Guest Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Feral usually is applied to domesticated animals that went wild so it might not be the best way to describe them. How about untamed humans? Homo sapien indomitus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I don't see anything in any of the Facebook links showing Meldrum changing his beliefs/theories as to what Sasquatch is, could you please provide some quotes or direction to that so we can see where you came to this conclusion? Pretty strong to suggest he is intellectually dishonest, a coward and some kind of financial con-man. Changing venues because he has signed on to this TV show doesn't necessarily mean he has sold his soul or something. you're certainly entitled to your opinion about the difference between Sasquatch Project and North American Ape Project. But pleez AZ spare us the faux indignation.... Mulder tosses "intellectually dishonest" around on this forum like it was rice at a wedding. And spare us the straw man stuff where you make up words that I didn't say. Then of course Mulder will come along and act like I actually said the words that you made up. LOL I've seen this Nantucket sleighride already. It's intellectually dishonest. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) Richard......... wadr, you have no evidence from your DNA of any of those alternatives. What you have is just modern human DNA. Hunter/hiker/hoaxer human. I don't see why you feel the need or think you have evidence to suggest anything else. p. There it is- you finally came out and stated your opinion in full. Nice work! I'm not sure it's supported as strongly as you claim (how can you prove it's a hunter/hiker/hoaxer if you weren't there for the collection?) but at least you are being clear now. Nice job! Tim B. Edited December 10, 2011 by TimB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) I have seen them use the mtDNA to define modern humans. We all have the particular mutation that defines the haplogroup of Mitochondrial Eve. That isn't a very good way to define humans since it is just a random event. Others use what they call the range of modern human characteristics to define the first anatomically modern human fossils about 200,000 years ago. That isn't very satisfactory either since it only defines humans based on current bone structure. It doesn't really tell how "human" they were before that or really even then. It is a good question about how much change in the nuclear DNA would exclude a modern human. It is likely a question they are at least partially involved with answering. It might be the ambiguity in that which was making it so difficult to resolve. It has me anxious to see what they came with. I would think the whole genome ought to prove this eventually though assuming they have the DNA of a bigfoot. It might take a while for all the scientists to agree even if it were fairly distantly related. That is assuming they have modern human DNA in there as well. @rwridley I might describe them as non-technological hominids and maybe get more specific if they had significant amount of modern human DNA. It might be difficult to figure that out. I am still not sure that would make them what I would consider a human if I met one up close. Just being a hybrid with a modern human wouldn't really be enough to know. There is just no telling how some hybrid would turn out even if it were half or more modern human. It could easily be only a small fraction of modern human DNA. Edited December 10, 2011 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Here's what's interesting to me about this whole process. "Science" has a way of evolving quickly into dogma for the majority of it's "devotees", i.e. professional "scientists". As new truths come to life, "scientists" become increasingly resistant to a change in their "dogma". In other words, they resist new input as a challenge to their validity. I think it's an expression of the "might-makes-right" philosophy. They've invested in their way of thought as the justification for their importance in life. It becomes a threat to their identity to challenge what they know. The further down the "success" ladder you fall in science, the more rigid the devotion to the status quo is, it seems to me. I'm a teacher. I teach learning. To learn, one has to evaluate. There are three possible reactions to new information, assimilation, accommodation, or rejection. A good learner does not favor any of the three possibilities. Apparently, a good "scientist" favors rejection. It's just fascinating to watch. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Mitochondrial DNA does mutate more rapidly than nuDNA, that was Stubstad's point in saying the mtDNA was from the ice age and hasn't been seen since then in modern humans. It resembled that sequence the closest so he made that conclusion based on the mtDNA mutation rates, or so I understand based on what he said, because it wasn't an exact match. But that doesn't really make sense either since it should have changed more than Stubstad indicated since the first injection during the Franco Cambrian age IMO based on what I've read. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060204 oh wait a minute. Now you are just going off the reservation. What you are saying is just wrong. Sorry. This has nothing to do with comparative mutation rates. I don't think you understand the "origin" of mtDNA. Seriously. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) I think the ape vs human argument is misplaced. I think the gap between human and ape is overstated. I would recommending reading the "third ape" and "almost chimpanzee". The ides is that humans, organtangs, chimpanzees, gorillas are all part of the ape family. Edit : moved my post to the correct thread Tim ~ Edited December 11, 2011 by RedRatSnake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 ....Preferring the convergently evolved because it is more distant doesn't really make much sense if you end up with the same creature either way. It is just much simpler to assume radiation of some earlier hominid than trying to convergently evolve one from a more distant ape. They are all apes so preferring one over the other seems to come down to how some see evolution not pertaining to humans as it does to other animals. Otherwise it is a logical slam dunk for radiation of a more recent common ancestor being the simplest explanation. That explanation involves what some will call a human. It is really meaningless semantics from a scientific point of view if you call it a human or not. Bob are you trying to say that the generally accepted bigfoot* is a modern human phenotypically and/or genetically? or are you just saying that the word human is sometimes used to denote modern humans and sometimes to denote a whole genus (most of us know that already.....) or that members of the genus can't be distinguished from one another genetically? (which is entirely wrong) or that distinguishing between the various members of the genus is meaningless semantics??? I don't know where you get this stuff... *9 feet tall, 500 lbs, runs 30 mph on two legs or 4, glowing eyes, conical head, covered with hair, non opposable thumbs, no fire or tools, midtarsal break, 4-6 toes, strangely shaped feet, no neck, no clothes, no shelters, non modern human proportions, etc That fact is that the SNP's are used as a unit of measure of divergence. The divergence that you yourself acknowledge has to be there to declare a discovery. Since the mito's don't mutate nearly as much as the nuDNA , it is foolish to think the mitos tell the whole story, particularly with our history of having interbred with other hominids in the past. Dr. Ketchum appears to be amassing the SNP's for the paper, how many times would that have to be demonstrated, 50? 146? three hundred forty leven? You know I can't affirm any specific data. so by your definition you and I would be divergent? no. If every SNP defined a new species there would be 7 billion just amongst us upright bipedals. You're way over-reaching on what constitutes divergence. Us modern humans differ by a half dozen on average, and sometimes by a couple dozen. "Amassing SNP's"? what does that mean? I think you just made that up. Amirite? Because Ketchum has never said anything about that amirite? Having modern human mtDNA is presumptive evidence of being a modern human. Unless you think that bigfoot is some sort of hybrid between a what? 11 foot 900 pound monster furball with 36 inch feet; and human ? women? "I had Enormousfoot's baby and called it bigfoot?". And no enormousfoot females are involved in this? It just doesn't make sense. imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) #774 Parn, I think that if you search through BFRO archives you will find examples of suspected shelters made from bent overtrees. Also, using branches to knock trees has been described as well as rock throwing, implying an opposable thumb. Presents have been left for humans. Language has been heard as well as observed between individuals. Why would they need clothes with that hair, which has been compared to a ghillie suit(useful in deer hunting to obscure the human form)? BF's have been thought to steal freshly killed dear and fish. Carrying their young as they walk is also in there. Sorry I don't provide you links, but you can pore through the BFRO stuff if you're not watching the debate tonight. Edited December 11, 2011 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Mitch... while I have no reason to "back up" Parn here on anything... What are you even talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 oh wait a minute. Now you are just going off the reservation. What you are saying is just wrong. Sorry. This has nothing to do with comparative mutation rates. I don't think you understand the "origin" of mtDNA. Seriously. IMO. That is altogether possible Parn, but I don't think so. I would prefer you explain why you think I am wrong or at least link me to some articles that would explain it so I can understand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) #776 I haven't seen any of this stuff myself, but it has all been described to the point of sheer boredom, especially on BFRO. Here, read this scary story...http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=27075 If you start entering terms in your browser command line, like BFRO, shelter, wood knock, rocks, tree shaking, all kinds of reports should come your way. They've been vetted by BFRO investigators, but you don't have to believe it all. I'm not making it up. Edited December 11, 2011 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Hanging around the BFRO can be hazardous to ones basic ability to think rationally about the Sasquatch Subject, studies have shown a lack of fundamental skills to question reports that contain sightings of Bigfoot related reports of any kind. BFRO ~ Bigfoot Forever Regardless Of Report. Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 The mood has turned a bit pugnacious with a touch of haughty. I thought this was the season to be jolly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Bob are you trying to say that the generally accepted bigfoot* is a modern human phenotypically and/or genetically? or are you just saying that the word human is sometimes used to denote modern humans and sometimes to denote a whole genus (most of us know that already.....) It obviously is not in the normal phenotypical range of modern humans. It isn't impossible genetically speaking for it to be an evolved modern human but it seems highly unlikely to me. The term human is also extended beyond the genus Homo by some people to include upright walking and the earliest tool makers. Since chimps have been shown to make and hunt with spears, it makes even that criteria of human rather meaningless just for example. Purely modern human DNA is not going to prove bigfoot to anyone. I seriously doubt she is trying to prove bigfoot with only modern human DNA. Most all those features you mentioned apply to members of our genus or are simple to evolve but I was talking about the term "human" being meaningless semantics from a scientific perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts