as a specific horse was listed as a living fossil. I invite voters to examine this creature and the read the article. We have known about this horse for a long time and preservation efforts have been implemented to save it. The horse went extinct in the wild, but we had some in captivity and they have since been reintroduced. I did not list it specifically because we have known about it for ages now. . http://en.wikipedia.org... This creature has nothing to do with species thought to be extinct only to turn up again alive today. The others I listed fit the latter description and my analogy to T-Rex still holds. We need to look at very large land creatures covering very large areas as Big Foot sightings cover a large swath of North America. I did not say the possibility does not exist, only that we must accept this creature has managed this without leaving any biological evidence of its existence. We just found a rather large lizard that we did not know existed, but local people knew. They ate it. . http://www.heraldsun.com.au... The problem was biologists simply did not do much work in the region. If we do find land species they are generally small or operate in limited areas that biologists do not frequent and have not appeared in the fossil record so we are not looking for them. The US and Canada are not such regions. Upon review of my statement, I see some ambiguity when I stated we do not find large land animals. I stated this after explaining that species thought extinct generally fall into the categories I listed. I should have used a semicolon to allude to the categories related to the statement that I listed previously. Taken as a whole, the statement is still correct. Please note how the locals spoke of the creature and were able to provide biological evidence of its existence. We do not find this when dealing with Bigfoot or its distant cousin the Yeti. My opponent explains that GB would have had little competition when settling in North America, seemingly trying to overcome the inbreeding depression problem, but he creates a bigger problem that I addressed in RD 1. If the species made it past the depression, and the competition was not strong, then it could proliferate to account for sightings, but must do so without leaving a single trace of biological evidence over a range of thousands of miles for over 300,000 years. Pro, this is the problem and it is one you must address as a whole since your position is being proposed as the most logical. The Footprint: . http://home.clara.net... . http://www.bigfootencounters.com... The first source provides pro and con sources on this issue but the article I linked, written by a member of the department of Anthropology from the University of Florida makes clear the reasoning we need to use when dealing with this type of evidence. First, the researchers looking at the print do not consider the subsequent actions of the discoverer to be valid, as Marx has perpetrated other big foot hoaxes (source 2). They ignore this evidence because they dismiss the hoax hypothesis outright. Katz dismisses it because: "If someone faked [these footprints] with all the subtle hints of anatomy design, he had to be a real genius, an expert at anatomy, very inventive, an original thinker. He had to outclass me in those areas, and I don't think anyone outclasses me in those areas, at least not since Leonardo daVinci (sic). So I say such a person is impossible, therefore the tracks are real. " Arrogance dismisses these tracks as a hoax, not science. As stated in source 1, this is called an argument from incredulity and is invalid. Since a hoax could not be dismissed concerning the tracks the researchers erred in not assessing the finder's other Bigfoot hoaxes. Sightings: As I stated in Rd 1, some of the eye witness or "ear" witnesses may fully believe they saw or heard something fantastic, but we simply do not have anything to hang our hats on. The hair samples turn out to be nothing special, . http://www.livescience.com... the footprints fall in line with crop circles more than actual proof of existence concerning the creature. I have made clear on this site that I deplore conspiracy theories and I am not proposing one here. I do not think we have a mythical group of people working hard to expose a seemingly mythical creature. Every continent with the exception of Antarctica has a "hairy man" legend. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The Native Americans also have a vampire legend and a werewolf legend, and so does everyone else. I do not accept the existence of werewolves, vampires, or Bigfoot. I will take the legends as legends until Dracula, the Wolf Man or Sasquatch manage to produce biological evidence; no conspiracies needed. I cannot say what some people saw or heard, and to be frank…they can't say for sure either. The most logical position to hold at this point is that the existence of GB in North America is very unlikely.