Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 It's just a scientist would disregard you in serious discussion after you said this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 21, 2016 Author Share Posted April 21, 2016 ^^ THIS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 ^^^^^^ People simply do not understand Taxonomy enough to form an intelligent conversation about it. Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Clade: Synapsida Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Suborder: Haplorhini Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: H. sapiens If for example if we go all the way up to class? Then Humans, Shrews and Orcas share the fact we are all mammals. Order? Old and new world monkeys and lesser and greater apes, including Homo Sapiens are all Primates. Family? Only Great apes are left including Homo Sapiens. Genus? All are extinct except for one species......Homo Sapien. Its like a giant Oak tree with a trunk at its base, and the higher you climb the more the branches fan out. This is about middle school science in our current education system. Obviously some of us are older and may have missed this, I fortunately had the time/life series of books that broke out science for me during the 70's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Nature_Library Norse, my gratitude. You just listed the taxonomy of humans. And nowhere do I see the taxonomy term "APE." Which I have been stating, is an English term, not a scientific term. IMO, it just shows how adept some are at cut and paste w/o any idea of the real substance. The one thing that appears to elude people is exactly what happened to cause homo habillus, et. al to appear on the scene. If it was a hybrid speciation event wouldn't that put a fork in the anti-hybrid proponents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted April 21, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted April 21, 2016 Being disregarded by scientists sort of goes with the territory of the purpose of this forum. But sometimes it is good to be on the bad side of science because it can be wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 ^^^And while you're on that, read *this* about those guys and gals the skeptics worship. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/53623-scientific-regress/#entry957711 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 It's just a scientist would disregard you in serious discussion after you said this. Not if we're using proper taxonomy. After all, scientists are supposed to be scientific, use scientific terms, and especially terminology they themselves create. Otherwise, I'd likewise disregard them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) They can afford to disregard you, they are not even aware of you. Edited April 22, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Science taken to the woodshed right here, folks! On one side is the entire scientific community, movers, shakers, PHDs, and professors emeritus. On the other side is our intrepid self-proclaimed couple of warriors, tilting at windmills. Stay tuned for the results. I've a large tub of popcorn for the occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyzonthropus Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Pass it over this way, would ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted April 22, 2016 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2016 Science taken to the woodshed right here, folks! On one side is the entire scientific community, movers, shakers, PHDs, and professors emeritus. On the other side is our intrepid self-proclaimed couple of warriors, tilting at windmills. Stay tuned for the results. I've a large tub of popcorn for the occasion. These same movers, shaker, PHD's, and the professors emeritus have not been able to get any closer to solving what is living in North America either. We are suppose to trust their judgment because they carry these titles. But they are real good at discounting what is flesh and blood living in our back yards. The only reason that I can come up with is that they would have to change the way they think about history, proving their theory's wrong . Science has been proven wrong on many occasion and though it might not be easy for some to accept it, it happens. I am not worried about tilting the wind mill, since it is the wind that moves the vanes. This wind is what works this wind mill and we have no control over the wind. The woodshed is just a storage are and if you feel that science is being placed there, then you are going to need that tub of pop-corn. I might even suggest a silo of pop-corn if you are placing science in a wood shed, with the entire science community. Is this a bold enough statement about Bigfoot, because science is not going to move forward there. Education is about learning and the higher ups know this, what happens is that these higher ups have been placed in a spot of higher awareness. So they are at a point that they believe that they know all there is to know and shut down what does not fit their beliefs or should I say knowledge. So if we do not have a PHD or a Dr in front of our name we are nothing but a lower life form to them. So go ahead and share in you large tub of pop corn while others under stand the true meaning of discovery. You want to call us warriors of truth well I am fine with that and consider it not an insult. Because we spoke up while others stayed silent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 ^^^ Plussed IMO, the institution of modern science is more about self-edification and less about discovery. As far as all things BF go it appears, as a overall group the scientific community made up it's collective mind(s) a long time ago. Five hundred years ago science practitioners had to worry about running afoul of religious dogma yet today it appears they've built their own fences around the discipline in order to keep everything regarded as kosher neatly within the nine dots of that institution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Getting back to the hybrid hypothesis, the OP article says we lost the Y chromosome Neanderthal specific mutations and thus their paternal lineage. I find it to be more likely to be lost than the Neanderthal maternal lineage because that is carried in the mitochondria of each cell and is passed on to both males and female off spring from the mother which supposedly kept breeding with Cro Magnons. Yet we lost the maternal lineage too. So, we should come up with a scenario that would explain this and it would be a better explanation for both facts than the natural male abortion theory.This is even more complex since this is what Norseman is debating. But you are stating a scenario that we have lost our maternal lineage and that would mean that we have no idea from where or what we came from. Yet it took a male to start a linage which has XY chromosome and a female which has XX chromosome if we cancel out two XX with XY we are left with XY which is male. This only leaves that an offspring had mated with it's own maternal mother and started a population and if math is right then every so many off springs a female should be born. Making her eligible for population of a species . Now the there is a good reason why we lost the Y chromosome in Neanderthal and it could due to incompatibilities, but I will let the article speak for it's self: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/148962/20160410/genetic-incompatibilities-kept-lineage-of-modern-humans-and-neanderthals-apart.htm Shadowborn, I'm stating we lost the Neanderthal maternal lineage that should still be with us from an ancient hybridization between us and Neanderthals. If the OP Hypothesis is correct that the female hybrids were the ones that were born in the first place and rebred back to Cro Magnons, then it should have been more persistent than the Y chromosome, but it vanished also. We still have our maternal lineages from 20 to 40k years ago, and they don't match Neanderthal. Hybridizations could have occurred during a bottleneck in our population numbers, but with a following boom in population, perhaps the direct lines to Neanderthals simply washed out of the mix. Sterility and spontaneous abortion is not a certainty among the proposed hybrid males, this is why it's an hypothesis and not a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Science taken to the woodshed right here, folks! On one side is the entire scientific community, movers, shakers, PHDs, and professors emeritus. On the other side is our intrepid self-proclaimed couple of warriors, tilting at windmills. Stay tuned for the results. I've a large tub of popcorn for the occasion. Those of us who have thought about this know that 1) this has happened oodles and oodles of times in the history of science, the "entire scientific community" being flat wrong (as, at the frontiers, it always is); 2) why this happens is because they just aren't thinking about this, and we know it by the very things they say; 3) popcorn should be brought to sites like this every day, because no more entertaining mental gymnastics than stone-cold denial of reality exist in this world. I bring other stuff too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 But. Back on topic. I'm just not sure why proponents of a thesis that the scientific community laughs at would want to complicate the issue (and make it, to those laughing at it, more laughable) by proposing stuff like paranormal shape-shifting human hybrids. Or just: human hybrids, when really there isn't any more reason to think that than there is with any known ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted April 22, 2016 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2016 But. Back on topic. I'm just not sure why proponents of a thesis that the scientific community laughs at would want to complicate the issue (and make it, to those laughing at it, more laughable) by proposing stuff like paranormal shape-shifting human hybrids. Or just: human hybrids, when really there isn't any more reason to think that than there is with any known ape. I'm going to disagree with that. As the report reader I expect you recall earlier DNA tests done on samples that were believed to have been handled properly regarding gathering forensic evidence, yet were tested and dismissed when first round of testing suggested they were contaminated with human DNA so testing was suspended and the samples discarded / disposed of. (I wish I had an example I could cite right off the top of my head rather than just providing what might be scoffed-aside as a vague reference. Apologies in advance.) It's not a huge reason, it's not proven, but one should suspect the possibility those weren't contamination at all. Perhaps it is not MUCH, but it is more than zero. If I had a sample that I was truly convinced was bigfoot, at this point, I'd push forward whether it appeared to be contaminated or not. I don't think "them is us", but if there is hybridization, the markers examined for first pass might be similar, we might have to go into more in-depth testing to find the differences. Cost being what it is though, I'd have to have collected the sample myself, handled only myself, and seen it, whatever it was, left behind by the bigfoot, so the bar has to be set pretty high before I ever start. MIB 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts