Drew Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Can the DNA be 'Human' really? This creature that doesn't shape tools, doesn't make fire is a human? No, this is a human sample, has anyone heard of any plans to publish a paper about this? Have they consulted anthropoligists like Dr. John Hawks at University of Wisconsin? No, they haven't and they won't.
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Fair enough. But my grad school genetics professor made the topic clear -- if two species interbreed and create viable offspring, they are truly a single species. That was the only answer he would accept on the qualifying exam if one desired a PhD-level passing score. That professor should be encouraged to seek early retirement! As my avatar indicates, I'm a huge fan of Ernst Mayr, who first established the biological species concept. That concept is, however, just one of several feeble attempts by us humans to place into boxes things that are on infinite continua of genetic variation. For our human purposes of distinguishing a gray kangaroo from a rock wallaby, the biological species concept works beautifully. For distinguishing among the different forms of the erstwhile species that form the "Thayer's Gull complex," its value is less clear. For a great many species of plants and all species that reproduce asexually the biological species concept is nigh on useless, and other definitions must be employed.
southernyahoo Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 IMO, Yes , bigfoot can be human and not make fire or sophisticated tools. They wouldn't exist and not be scientificly recognized as a new species for any other reason. BF= animal....No problem, they get caught and the DNA is distinguishable from anything else. BF= human...There is no new animal out there. The physical evidence says human DNA, BF slips away into the darkness once again. It's just going to take alot of work to find the few differences in their DNA that has the function of pruducing great size, hirsutedness, physical prowess etc.. From the hair sample I sent to Ketchum, I can say that there is a contradiction between the DNA, morphology, and circumstantial observations.
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Oh sookie sookie...things are getting interesting now! Posters who believe BF is just a species of animal, you may have to prepare yourselves to have your worlds rocked. I've been telling people and nonbelievers that we can't find BF as we can any other animal because it should be obvious using common sense....THEY AREN'T ANIMALS! They are people who have evolved to fit perfectly with their environment. People are confused as to why they don't use speech, tools (fire) and such. Firstly, there have been reports that they can talk. Read the old stories and deny the arrogance that "Native Americans" didn't know what they were talking about. They don't use fire and other tools (that we know of) because THEY don't need too. WE need those things because we chose the lazy route of taking short-cuts. Again, if you read the accounts from Native Americans who were captured by the BF, they indicate that the BF did make fires to feed the captives food. They don't need the other tools because they aren't attempting to create a sophisticated society. They aren't building roads and skyscrapers. They don't need guns or arrows to catch their food. Again from accounts, they catch prey easily by being swift enough, stealthy enough and strong enough to perform everything without tools. I will go on to say that BF is well known to those within agencies who need to know! They have known about them for some time but as someone stated, will refuse to acknowledge them as long as they can. Acknowledging BF and possibly exposing them to the general public will open a WHOLE CAN OF WORMS! BF, if we ever made contact and created a line of communication, will tell us some things about US and our country that we (well many of us) don't want to hear! They have not been domesticated and can give two sh#ts about our leaders and policies. I stated in another thread and will state so here...BF may just possibly be labeled as a threat to national security if communication is ever established! With their existence being denied, yet still living on our soil, and even on our military installations, IMAGINE what they have seen and heard! ***HOLY CRAP!*** I'm just recalling and connecting some of my own dots. If you read my encounter with BF, it was while I was a soldier on a military base. I state in my writing that the BF was in a patch of trees about 20-50 meters wide that on one side is a dirt road and the hill, on the other side is our main paved road AND our airfield. I said that I didn't understand why the BF was in that little patch of trees and what could it have been doing there. The thing could have been watching our airfield which would only be about 50-100 meters off! Hmmmm
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Close doesn't count as far as DNA is concerned. If it isn't an exact match, it isn't human, period. This is not a guess, or opinion, it is a legal fact. I have been so advised face to face by a States Attorney with interest in the subject. You don't have to look any farther than recognized great apes, particularly the chimps... This all presupposes the sample was collected w/o contamination (highly unlikely when done by lay-persons), is otherwise viable, and can be conclusively associated with a type specimen. I'm still waiting to be wowed. Seen too many situations, discoveries, and "projects" that turned out to be anything from extremely weak to outright hoaxes. I am not a skeptic; I'm quite certain the animal exists but I am cynical by nature and this area of interest is one in which a person is wise to be cynical...
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I've been telling people and nonbelievers that we can't find BF as we can any other animal because it should be obvious using common sense....THEY AREN'T ANIMALS! I've also been telling people that the reason is obvious why we can't find bigfoot: THEY AREN'T!
Guest LAL Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Dictionary » H » Human Human Definition noun, plural: humans A bipedal primate belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo sapiens. adjective Of, pertaining to, having the attributes of, a being belonging to the species of the Homo sapiens. Supplement In taxonomy, humans belong to the family Hominidae, of the Primates, under class Mammalia of phylum Chordata. They are identified by the highly developed brain that confers advanced skills in abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem solving, and sapience. They are bipedal primates in having an erect carriage. They are skillful in handling objects with their hands. Humans may also be described as social animals capable of showing sympathy with other beings, and living life with (inherent) values and ethics. Word origin: from Latin hÅ«mÄnus, of homÅ meaning "man" Related form(s): humane (adjective), humanity (noun) http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human Human by that definition? No. Closely related? Why not? We're separated from our most distant Great Ape relatives, the Orangutans, by only about 5% of the DNA.
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I remember a saying I used to hear that some people are so smart that they're dumb. I'm not directing this at anyone, merely asking is this what our science community suffers from? Scientist: We have found no conclusive evidence that a large primate lives in North America. We haven't been able to observe it in it's natural environment, there's no evidence of a population anywhere. America doesn't have the resources to feed a primate of this proposed size. Why haven't any been struck and killed by vehicles? Civilian: Ummm, maybe it isn't a "regular" animal...I mean it did look kinda human? Scientist: Don't be ridiculous... Not really meaning to come down that ******* the scientific community because they have done a lot of good things for humanity.
Guest LAL Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I've also been telling people that the reason is obvious why we can't find bigfoot: THEY AREN'T! I'm sure most of mainstream science would agree with you and that's why we won't have a full-scale scientific investigation anytime soon. In the meantime we can settle for "contamination", misidentification and the idea that current sightings are somehow the result of Homo erectus interacting with Gigantopithecus blacki (racial memory, hand-me-down myths and all that). My money's on the Mack and a driver astute, quick and strong enough to bring in the evidence.
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I've also been telling people that the reason is obvious why we can't find bigfoot: THEY AREN'T! And people have been telling YOU that "things that AREN'T" don't get their pictures taken, leave tracks, leave hairs, leave blood, etc. "Things that AREN'T" don't have a documented history of contact with humans that is remarkably consistent in many details covering 1000s of miles an 100s of years (or more).
Drew Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 And people have been telling YOU that "things that AREN'T" don't get their pictures taken, leave tracks, leave hairs, leave blood, etc. "Things that AREN'T" don't have a documented history of contact with humans that is remarkably consistent in many details covering 1000s of miles an 100s of years (or more). Yes, things that 'Aren't' DO have a history of contact with humans that is remarkably consistent in many details I think of Aliens, Greek Gods, Egyptian Gods etc... The stories all tell of similar things, Athena was an Eagle over the battlefield, Grey, Big eyed creature woke me from my sleep etc... This is because humans have an ability to pass on stories to each other.
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 don't get their pictures taken, Correct.leave tracks, Correct.leave hairs, Correct.leave blood, etc. Correct.None of the items you present has been conclusively linked to "bigfoot." In fact, the inability of people who make such claims to actually back them up is an important contribution to my conviction that bigfoot ISN'T. "Things that AREN'T" don't have a documented history of contact with humans that is remarkably consistent in many details covering 1000s of miles an 100s of years (or more). Sure they do, especially when allowing confirmation bias and other logical fallacies to influence your judgment of consistency. It's called "folklore."
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Directed toward Saskeptic and Drew: You and many others will soon find that many things we label as "folklore" or "myth" are based in truth. Even the stories of Greek Gods. It is being suggested by some that the mythical Gods were human-looking aliens. If this is true, even those myths and stories are based in truth.
Guest wudewasa Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 That professor should be encouraged to seek early retirement! As my avatar indicates, I'm a huge fan of Ernst Mayr, who first established the biological species concept. That concept is, however, just one of several feeble attempts by us humans to place into boxes things that are on infinite continua of genetic variation. For our human purposes of distinguishing a gray kangaroo from a rock wallaby, the biological species concept works beautifully. For distinguishing among the different forms of the erstwhile species that form the "Thayer's Gull complex," its value is less clear. For a great many species of plants and all species that reproduce asexually the biological species concept is nigh on useless, and other definitions must be employed. Post of the day! Thank you for your contribution!
southernyahoo Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I'm sure most of mainstream science would agree with you and that's why we won't have a full-scale scientific investigation anytime soon. In the meantime we can settle for "contamination", misidentification and the idea that current sightings are somehow the result of Homo erectus interacting with Gigantopithecus blacki (racial memory, hand-me-down myths and all that).My money's on the Mack and a driver astute, quick and strong enough to bring in the evidence. I'm not going with contamination at the moment. Contamination will show primary and secondary contributors. The secondary (contaminator) is often the weaker contributor. The absence of some other known animal DNA says the samples were from a human. We haven't seen what the DNA actually shows, as far as whether they might form their own haplogroup. Thats how far it needs to go. If they don't show that then either we have feral humans out there from various ethnicities or they don't exist.
Recommended Posts