Guest DWA Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 Kitakaze: learn from the Japanese, guy! Simple is better; addressing the evidence is better; denial complicates. I mean, the Kermode bear blows up your entire reasoning, right there. That's a distinctive race isolated by genetics. Check out the historic ranges of real animals like the brown bear; the lion; the mountain lion; the gray wolf and the black bear (i.e., the species to which the Kermode belongs). Sasquatch looks more like those. Not really, dmaker, but strides continue to be made. See, it's all the assumptions that you read in those anthropology textbooks. It's really important to pile assumptions onto your research because it gives the research mone...I mean, I mean, credibility, that's what I meant, credibility. So. Comes a time they start seeing all those 'species' they were sure existed all together and it's ...[minds blown] [ "lost here"]
Guest Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 (edited) What excuse is there for a scientist to describe himself as "lost" after a find, Because they don't have enough information to explain their find. If a rabbit started laying eggs, scientists would rightly be confused and want to know more. So much for knowing how a true scientists thinks. Not really, dmaker, but strides continue to be made. See, it's all the assumptions that you read in those anthropology textbooks. It's really important to pile assumptions onto your research because it gives the research mone...I mean, I mean, credibility, that's what I meant, credibility. Bigfoot research is no different. After all, supposed bigfoot evidence is based on assumptions about dermal ridges, midtarsal breaks, ect. Edited December 23, 2013 by Jerrymanderer
Guest DWA Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 No, not really. It's just that you're "believing in" stuff here and you don't see that you are. Nothing backs up this alleged "consensus" that you insist on clinging too. That's, um, addressed to, um, all of you.
Guest Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 (edited) Seriously DWA your whole view on "assumptions" in science is bizarre. So its okay for Meldrum to use "assumptions" of anthropology and biology to proclaim bigfoot evidence authentic but scientists on other subjects can do the same? I think you're making up the rules of debate as you go along. Edited December 23, 2013 by Jerrymanderer
kitakaze Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 Kitakaze: learn from the Japanese, guy! Simple is better; addressing the evidence is better; denial complicates. My current position on the existence of Bigfoot has come from a lifetime of addressing the evidence, as detailed in that post. My interest in Bigfoot comes down to addressing the best claims of reliable evidence for that existence individually. In every case I have studied it has invariably become vapour. A great example of show me the monkey... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/5116-cascades-carnivore-project-how-do-they-miss-the-bigfoots/page-2 Check out the historic ranges of real animals like the brown bear; the lion; the mountain lion; the gray wolf and the black bear (i.e., the species to which the Kermode belongs). Sasquatch looks more like those. Brown bear... Lion... Mountain lion... Gray wolf... Black bear... "Sasquatch looks more like those." - DWA
kitakaze Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 The article backs it up. All one has to do is read it, and think about it. What excuse is there for a scientist to describe himself as "lost" after a find, if it isn't that his entire world has been run through a salad tosser by a rather routine find? Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=SC_A4Y_20131204&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=+1385874000000&bicmet=+1388638800000&_r=1 Scientists have found the oldest DNA evidence yet of humans’ biological history. But instead of neatly clarifying human evolution, the finding is adding new mysteries. In a paper in the journal Nature, scientists reported Wednesday that they had retrieved ancient human DNA from a fossil dating back about 400,000 years, shattering the previous record of 100,000 years. The fossil, a thigh bone found in Spain, had previously seemed to many experts to belong to a forerunner of Neanderthals. But its DNA tells a very different story. It most closely resembles DNA from an enigmatic lineage of humans known as Denisovans. Until now, Denisovans were known only from DNA retrieved from 80,000-year-old remains in Siberia, 4,000 miles east of where the new DNA was found. The mismatch between the anatomical and genetic evidence surprised the scientists, who are now rethinking human evolution over the past few hundred thousand years. It is possible, for example, that there are many extinct human populations that scientists have yet to discover. They might have interbred, swapping DNA. Scientists hope that further studies of extremely ancient human DNA will clarify the mystery. “Right now, we’ve basically generated a big question mark,†said Matthias Meyer, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and a co-author of the new study. ... “This would not have been possible even a year ago,†said Juan Luis Arsuaga, a paleoanthropologist at Universidad Complutense de Madrid and a co-author of the paper. Finding such ancient human DNA was a major advance, said David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School who was not involved in the research. “That’s an amazing, game-changing thing,†he said. ... But the DNA did not match that of Neanderthals. Dr. Meyer then compared it to the DNA of the Denisovans, the ancient human lineage that he and his colleagues had discovered in Siberia in 2010. He was shocked to find that it was similar. “Everybody had a hard time believing it at first,†Dr. Meyer said. “So we generated more and more data to nail it down.†... “Now we have to rethink the whole story,†Dr. Arsuaga said. ... “The more we learn from the DNA extracted from these fossils, the more complicated the story becomes,†Dr. Shapiro said. ... "What excuse is there for a scientist to describe himself as "lost" after a find, if it isn't that his entire world has been run through a salad tosser by a rather routine find?" - DWA A rather routine find... DWA and science...
Guest Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 I've experienced sleep paralyis. you might see shadows or feel like somethongs there, but whywould someone who's never even thought of bigfoot before, hallucinate bigfoot?
kitakaze Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 Any wise scientist also understands that as each new layer of knowledge is revealed, an even broader set of unknowns is disclosed. The accomplishment of discovery should always be humbled by the revelation of new unknowns. Nor has the community acquired the collective wisdom yet to stop saying, after every new discovery, "Now, the whole picture is...." “Now we have to rethink the whole story,†Dr. Arsuaga said.
JDL Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 Kit and D, are you guys certain that bigfoot do not exist?
dmaker Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 (edited) Not sure the point of your question Aaron. I'm not a physicist, so I can't give you a detailed explanation of how gravity works --in fact many of those might not be able to tell you exactly what it is either. But I will tell you this: I can at least observe gravity in action. It is very repeatable and observable that way. Is Bigfoot? For that matter, what does my understanding of gravity have to do with my certainty around Bigfoots existence? I was using it illustrate a point, not to imply that I had a deep scientific understanding of gravity beyond the basics. Perhaps I should have said as certain as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow? Or do I now need to give you my resume vis a vis celestial bodies? Edited December 24, 2013 by dmaker
JDL Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 So you allow no potential for the unknown when it comes to bigfoot? 1
Guest DWA Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 (edited) This is what I love about you skweptikal guys. You go to all this trouble reinforcing my points. You do understand, don't you, that everything you're putting up there is about the gobsmacked reactions which are generated by only one thing: all the unwarranted asssumptions scientists piled on, essentially, a smattering of skimpy clues? You do get that, right? That this is all about smugness getting its comeuppance? Read my signature. Down there, in red. It's what you're going on and on about. It's the problem. Edited December 24, 2013 by DWA
Guest Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 Your "points" make no sense. So if a rabbit was found to lay eggs, nobody should be dumbfounded?
Recommended Posts