dmaker Posted February 20, 2014 Author Posted February 20, 2014 ^^ Well DWA, maybe we could get back on topic and instead of talking about provisional proclamations of anything pending further taxonomic classification, let us instead talk about unknown primate DNA. Got any?
Guest Urkelbot Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 I can appreciate the perspective on the DNA, however I still think it gets very interesting when you know you have a viable fresh sample collected in favorable circumstances, is adequately washed and produces enough clean purified DNA that there should be no mistaking identity, and it still gives a pure human result when it should not be, unless there be wildmen depositing it. Or it's just from regular people.
southernyahoo Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 ^ You'd have to understand and accept the provenance and other physical observations being accurate to know it's not.
Guest DWA Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 ^^ Well DWA, maybe we could get back on topic and instead of talking about provisional proclamations of anything pending further taxonomic classification, let us instead talk about unknown primate DNA. Got any? On me? Not right now. Check with Birkbe. ^ You'd have to understand and accept the provenance and other physical observations being accurate to know it's not. This might be the problem, the "accept." Generally, when scientists find a new species, we see photographs and other evidence subject to review. We don't see "you'll just have to accept the accuracy of my statement that that hair sample came off a branch seven feet above the ground."
Guest Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) What about Birkbe? The website states that he looked at a hair, not DNA. Edited February 20, 2014 by Jerrymanderer
southernyahoo Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Well you also have to accept that full provenance isn't given to just anyone on a forum. It has to be worth one's effort to prove that.
Guest Urkelbot Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Birkby is a forensic anthropologist. It appears he was a bone and hair guy. Not DNA. ^ You'd have to understand and accept the provenance and other physical observations being accurate to know it's not. It's funny there are never any clear pictures to go along with the physical observations that produce these samples.
dmaker Posted February 20, 2014 Author Posted February 20, 2014 On me? Not right now. Check with Birkbe. This might be the problem, the "accept." Generally, when scientists find a new species, we see photographs and other evidence subject to review. We don't see "you'll just have to accept the accuracy of my statement that that hair sample came off a branch seven feet above the ground." But we should just accept the accuracy of a statement as long as it is made by someone claiming a bigfoot sighting?
Guest DWA Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 ^^^That doesn't matter. Did he or did he not do the analysis? Were his results (if he did) flawed, or not? Arguments from authority don't work in science.
Guest DWA Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Well you also have to accept that full provenance isn't given to just anyone on a forum. It has to be worth one's effort to prove that. I haven't seen a case of a new discovery for which I couldn't either (1) test it myself or (2) see that, yep, other people in the field will be able to test that, and we'll hear from them if this is wrong. If at any point you get to "you just gotta trust me," there's a problem. Telling me how that hair sequenced out tells me nothing about what a sasquatch really is. Shoot, the mathematical calculations that indicate the presence of black holes at least give something to sink one's teeth in.
southernyahoo Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) If at any point you get to "you just gotta trust me," there's a problem. Telling me how that hair sequenced out tells me nothing about what a sasquatch really is. Shoot, the mathematical calculations that indicate the presence of black holes at least give something to sink one's teeth in. What was it about the examination of hairs which was done for Mionczynski that you could test yourself? Are you accepting what Mionczynski says? I haven't seen a case of a new discovery for which I couldn't either (1) test it myself or (2) see that, yep, other people in the field will be able to test that, and we'll hear from them if this is wrong. It's about who you are proving something to........Scientists are preferable to a crowd on a forum who have no names. Edited February 20, 2014 by southernyahoo
Guest DWA Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 What was it about the examination of hairs which was done for Mionczynski that you could test yourself? Are you accepting what Mionczynski says? As proof? No. How could I? As something that, if you tell me he's lying you have to prove it? Um, heck yeah. It's about who you are proving something to........Scientists are preferable to a crowd on a forum who have no names. Really when it comes down to proof, scientists are the only ones who count. No habituator posting here owes me anything; I owe no skeptic here anything.
southernyahoo Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Really when it comes down to proof, scientists are the only ones who count. No habituator posting here owes me anything; I owe no skeptic here anything. Good. If you are looking for anything more than that - how could one get more, on this topic? Scientists acknowledging the proof, from a cogency of evidence. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof Proof is.......the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.
Guest DWA Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Good. Scientists acknowledging the proof, from a cogency of evidence. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof Proof is.......the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. I would say that in that sense, this is "proven" to everyone I know who demonstrates a significant grasp of the evidence.
dmaker Posted February 20, 2014 Author Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) ^^ Too bad for you that is such a small number of people. Lots of things are proven to lots of people if you restrict "proven" to meaning do they believe it to be real? If no consensus at all is required then there are probably no end of things considered "proven" by some people. Edited February 20, 2014 by dmaker
Recommended Posts