The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

[Guest Stan Norton]

It doesn't?

If I was born without legs 10000 years ago I would not have lived long enough to contribute to the gene pool.

In today's world iam a productive member of society that parks next to you at Microsoft in the handicap parking spot. I have a wife, kids and a dog............

Natural selection has been defanged.

Sorry man but no. Evolution works at the population level and plays with us all in a myriad of ways. No matter how advanced we think we are there will always be, for example, disease, war, stochastic events, famine, competition, finite resources etc etc etc etc. These factors each work on us at the population level to ensure that natural selection keeps us on our toes. Evolution is as omnipresent as gravity.

 

But that would be more akin to Lamarckism not Darwinism. Interestingly, recent research has demonstrated that fear of certain experiences can be passed on between generations. There is a genetic element to it. So maybe Lamarck was not too far off the mark after all.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Stan Norton
Edit Quoted Preceding Post

[Guest LarryP]

If you can show me where a human living in a drought can adapt to drink less water or resist microbes better than a human living in a non

Drought area and then pass these traits over to the next generation? You might be on to something.

 

You're making my point for me.

[norseman]

I give up.

[Guest DWA]

Great!  Me too.  Back on topic.

 

As I was saying.

 

The point of the OP with regard to sasquatch is:  there is no point in accepting a scientific consensus when the 'specialists' are clearly out of their depth.

 

It's been said before, by me and by too few others, that when one gets a scientist outside his specialty, he's not significantly more qualified than the rest of us to discuss it (unless of course he's made an in-depth study there too, e.g., an ornithologist who restores '50s cars).  I have gone even further recently:  most scientists are not, in fact, scientists as I would define the term.  A scientist avoids assumptions and reserves judgment on any matter until she has satisfied herself as to the state of the evidence.  A scientist would be constrained - by the very nature of the scientific discipline - from saying anything more negative, regarding sasquatch, than:  I await the proof, not being properly acquainted with the evidence.  A tolerably-accomplished technician in a narrow scientific tributary knows what is going on there, pretty much, and there only; and that is how most scientists pronouncing on sasquatch strike me.

 

Now comes to light that the specialists are out of their depth even in their specialty.  One scientist has categorized the state of the field, in the wake of this find, as "lost," as in, we're lost at the moment; and that would be, apparently, quite accurate.  The very basis of the methodology scientists have taken for granted in separated one extinct "species" from another has been called, by this find, into serious question.

 

Moral:  question anything you hear from a scientist until you see, not just her credentials, but the evidence.

[dmaker]

^^ So question anything you hear from a scientist, but any random person that cares to lay claim to a Bigfoot sighting, accept that right away!

[Guest Darrell]

^Scientists are the bad guys to a phenomema that cant be explained by science. Especially when the phenomena wants so badly to have science explain it.

[Guest DWA]

^^ So question anything you hear from a scientist, but any random person that cares to lay claim to a Bigfoot sighting, accept that right away!

If one insists on being that gullible, that appears to be one's own business.  Not jumpin' off a cliff if they go first, neither.

[NathanFooter]

^^ So question anything you hear from a scientist, but any random person that cares to lay claim to a Bigfoot sighting, accept that right away!

 

 No, everyone should question everything and everyone be that person a scientist or the average joe.   No one should just except something because it is told to them. I certainly do not expect everyone to believe what I say just because I said it.

 

 Most scientists deal in facts and they simply do not take a deep hard look into unknown subjects that just might burn them and their credibility.   But this code does get broken from time to time by select individuals. For science over all the concept and theory of something has to be fairly easy to swallow before the community is willing to invest effort into such.

 

 Sykes for example is in my opinion unique in this aspect , he has given the subject a look and did not find squatch gold.  

[Guest DWA]

^Scientists are the bad guys to a phenomema that cant be explained by science. Especially when the phenomena wants so badly to have science explain it.

Scientists' job is to explain stuff.  When there is something out there that needs explaining, no one else's explanations use Occam's razor nearly so deftly as the proponents'; and scientists repeatedly fail at it....well, why trust them?

 

The OP link says:  really, no particular reason to, particularly when they just showed themselves up, rather neatly I might add.

[WSA]

As usual, for those who want to endure the risk, fear and uncertainty of testing the status quo and the boundaries of accepted knowledge,  the rewards for success are great. As usual, the vast, vast majority of people cannot bear the price that must be paid. It has always been so, and always will be. In hindsight, those willing to do it and succeed are  called heroes, visionaries and pioneers. Those who try and fail are scorned in their time, and forgotten by prosterity (and prosperity). Them's your choices.   

[dmaker]

If one insists on being that gullible, that appears to be one's own business.  Not jumpin' off a cliff if they go first, neither.

 

Your response does not jive with your constant rhetoric here. You lecture non stop about how we should accept eye witness reports. You accept these with no supporting evidence whatsoever and,in fact, vilify those that do not. Yet words from a scientist, well they should never be accepted without both credentials AND supporting evidence. I am confused about all of that. Lay persons seem more trustworthy in your arguments yet it is precisely the lack of credentialed scientists that you bemoan for Bigfoot not being confirmed yet. You say constantly we need more scientists in this fight, and then you tell us how we can't trust them and should always trust lay anecdotes.  The irony and contradictions boggle my mind.

Edited December 9, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

You seem easily boggled.  I am here to help with bogglement.

 

One person says, I saw a unicorn, I say:  Well good on ya, buddy.  Contribute to the unicorn database.  Funny, don't see one.  But I won't tell you "I wasn't there and you didn't see that," because that's loony.

 

Thousands of people from all walks of life get guidebook specific on what they saw; scientists following the evidence and employing their science - instead of just pointing to their degrees and yelling, jowls quivering:  I!  AM! A SCIENTIST!!!! AND I!!!!!!!! AM!!!!!!!!!! RIGHT!!!!!! - place this thing with great precision on a narrow corner of the phylum Chordata family tree, and I'm going:  so, what's with the rest of you clowns?

 

And when they respond with the same questions I'd expect from the garbageman, I just go:  that's what I expected, clowns.

 

And you just believe in them.  And trust them.  Well, the Tooth Fairy might be real, too.  I'd never tell you what to do with your teeth.

[Rockape]

Sykes for example is in my opinion unique in this aspect , he has given the subject a look and did not find squatch gold.  

 

Agreed, and the BF community in general has accepted his findings. Contrast that with Ketchum, who claimed she did find BF gold, but was not accepted generally by the BF community. I think that shows the BF community in general is more skeptical  and more trusting in real science than given credit for.

[dmaker]

You seem easily boggled.  I am here to help with bogglement.

 

One person says, I saw a unicorn, I say:  Well good on ya, buddy.  Contribute to the unicorn database.  Funny, don't see one.  But I won't tell you "I wasn't there and you didn't see that," because that's loony.

 

Thousands of people from all walks of life get guidebook specific on what they saw; scientists following the evidence and employing their science - instead of just pointing to their degrees and yelling, jowls quivering:  I!  AM! A SCIENTIST!!!! AND I!!!!!!!! AM!!!!!!!!!! RIGHT!!!!!! - place this thing with great precision on a narrow corner of the phylum Chordata family tree, and I'm going:  so, what's with the rest of you clowns?

 

And when they respond with the same questions I'd expect from the garbageman, I just go:  that's what I expected, clowns.

 

And you just believe in them.  And trust them.  Well, the Tooth Fairy might be real, too.  I'd never tell you what to do with your teeth.

So you're saying trust the anonymous reports, and trust the scientists that agree with you and your small number of bigfoot, science heroes, otherwise don't trust anything a scientists says, ever. ( especially if they have large jowls)...wait Santa has large jowls..

 

Yet, you still constantly blame science for not getting involved in this topic. You don't exactly roll out the welcome mat, now do you?  

As usual, for those who want to endure the risk, fear and uncertainty of testing the status quo and the boundaries of accepted knowledge,  the rewards for success are great. As usual, the vast, vast majority of people cannot bear the price that must be paid. It has always been so, and always will be. In hindsight, those willing to do it and succeed are  called heroes, visionaries and pioneers. Those who try and fail are scorned in their time, and forgotten by prosterity (and prosperity). Them's your choices.   

You make Bigfooting out to be such a noble struggle worthy of Shakespeare or Homer. Could you list some of these Bigfoot visionaries and heroes to date? I'll start:

 

Tim Fasano

Toejam

Henry May

Tom Biscardi

Matt Moneymaker

Bobo

Timbergiant Bigfoot

 

...  

Edited December 9, 2013 by dmaker

[norseman]

^Scientists are the bad guys to a phenomema that cant be explained by science. Especially when the phenomena wants so badly to have science explain it.

If you think about it? Nothing is beyond the reach of science......it can all be weighed and measured, even if we lack the ability for now.