Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I told you: I did, look it up. Multiple locations. You won't be satisfied until one knocks on your door. So why should I lift that finger again? Numerous unknown primate DNA results. How many months have you had to look that up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Oh, I have looked. No such thing exists, much less numerous times. "So why should I lift that finger again?" DWA Because it is your assertion and one should always back up ones assertions. Kinda essential and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 No, not really. When one knows that the homework isn't being done, well, not the teacher's responsibility to do the homework, correct? Correct. My assertions are copiously backed up. Wanna bet the BFF would even exist if they weren't? Ever hear of the UBF? Nope, because unicorns and bigfoot are not the same thing. Your assertions, on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) So...in other words, you cannot back it up. And it has something to do with unicorns with weird acronyms. UBF...Unicorn Big Forum...? Unicorn Bigfoot? Ah, but I have done my homework. I have researched and state that there is no evidence of unknown primate dna results when analyzing alleged bigfoot samples. Now your job as a teacher is to demonstrate where I am wrong. Not just say you are wrong because I say so. That is not a very good teacher. Edited April 23, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Not that I am putting them all into the same categories but I can do so if the evidence warrants it. The lack of evidence for bigfoot does make it possible and even plausible that bigfoot is not real and all of the reports are the result of hallucination, mistaken observation or hoax. Again, that is statistically impossible. If you'd like to prove otherwise, I'd love to see what you come up with. But so far you haven't provided anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Ah, but I have done my homework. I have researched and state that there is no evidence of unknown primate dna results when analyzing alleged bigfoot samples. Now your job as a teacher is to demonstrate where I am wrong. Not just say you are wrong because I say so. That is not a very good teacher. A number of hair samples were tested by forensic scientists and were rejected as being from homo sapien based on morphology. They were then tested for mtDNA and found to be fully homo sapien. That finding creates a dilemma. The hair are undoubtedly primate, yet they are unknown as to their origin. I would feel comfortable, if those findings could be repeated, that those hairs would qualify as an unknown type of primate, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Again, that is statistically impossible. If you'd like to prove otherwise, I'd love to see what you come up with. But so far you haven't provided anything. What statistics are you talking about? Can you show us the figures you used and how you came to that conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) A number of hair samples were tested by forensic scientists and were rejected as being from homo sapien based on morphology. They were then tested for mtDNA and found to be fully homo sapien. That finding creates a dilemma. The hair are undoubtedly primate, yet they are unknown as to their origin. I would feel comfortable, if those findings could be repeated, that those hairs would qualify as an unknown type of primate, no? No. It would simply be a human hair that was too damaged for conclusive morphological classification I would imagine. Could you please link where these results are published? Edited April 24, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Ketchum's study... This result was from a number of different samples, including Southern Yahoo's. His did not look damaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) That seems a bit sketchy to me. Some sort of reference to read might be helpful, but being it is from Ketchum, taking it seriously would be a challenge. Also, dna kinda trumps hair morphology, so if it comes back as fully HSS, then it's a human hair, not an unknown primate. No? Edited April 24, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Hair morphology is a specialty with a long record. You can't just dismiss the field. The same results were obtained frome several different samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 ^^ And did the DNA testing come back as human as well? Is human an unknown primate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 mtDNA/ human....... hair morphology/ not human....... = primate/ ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Hair morphology not human, does that mean not classifiable? Otherwise if not human, then what was it determined to be? If it could not be accurately classified, then why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 What statistics are you talking about? Can you show us the figures you used and how you came to that conclusion? We already did. What are your conclusions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts