Unknown Primate Dna

[southernyahoo]

Hominins are primates, and scientists today are publishing on new ones based on DNA alone.

 

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-hominin-species/

 

Now researchers writing in the journal Nature report that they have found a fifth kind of hominin that may have overlapped with these species. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) But unlike all the other known members of the human family, which investigators have described on the basis of the morphological characteristics of their bones, the new hominin has been identified solely on the basis of its DNA.

 

The species was impossible to determine from the shape and size of the bone—it simply did not contain any diagnostic morphological traits.

 

 

So this settles whether they can publish with just DNA, so all you need is the same result from prospective BF samples.

 

Yes, limiting factors may be that the scientists don't get paid to investigate BF like they do ancient hominin remains, but it is still possible.

 

We really shouldn't encourage double standards and should hold science to it's precedents set above, if only BF was a new hominin.

[Guest DWA]

Well, there you are.  If science has already decided they'll accept it, they will.

 

But there were other hominins, confirmed, from which they were working.

 

Until they accept the possibility, DNA results won't even count to them as evidence but as contamination, degradation, etc.

[southernyahoo]

It may well be difficult to get them to look past their hasty assumptions. Sykes seems most open to doing that, but we'll see.

[Guest DWA]

Well, this is it.  How much of a leap is it from

 

'we've been finding unidentified hominins hand over fist lately, why not just go with DNA evidence for one?'

 

to

 

'maybe the hominins we feel comfortable considering aren't the only ones out there...'?

 

Just a question.  I wish they'd answer it.

 

My feeling about Sykes?  If he'd go 'Himalayan polar bear' - a very underrated finding from an open-mindedness standpoint - he will give anything submitted a fair shake.

[kitakaze]

dmaker, I only speak for myself, of course.  It may be the "unknown primate" result is an urban myth....although no less a scientist than Jane Goodall has fallen for it, if so. 

 

She said it was a tiny snippet she read the week before in the newspaper and that obviously more would have to be heard about it...

 

 

Meldrum's still telling people Patty is 7'3" based on Munns work 4 years after Munns publicly renounced the claim...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/45868-flap-on-the-right-foot/page-4#entry815562

Edited February 24, 2014 by kitakaze

[southernyahoo]

Using 14" inch tracks and my human proportions produces an estimate of 7'4" easily enough.

[Guest]

Feet are not a reliable indicator of body size. My feet are 12" long and I'm ply 5'8". Scale up from there and BF is only 6' maybe.

[hiflier]

Hello dmaker,

 

.........Despite DWAs claim that unknown primate DNA results are "numerous".  

 

Perhaps someone in the proponent camp could convince him to reveal his supporting evidence that he must surely have that allows him to  make the claim of numerous results?

Well, I'm a proponent. How about it DWA? I would truly like very much to see those numerous links.

 

It would seem unfair to the bigfoot community to keep such results private.

Well said. As a proponent I couldn't agree more.

 

At the very least you would think he would want to share the results on the BFF.

You can bet I would share it,  

 

Sadly, we must conclude that supporting this claim is one more in the list of claims that DWA will make, yet fail to confirm when asked.

Don't be too hasty there, dmaker. The guy deserves the chance before you can conclude such a thing  

 

OK, DWA, here's an opportunity to help us proponents put stuff like this to bed once and for all. If  unknown primate DNA results are indeed "numerous" then please, please post the links. I truly do want to know the truth of it. If you cannot then as far as I'm concerned your credibility will be immediately in the toilet. And not just one or two links will do, I would like to see the full compliment of what your definition of numerous is.

Edited March 1, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest]

*crickets chirping*

[southernyahoo]

Feet are not a reliable indicator of body size. My feet are 12" long and I'm ply 5'8". Scale up from there and BF is only 6' maybe.

 

You are correct to a point, I'm 5'11" tall and my foot is 11.25" long. Those proportions work well for Patty's height estimation, and I know people with shorter feet and are taller which would estimate Patty to be much taller than 7' 4". Still, working with averages for known human proportions is a benchmark to compare to. 

[Cotter]

http://thehistoryscroll.blogspot.com/2013/04/irrefutable-dna-evidence-bigfoot-exists.html

 

Thought this was an interesting link.

 

Talks about an 1811 sighting, and unknown DNA from a toenail.  There really isn't a good source to vet or anything, but I also thought an interesting comment was that the IN DNR was involved.....perhaps a source to start with?

[indiefoot]

April Fools gag, I believe, read the last sentence.

[Cotter]

^Agreed....

 

Gotta read the WHOLE article next time.

 

Please disregard, I've been had!

[hiflier]

Hello Cotter,

Not to worry. When I saw the article a few months back I tried to delve into it as much as possible. So...I too was had LOL. Just so everyone knows, after going through EVERY department in the Indiana state government index and directories I failed to run across an individual in the Indiana DNR or any other civil department who was a Ranger by the name of Matt Lott like it states in the article......dead end. Ah well....

Edited March 4, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest Darrell]

So, where is this unknown primate DNA?