Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/14/2018 in all areas

  1. My point was that scat DNA degrades rapidly as stated in the paper. That is the problem and will be with determination of species differences with scat. I forgot how you like to argue and I am done.
    1 point
  2. Well I saw one impressive pile that was likely dumped for my benefit but having read about testing scat for DNA, the problems seem higher than the likelyhood of getting anything. Probability always points to bear since their diet and size seem to be similar. You have to test the first part out, keep the sample cool to avoid fecal bacteria destroying it, interpret what was the animal that produced it and what was eaten, and pay for the privilege of testing and risk it being bear anyway. DNA maybe cannot be hoaxed but may require interpretation. That interpretation is problematic to me. Until a BF is on a lab table, multiple DNA samples taken and sent to different labs, and an accepted DNA sequence accepted, interpretation of DNA will be an issue, especially if there are similarities to human. I do not see DNA as having a lot of value until BF is accepted by science. Then familial and evolutionary questions can be investigated.
    1 point
  3. Absolutely correct. I never said otherwise. Correct again. Nope. It does make one wonder why nothing from bigfoot.
    1 point
  4. Wikapedia "A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability (or is said to be falsifiable) if one can conceive an empirical observation or experiment which could refute it, that is, show it to be false. For example, the claim "all swans are white" is falsifiable since it could be refuted by observing a single swan that is not white. The concept is also known by the terms refutable and refutability. The concept was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper, in his exposition of scientific epistemology. He saw falsifiability as the criterion for demarcating the limits of scientific inquiry. He proposed that statements and theories that are not falsifiable are unscBFientific. Declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientific would then be pseudoscience.[1] [2] Popper excluded refutation by logical argument because he considers consistency a prerequisite so necessary that without it it is useless to add falsification as a further condition.[3]" Claim of that specific test sample is falsified because it is bear. The false premise was that the sample was a BF. It has no bearing on other samples tested from a different origin. If a DNA sample was collected, that proposed it to be BF, and a DNA test validated the theory, the theory would be validated. Falsifiability can work both ways, not just to deny something. As a matter of fact saying that bigfoot does not exist is the junk science equivalent of saying all swans are white. It only takes a black swan or one BF to make the theory all swans are white or "BF does not exist" false. You deny that the woods are full of hair and scat from all kinds of animals?
    1 point
  5. As fascinating as the tree structures are...and I spend a lot of time looking at them and considering their origins...I'm not sure these lend themselves to objective analysis. Moreover they are particularly hoax-able (not that I believe they are, based on the totality of the evidence) and easily dismissed by anyone who might only want a reason to avoid the question. Footprints, hair, sound recordings, DNA are probably the best non-falsifiable bits to consider. (And yes, though some wave their hands at them, there are many trackways that qualify)
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...