Is there any scientific evidence that Bigfoot exists?
The variety of living things on Earth is truly staggering. Scientists currently estimate that there are somewhere between 10 million and 100 million species on the planet. However, only about 5 million of those species have actually been described and named.
Among mammals like weasels, deer, wolves, monkeys and apes (including us humans), the picture is a little clearer; almost all of the approximately 5,400 living species have probably already been described. Yet nature continues to surprise us with new species. For example, less than 15 years ago scientists in Vietnam described the sao la (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis), a rainforest-dwelling relative of cattle previously unknown to science, and several new species of monkey have been discovered in the forests of Africa and Asia since then.
Is Bigfoot among the undiscovered mammals? Bigfoot, or Sasquatch, is described as a medium-sized bipedal (upright-walking) hairy animal with big human-like feet thought to inhabit the forests of the Pacific Northwest of North America. From this description, it seems safe to assume that Bigfoot is a human-like ape, or hominid. It is certainly conceivable that a creature like Bigfoot could exist. After all, we know of many living species of great ape (gorillas, chimps, bonobos, humans, etc.), and scientists have documented many other species of hominids.
However, all non-human hominids are known only from Africa, where they appear to have originally evolved. And except for our own ancestors, all known hominids went extinct without leaving the continent. So the discovery of a living hominid in North America would be very big news indeed!
So although a creature like Bigfoot could exist, the real question is whether Bigfoot does exist — in the present day. When scientists formally declare that a previously unknown species exists, they do so based on compelling scientific evidence. For example, in the case of the sao la, the animal was first known from three sets of horns found in the possession of Vietnamese hunters. But it was only after the examination of more than 20 different specimens and careful analysis of the animal’s DNA that scientists could conclude that the sao la was present in the forests of South East Asia and distinct from all other known species.
So what about Sasquatch? We know about this creature from stories, some grainy photographs and films, and, of course, footprints, lots of footprints. Most of this evidence has been clearly demonstrated to be fakes generated by hoaxers.
For example, “Sasquatch hair” collected by nine people who reported the creature in Alaska in 2005 turned out, upon DNA analysis, to be bison hair. Most importantly, no one has yet found an actual specimen of Bigfoot, not a body, not any hair, not a bone, not a tooth.
But while we have no material evidence that Bigfoot does exist, some of the documentation cannot be conclusively dismissed. That creature on the film could just be some guy in an ape costume, but it could be … something else, right?
And here, Sasquatch is not the only creature whose very existence seems to be more a matter of opinion than science. In 2005, scientists claimed that they had discovered, or re-discovered, the ivory-billed woodpecker, a species thought to be extinct in the United States since around 1944. As evidence, they presented a grainy video clip of a large woodpecker. Unfortunately, the bird stays in the video frame for only four seconds!
However, after carefully analyzing the color pattern on the wings in the video and seeing the bird in the wild multiple times and hearing it doing its “display drumming” on tree trunks in the area, the ornithologists (scientists who study birds) were confident that the ivory-billed woodpecker was not extinct. However, after their discovery was published, other scientists re-analyzed their video and concluded that bird was more likely the ivory-billed woodpecker’s close cousin, the pileated woodpecker.
This debate goes on, and it is in the great tradition of science that the researchers are skeptical of one another’s arguments. In the end, all agree that the debate can only be settled by collecting more evidence.
Now while a 200-pound “rainforest cow” or a woodpecker might not sound as exciting as Bigfoot, the discovery (or rediscovery) of a species is always a big deal among biologists. It demonstrates that even though we have done an awful lot of exploring and exploiting, the natural world still holds mysteries and secrets for us to unravel.
At this point there is no scientifically credible evidence that Bigfoot exists, and until someone shows up with at least one specimen of this wily and shy creature, there are many reasons to believe that it probably doesn’t exist. Still, the myth of Bigfoot, the mysterious creature in the woods, always just beyond our reach, might provide valuable lessons about how we relate to nature. Rustling in the brush, glimpsed out of the corner of our eye, Bigfoot whispers that we still have a lot to learn. Grab your binoculars, camera and butterfly net, but I wouldn’t waste your money on Bigfoot bait.
Drew Kerkhoff has been assistant professor of biology and mathematics at Kenyon College since 2005. He teaches courses in ecology, statistics, and mathematical biology and studies forest ecology, trees, caterpillars and evolution. He lives in Mount Vernon with his wife and two daughters and enjoys cycling and music.
mountvernonnews.com/local/ask-a-scientist/
Is-there-any-scientific-evidence-that-Bigfoot-exists
