Will Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Yes I've heard of the bottle neck in our lineage , yet physically we do exibit a wide range of appearance in height, bulk, hair color , hairiness etc. This is where our variability is apparent even though our mitocondrial DNA is very similar. I've read that Neanderthals have about 200 differences across the MtDNA from (human SS) and Denisovans around 400. I guess this is where we should see some sort of divergence from Homo sapiens if I'm following you. Thanks, I've read about the short comings of Barcode analysis or genetic fingerprinting. I suppose they are better at identifying knowns than describing nonmatching unknowns. Did the bottle neck come from that guy in a boat with a bunch of animals two by two. Edited March 13, 2011 by will
southernyahoo Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 I don't know Will, I'm open to what the evidence can show us, it might depend on which book(s) you read.
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 (edited) First and fundamentally, Objectiveness: I presume Bigfoot research (scientifically) groups are the first interested in putting forward the next questions: 1 - How credible is "The Buthan Yeti" documentary? 2 - In which laboratory did the hair sample analysis took place? 3 - What's the name of the analist, and what's her degree of skills, master or title? 4 - where is the documentation corroborating that the analysis and the sample did in fact exist? 5 - Where is the documentation reporting the analysis? 6 - did any bigfoot associated group acquired answers for these questions? 7 - where are they exposed? 8 - where are they exposed even being a hoax (to notify being hoaxes for ending this controversial matters)? and finally, eihter this being a hoax or a very important issue considering the analysis were correctly made by a professional, and by so: Did Bigfoot associators took importance on those matters? Either one or another, they should, they must. Personally I cannot find anything answering me either this is a hoax or a documented proof. If you find anything please report me. Cheers Edited May 12, 2011 by ZeTomes
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 What will we all do after the discovery is verified? A little of the magic and wonder we feel about the world will be gone. I believe they exist, and one day all will know about this creatures' reality. Will skeptics still be skeptics? It really irritates me when a skeptical is labeled like a nonn-believer. This is not a question of believing or not believing when turning to the question proving effectively the existence of something claimed to exist. It's scientific method -> skepticism, analysis, experience, comparison, corroboration and validation! Skepticism IS part of the process of achieving validation in a thesis and it HAS to follow every process of the demonstration! But skepticism is not equal to antagonism wich is the opposite side of belief. Another thing is the possibility in the realms of believing and wanting to exist. I would like that Bigfoot existed or exists presently, it's part of my ideological world of Jules Verne, exploration and unknown worlds, but THAT cannot be confused with scientifical proof, i.e., validation in the realm of reality. So, among a confusion of naive belief, hoaxes, improbabilities, missinterpretations, one has to scrutinize if ever wants to reach truth or transpose acceptance in the scientific community, i.e., validation itself.
Huntster Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 It really irritates me when a skeptical is labeled like a nonn-believer. Well, it appears that you'll have to be considered irritated. Being skeptical is (by definition) non-belief. This is not a question of believing or not believing when turning to the question proving effectively the existence of something claimed to exist. It's scientific method -> skepticism, analysis, experience, comparison, corroboration and validation! Skepticism IS part of the process of achieving validation in a thesis and it HAS to follow every process of the demonstration! No, it is not. There is no requirement for "skepticism" in the scientific method. You're proselytising.
Guest Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 No, it is not. There is no requirement for "skepticism" in the scientific method. There IS a requirement for objectivity...a trait that is demonstrably lacking in Science with regards to BF.
Guest themanta Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 There IS a requirement for objectivity...a trait that is demonstrably lacking in Science with regards to BF. While there are the chronic debunkers, so to are those ""scientists"" who cash in credentials for Monsterquest appearances, and their cultish followers
Guest Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 Well, it appears that you'll have to be considered irritated. Being skeptical is (by definition) non-belief. No, it is not. There is no requirement for "skepticism" in the scientific method. You're proselytising. Hunster, Thank you for your defense of my post. You are a sweetie for standing up for the truth, and *explaining* it. You, kind sir, received my little positive point for the day! Hugs to you from me...
Guest Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 There IS a requirement for objectivity...a trait that is demonstrably lacking in Science with regards to BF. Well said Mulder, as always! Regular scientists are facing a difficult situation in that they have to acknowledge the truth of the specimens submitted, but do not have to say that BF exists, so hopefully they can remain objective.
Guest Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 While there are the chronic debunkers, so to are those ""scientists"" who cash in credentials for Monsterquest appearances, and their cultish followers Truly, Are they really giving up all credibility by supporting BF research via Monster Quest? MQ brought the specimens to the lab that started all of this DNA from a BF being found. Ericsson has progressed way beyond that, but MQ did actually have BF evidence. Amazing, is it not? They(MQ) spend 2 days and 1 or 2 nights max running around an area, and actually discovered real evidence. Yikes! Truly, It was a miracle of sorts, but pretty exciting when I heard the results from Dr. Meldrum. MQ had actual BF hairs, and started Meldrum on the track of BF research. Imagine if they would spend more time in an area, by now they may have been able to document the BF species, and have a positive proof.. or not.. with a body that MQ scared to death.
Guest parnassus Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) First, humans are considerably LESS variable than other species. ...... The published bigfoot DNA results to date demonstrate very little. Most of the species identification tests do not (or did not) use sequencing of the mtDNA. They used marker based tests, where certain genetic patterns would be searched for. Sometimes those tests would find a human (probably a genus=Homo) pattern and sometimes they would find a primate pattern, but be unable to find the genus. For those marker-based tests to fail does not require a significant difference in the DNA from the known pattern. A few dozen bases changed in the CO1 gene could be the difference between Homo and ???. Human variability was enough to fool the bug guy. If you have a database of the results of suspected bigfoot DNA testing to date, that would be great to see. I think I asked you about this previously. When you write "very little" it sounds as if you mean they haven't identified the species. I don't think that would be an accurate representation of the results. David Paulides represents that he did a review of all published results and iirc found that some 95% were human. Of course thats Paulides but I suspect that he had some help with that from Ketchum (this sounds like the review of the literature that she would have done.) so if that's true I wouldn't dismiss it as "very little." these were specimens that people had reason to think were Bigfoot's; that to me suggests that either people are mistaking people for Bigfoot or someone is trying to fool someone. Edited May 13, 2011 by parnassus
Guest parnassus Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 Well, it appears that you'll have to be considered irritated. Being skeptical is (by definition) non-belief. No, it is not. There is no requirement for "skepticism" in the scientific method. Shows how little you understand about modern science. Whenever possible a statistical approach to the null hypothesis is required, and meaning discussion of alternative explanations is required. ps: meaningful discussions do not include conspiracy theories.
norseman Posted May 13, 2011 Admin Author Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) To get this thread back on point. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/gates-ketchum.htm Fact A ) It's a large primate. Fact B ) Visually the hair is not human and doesn't match millions of sequences in their data base. Fact C ) In order to prove it's a new species they are going to need a lot more hair samples (from different members). So boiled down to brass tacks? We have zip, zero, nada. I'm a hunter and have been in the woods all my life. Does anyone have any idea on how tough of a job "Fact C" is asking us to do? Getting dozens and dozens of hair samples from different members of one species? Especially from the roof of the world? I have very very little faith in this approach. Edited May 13, 2011 by norseman
southernyahoo Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 We don't know how well the one Yeti sample might compare to the dozens of samples from the US, it might even be included in Ketchums paper.
norseman Posted May 13, 2011 Admin Author Posted May 13, 2011 We don't know how well the one Yeti sample might compare to the dozens of samples from the US, it might even be included in Ketchums paper. Wait. We have dozen's of "unknown primate" hair samples from the US?
Recommended Posts