The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

[WSA]

Dmaker, you neatly illustrate the second point of my example. Scorn and ridicule are your due (and that of your peers) if you are of that class...until you succeed. What everyone knows is, regardless of outcome, it is all antithetical to safety, security and certainty. We all choose which it is to be for us, but just don't believe they have equal value. History says you'd be wrong. 

 

(And, just a head's up: I think the word you want is "jibe" or, alternately, "gybe." Pet peeve....English Major and all. Sorry. Don't ever tell me somebody is "chomping" the bit either! ) :-) 

[Guest Stan Norton]

Yes. Double negatives are a definite no-no. Sorry...

[WSA]

I really do hesitate to be so didactic, but we E.M's are charged with single-handedly saving the language from all kinds of abuses, don't you know?!

[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.

[Guest Darrell]

^You are correct. However, I find more and more that as scientists looks closer at this phemonena and cant find anything that "science"  as a whole is attacked by the proponent crowd. They want so bad to have their beliefe system accepted and validated by science but when nothing can be found it is attacked. That is a total cult/religious/fanatic response. 

[Guest DWA]

Where is science looking closely at this?

 

Sykes is testing what people send him.  Was any of that pulled off the body of a live or dead Bigfoot?  I'm betting not.  So we're stuck with what people think it is when they send it in, which doesn't tell us anything unless if just happens to be.

 

Science in general isn't looking at this, at all.  I really begin to wonder why so many people are invested in that idea when nothing in the real world supports it.

[norseman]

^You are correct. However, I find more and more that as scientists looks closer at this phemonena and cant find anything that "science" as a whole is attacked by the proponent crowd. They want so bad to have their beliefe system accepted and validated by science but when nothing can be found it is attacked. That is a total cult/religious/fanatic response.

I agree.

But I think those that question science do so in other aspects as well like global warming, UFO cover ups, lunar landing conspiracy, JFK, whatever.

They just have a mindset that does not accept the status quo.

And to be fair there are those in the community that have had a sighting and are frustrated with being called a liar all the time. It's understandable.....

[Guest Darrell]

But when the only way a position can be defended is by calling conspiricy, or by claiming science is just accepting the status quo, then the position itself is weak. What happens 10 yrs from now if nothing new is brought forth? Is it a conspiricy of govt/science/religion not allowing existance to be aknowledged or could it be that they do not exist?  And will those in this belief system still claim to encounter this creature, will others still claim to interact with them, and will they be regarded as credible? In the 80's & 90's there were those (Byrne for one) predicting proof of existance by the end of the century. Well thats been 14 yrs now and still nothing closer. Same claims were being made for the Lockness Monster, UFO's, and quite a number of related phenomina. Still nothing. So everybody here can post about the latest finds or mistakes in science (evolution, archeology, anthroplogy, and paleontology) as some kind of bonafides of their position but really it just doesnt work until you can tie it all together and link it to an actual living breathing bigfoot. Now as far as I know that hasnt been done yet. And the skeptic positions can work the same way with all the crapola that is spewed by the proponents position (Sykes,Ketchum,Erickson,Biscardi, ect)

   I really begin to wonder why so many people are invested in that idea when nothing in the real world supports it.

Are you making this statement in regard to the existance of bigfoot?

Edited December 11, 2013 by Darrell

[Guest DWA]

But when the only way a position can be defended is by calling conspiricy, or by science accepting the status quo, then the position itself is weak.

 

That's right.  Only problem is, you are describing the status quo.  The proponent position is backed by evidence.  The status quo:  not so much.

 

What happens 10 yrs from now if nothing new is brought forth?

 

If nobody's looking - essentially the case now - then the question remains open.  Right?  Right.

 

Is it a conspiricy of govt/science/religion not allowing existance to be aknowledged or could it be that they do not exist? 

 

It would be nice if scientists stopped navel-gazing and tried to find out.

 

And will those in this belief system still claim to encounter this creature, will others still claim to interact with them, and will they be regarded as credible? In the 80's & 90's there were those (Byrne for one) predicting proof of existance by the end of the century. Well thats been 14 yrs now and still nothing closer.

 

No, actually, we're quantum leaps closer.  Only problem is that one has to understand the difference between evidence - growing and becoming more compelling pretty much by the day - and proof.

 

 

[Guest Darrell]

^ What evidence? And evidence isnt really anything until you can make it prove something. Im glad you have something you can believe in so strongly.

[Guest DWA]

^^^I don't believe in anything.

 

But evidence only requires one to see the direction in which it points.  I'm content to wait for the proof; but I know what the proof is likely to be.

[WSA]

Can we  have any stronger example of how science can succeed than the events made the topic of this thread? Contrast that with how Sasquatch theory is approached, and you will begin to take DWA's point.

 

So, you have a site where pre-historic artifacts and ancient human remains might be found (Because....wait for it....there's been EVIDENCE to support that belief). What does science do then? Well, it rounds up funding, it gets a bunch of folks (usually young, usually students, usually starving...) and an institution gets behind the effort. They go to the site. They dig and sift, and....EUREKA! They find something. They analyze it, write about it and publish it. VIOLA! 

 

Now, the inherent problem with applying these tactics for finding bones to finding a BF is obvious...BF don't want to wait around like bones do to be "discovered." (Leaving aside for the momment the fact nobody really knows where to go to look for BF bones) Problem, that. But, insurmountable problem? Hardly, and any number of folks here could propose any number of tactics to adapt to this problem. Hell, the NAWAC boys and girls ARE doing an approach a well funded scientific field expedition  could easily do, and science could maybe do it bigger and longer, if resources like what went into this above mentioned dig were brought to bear. But none have done that so far, and I wouldn't recommend you stand on one leg holding your breath waiting for it either. To say somebody like Sykes has "done science" (so STHU) is patently silly. He made a start, but who is going to pick up that ball and advance down field with it?  Trust me, he'd be glad to have somebody pick up that challenge. Failure (if Sykes' study results are final...and we're not sure about that) to find a BF hair in a haystack does no more wipe away the body of contrary evidence than my spit raises the tide line in Fiji. I'm sure Sykes would be the first guy to admit this, given how he is a (big "S") Scientist and all. Too, "failure" is science's handmaiden, or it is if it is done correctly. (See: Harvey Firestone. If you want to see what scientific failure REALLY looks like.)

 

So, when you lay it out like this, where is the fault in DWA's take on it?    

[Guest Darrell]

^But would science have any better luck than the plethera of  BF groups? I dont need a degree to find an artifact. The key is in finding something. What are you finding WSA that would entice a scientific survey and study?  Who knows, maybe Jeff Meldrum will be the face of scientific failure in the years to come?

Edited December 11, 2013 by Darrell

[chelefoot]

^But would science have any better luck than the plethera of  BF groups?

We won't know until they TRY.

[Guest DWA]

^^^That.

 

And there's no excuse; of all things remaining unproven by science, this is the only one for which a large, consistent body of evidence exists.

And, given that the "plethora" of amateurs almost without exception fail to apply proper primatological field procedure - through disinclination or lack of time and funding - the evidence says it is CERTAIN that a mainstream expedition using ....using, say, exactly what NAWAC is doing only for more time and with more equipment, would succeed.

In fact, they would have succeeded already.

Because NAWAC HAS.