MIB Posted 6 hours ago Moderator Posted 6 hours ago 6 minutes ago, Backdoc said: What standard of DNA result would it take for a skeptic world accept a conclusion Bigfoot is real via the DNA? I don't believe die hard skeptics would accept a DNA result (of ANY standard) following the Ketchum debacle. It would take more .. probably a combination of DNA and a body. Others less entrenched might accept a lower standard but of that, I'm the skeptic! I believe to prove existence you've got to have a body, nothing less will do. Other evidence might help but none, alone or in combination, will be sufficient to force skeptics to change their positions. MIB 1
Huntster Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 30 minutes ago, Backdoc said: .........What standard of DNA result would it take for a skeptic world accept a conclusion Bigfoot is real via the DNA? There is no standard whatsoever for an ideological skeptic to accept anything. Such a person will dimply shift their skepticism to the next stage or step. For example, if the dna suggests a Homo genus, they might argue another genus, or a homo sapien race. The dna (science) must be the base of the argument. Thus, if Neanderthals/Denisovans are different species than homo sapiens, sasquatch dna must be similarly different.......and no more different........in order to be of the genus Homo. Skepticism must be defeated. It cannot be negotiated, or it simply morphs. If sasquatches are of the genus Homo, there should have been unique genetic markers within the human race that would have shown up by now. That's why the term "mystery markers" or "unknown markers" is a huge phrase for me. I have read of that quietly mentioned on rare occasion, but they don't seem to be referenced to the New World.
Backdoc Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 20 minutes ago, Huntster said: There is no standard whatsoever for an ideological skeptic to accept anything. Such a person will dimply shift their skepticism to the next stage or step. For example, if the dna suggests a Homo genus, they might argue another genus, or a homo sapien race. ... or just say the people doing the testing somehow contaminated the sample :-)
Backdoc Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago Time to over simply things for a bit. The best thing that could happen for Bigfoot and Bigfoot DNA is bigfoot being a primate ape and not at all human. If an encounter (and sample) occurred in a region where no known primates exist, any DNA result saying "primate" would be pretty hard for a skeptic to explain. If these results continued in places with no primates, I have to think the 'Bigfoot is real' case would keep getting stronger and stronger. If Bigfoot was human (and let's put aside the moral implications) the results should say, "human" If the science and public's expectations have bigfoot being an "ape" such a result would be seen as proof it wasn't' bigfoot. More testing yielding the same result would not give them the monkey they expected. This would be the DNA equivalent of not just giving them a Body on a slab. They would demand a PRIMATE DNA body on a slab.
norseman Posted 4 hours ago Admin Posted 4 hours ago 24 minutes ago, Backdoc said: Time to over simply things for a bit. The best thing that could happen for Bigfoot and Bigfoot DNA is bigfoot being a primate ape and not at all human. If an encounter (and sample) occurred in a region where no known primates exist, any DNA result saying "primate" would be pretty hard for a skeptic to explain. If these results continued in places with no primates, I have to think the 'Bigfoot is real' case would keep getting stronger and stronger. If Bigfoot was human (and let's put aside the moral implications) the results should say, "human" If the science and public's expectations have bigfoot being an "ape" such a result would be seen as proof it wasn't' bigfoot. More testing yielding the same result would not give them the monkey they expected. This would be the DNA equivalent of not just giving them a Body on a slab. They would demand a PRIMATE DNA body on a slab. Humans ARE primates. Humans ARE apes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human I feel like half the time we talk past one another. It’s good to at least agree on the terms we use in debate. Science is a great place to start. Imagine scientific classification as a rifle target. Species being the bullseye, then genus is the 10 ring, then tribe, then subfamily, so forth and so on until you get to order. That’s primates… There are over 500 species of primates on the planet. Humans being one of them. Where a Sasquatch falls into this classification is anyone’s guess. But with them also being bipedal? Chances are they are between humans and chimps, who are our closest living relative. But there are tons of smaller differences between Homo Sapiens and Sasquatch that we do not share. Which is why I am confident in saying they are not the same species as us.
hvhart Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago "Unknown markers", if by that you mean unique mutations from human, it's what I have found.
hvhart Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 3 hours ago, MIB said: I don't believe die hard skeptics would accept a DNA result (of ANY standard) following the Ketchum debacle. It would take more .. probably a combination of DNA and a body. Others less entrenched might accept a lower standard but of that, I'm the skeptic! I believe to prove existence you've got to have a body, nothing less will do. Other evidence might help but none, alone or in combination, will be sufficient to force skeptics to change their positions. MIB eDNA results are evidence (like footprints, calls, and most pics and video), but are not PROOF, as there are always alternate explanations (humans with the same rare mutations, faked footprints, hoaxed calls, man in a suit, respectively). Agree a body part is needed for analysis and ultimate proof. 1
MIB Posted 6 minutes ago Moderator Posted 6 minutes ago 3 hours ago, norseman said: Which is why I am confident in saying they are not the same species as us. I think this has to be considered carefully. What does "species" mean? Technically, it refers to the ability to produce a viable (ie fertile) offspring. The physical differences are irrelevant in that context. The only evidence we have for or against comes from Native American lore, the rest is mere preference / belief system, not even data. I don't put a lot of weight on the Native American lore but neither do I discount it out of hand. And so far as the belief system .. that's very circular: I don't believe it because I don't believe it, therefore I don't believe it. And that's truly all the substance available. I recognize circular arguments when I see them. I recognize evidence so weak as to be questionable as evidence. We have .. nothing .. to say of any validity regarding whether they are or are not of the same species, technically speaking, that we are. I don't have an investment in the outcome of the discussion, nothing to prove, no ground that I've foolishly staked that I need to defend, so I can enjoy simple curiosity without ego worrying about being wrong.
Recommended Posts