Debate will continue for some time to come on what the species was, what its aspects were and how its DNA have influenced homo sapiens. What we can be sure of is that there will be at least two camps. Actually, there will end up being exactly two camps, because systems tend to bifurcate and this is why we have debates in the first place. One camp will argue essentially that there was little noticeable effect, and the other will say something diametrically opposed. What's certain is that both groups of academics will manage to make a living for themselves in the process.
So what if the mating of species unknown and the more familiar homo sapiens was the very spark that kindled the fire of civilization? Or might the mingling have brought an end to the mythical Atlantis? On a long enough timescale, the evidence for all things declines to zero. Perhaps genetic data is all we will one day have to remind us that there was ever a creature that called itself homo sapiens. It's a bleak thought for some, but a heartening one for those who hope we continue the dynamic dance of change and growth. For others, these are unimportant matters, as ephemeral as myth.
Bigfoot is supposed to be a myth, and for many mainstream thinkers, that's all Bigfoot can ever be. There are more than a few in the skeptic community that would immediately begin making slanderous assertions if a dead Bigfoot were deposited in their presence. The purpose of skepticism is personal and psychological, not scientific. Skepticism is a defense mechanism evolved by the brains of those too fearful to cope with the possibility of what practitioners call other. In psychology, we call the more rabid forms of skeptical expression, reaction formation. 2
Littlefoot is already proven and a foregone conclusion. 3 This creature walked the earth, or at least the Indonesian island of Flores as recently as 18,000 years ago. That puts the so-called "Hobbit" in the range of recent human memory, and throws any discussion derisive of undiscovered hominoid species into the realm of foolish and careless speculation. To deny the possibility of a creature like Bigfoot when we know that there was very recently (and possibly still living today 4) a smaller version of our own species in the world is silly. There are certainly other terms we could use in this regard, but "silly" carries the proper tone: Skeptics have for centuries derided the credulous, when it is really they themselves who are motivated by base emotions and who engage in the most ludicrous forms of sophistry. No serious scientist should ever consider themselves a skeptic; the spirit of inquiry that once informed the scientist is the purest praxis of all.
In a 3/3 proposition, the existence of Foot and the former existence (and possible continued existence) of Littlefoot brings us to 2/3. Why then, with a 67% accuracy rating already established, should we even think to deny outright the existence of Bigfoot? How is such a creature unreal or unlikely? Moreover, since it is by description --- and in imagery 5 --- apparently at least humanoid, is it not also likely to be a relative? Such a creature could very easily hide in remote wildernesses and even potentially very near to human habitation. The reason for this is obvious: Such a creature, in its natural environment, might very well be superior to homo sapiens.
Imagine for a moment a form of human being so perfectly wedded to its environment that it has no need of advanced tools, complex shelters, fire, recognizable behavioral routines or social order - in short, an apex predator dangerous in its own right and physically superior to virtually every other creature it encounters. No less, it is a skilled ambush predator, capable of concealing itself in the wilderness with relative ease and almost total certainty of remaining undiscovered by the species that constitutes its primary competition for resources on the planet - Homo Sapiens. Perhaps we have overclocked our version of Bigfoot here at the Lamp, and made him a character fit to join the Avengers. But the point must carry; this creature at home in the wild might make regular mockery of any and all attempts to find it for two clear reasons. First, it is intelligent, and second, it does not wish to be found.
This brings us to a topic it would seem is inevitable, although it is only rarely raised in these types of discussions: What does tomorrow's human being look like? We assume a great many things as a species and within each civilization our species gives rise to. Each discipline assumes much about the world around it, and can comprehensively declare a thing to be true, only to have it quashed by a contending discipline. This is in fact precisely what the Vicar just engaged in earlier, claiming that "rabid" forms of skepticism are a psychological defense mechanism. The point is that these are games and manipulations of language which human beings engage in so that we can feel in control of the world.
Some say that tomorrow's human being looks like a Grey alien, or LAM as drawn by Aleister Crowley. This assumes environmental conditions that would bring about such a version of homo sapiens. But a great catastrophe could also sweep the globe clean of technical and political and social man, reducing the species to a mere remnant without memory of its former glories. In such an age, particularly in such an Ice Age, might not a being like Bigfoot come to prominence? Could our potential successor already lurk in the woodlands and mountains, awaiting our doom?
Recently, the Vicar returned from a journey to the Far East and the flight path took his plane over the thick forests of Alaska and Canada. As the Vicar looked out his window at the dark and endless expanses of green he realized there was a near-total absence of the usual signs of human interaction with the environment: No roads, bridges, gray and drab tan patches indicating towns and cities, ordered and ribbed agricultural squares or any of the other telltale signs of civilization. How regularly traveled are these regions? How well-known are they? It is absolutely the case that vast stretches of the earth go without human tread for very long stretches of time. It is absolutely the case that a species could remain hidden from us in any number of climes and biomes; the oceans are but one example of a biome about which we know comparatively very little. 6
The arrogance and the fear that combine to create the attitude that any cryptid "can't exist" is neither surprising nor upsetting. These are common factors in the human comedy, like the arguments of intellectual giants who declared that space flight was an impossibility early in the 20th Century.
There is little need for argument regarding the unknown things of this universe and of this world; people of quality and courage and investigatory spirit will always seek the truth. They will just as surely be opposed by those who fear change and who find threats to their personal sense of order in the slightest hint of mystery. In childhood, we all have fears. Some of us cover our heads with blankets in the dark. The Vicar's warders gave him a little sword and told him to slay the monster in the closet. Others seek to capture the beasties of imagination's edge. Such is the human comedy.
Littlefoot was a fact, and perhaps he still is. As for Bigfoot, the future awaits his discovery. Foot is another matter entirely. The future awaits Foot's demise --- for it will, as all things must --- change or die.