Leaderboard

Wow, some folks disagree with you and it becomes a conspiracy against you, complete with "interference" from the establishment. Maybe you should get used to not having everyone agree with your point of view. As you get older, you'll see that your opinion is of no greater - or of less - value than anyone elses. Nobody thinks you're the bad guy or that a shooter of BF is necessarily a hero... That's a lot of drama on your part. Good luck with that. I'd like to agree that you were indeed wrong. You were wrong not to familiarize yourself with the forum rules before writing statements that had to be edited and accusing others of bias and a conflict of interest. Maybe you should try to notice these rules too much so you'll be better able to play well with others, especially when expressing differing opinions.

That's some cumbersome wording. The 'time coming' she refers to could be interpreted as 'once the paper is submitted'. I find it curious that she seems incapable of saying something clear like, "The paper is in review and we'll let you know more as soon as we're permitted. Thank you for your continued patience."

This whole incident left me incensed from the minute I saw it posted. With all due respect to your efforts and your organization, Bipto, I truly wish you and everyone involved would sit down and reconsider your position and actions here. I really believe that, if Sasquatch exists and we are patient, diligent, innovative and tenacious enough, a type-specimen will not be required to prove it to anyone. I even believe that, with enough patience, the type specimen will deliver itself. If we are able to work ourselves into a position to observe them over the long term, nature will provide the body eventually. First off, what you folks are currently doing is attempting to kill an animal (being?) that means you absolutely no harm. For what purpose? Scientific study? To me, that's a cop-out. The easy, quick way. See my opinion above. Secondly, this DC dude...the supposed "military experienced" shooter. This guy can't hit a target the size of a bigfoot with a shotgun from 30 yards away and he empties his weapon in the process. I'm sorry, but hours spent playing Call of Duty and spraying everything on the screen with lead non-stop doesn't translate into "military" experience. This guys actions show me absolutely no knowledge or comprehension of fire control or fire discipline. I wouldn't let him loose in the woods with a BB gun, myself. Not around me. What the hell would he have done if this wounded animal decided to come back at him? Hit it over the head with an empty weapon?? He would have got what's coming to him, in my opinion..... I agree (for a change) with Saskeptic. His actions were irresponsible. They were also incompetent. If you and your group feel they must continue to search to kill one of these creatures, you might want to at least involve competent personnel in that endeavor. At least that way there will be a body instead of an animal wounded and suffering for no valid reason (in my opinion, of course).

I am not even sure what you think I I think it said. The implication seems pretty simple to me. It increases survival so it is selected for. That is why the inclusion of two facts that haplogroup H is now more common and yet one of the newest. The main theme of the study was that it increased survival. The fact that correlation doesn't always prove causation is why I said "may be selected for as some seem to be" in the following quote. They only talked about one cause so the implication seems obvious. I don't buy that there wouldn't be independent gene flow that didn't include haplogroup H so the implied selection pressure from increased survival seems like a logical deduction to me. There are always alternative possible causes and I wasn't sure they eliminated them which is the only reason I qualified it with "seem to be". There is no question that some mitochondria are selected for. That was just an extreme example. If they weren't, there wouldn't be such a thing as mtDNA specific to a species. They would evolve independently like species do. Species only very rarely start with two animals. Our mitochondria indicates that our species is only very roughly 200,000 years old based on when we all share a single common ancestor yet there were many ancestor 200,000 years ago. The other mitochondria were logically lost by selection. It is simple biology that I was talking about. Natural selection increases the frequency of some traits. Founder effects can amplify that effect. I was giving the range from practically zero modern human nuDNA in a population to 100 percent if it is an evolved modern human. The "quite a lot" example was meant to imply anything in between. That sounds more like argument from incredulity. I don't know where your implication for a stable population comes from. I didn't claim to know the percentage of bigfoot that share the same mtDNA or how much variation is found in them. I don't get the reason to include "stable population" since I didn't imply it. Stable is just a relative thing. Populations don't stop evolving. I was just giving the possible explanation for them to have a high percentage of the same mtDNA. It just seemed like something that a lot of people would have a problem accepting without understanding how it could happen. If they didn't have modern human mtDNA and logically at least a small amount of modern human nuDNA, this would should be a whole lot simpler to prove assuming valid DNA to start with.