Guest Jodie Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 The Denisovan bone was 41,000 years old and I assume the bone in the stream was much more recent. As far as I know, no one has sequenced Giganto's DNA yet, it will be interesting to see if that priority changes after the study results are released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Tim, I would say not good enough because of the subject matter. If we knew Bigfoot as a species from previous discoveries in the past and now wanted to prove this a sub-species based on a finger bone that would work. Now if bigfoot is us and we are them that's where it gets tricky and I think that's exactly what the studies position is going to be. But as I've stated before Bigfoot bits and pieces will not work right out of the gate IMO got to have a body or really big piece head, hand or foot would do it for me and the evil scientist! My argument, since I first got involved in this, is there is a very big difference between a scientist and a skeptic. When a scientist lets his or her belief system get in the way of the pure objectivity of the scientific method, then they move into the position of skeptic. They aren't evil by any means, just ignorant. This is, by the way, a generic argument- definitely not aimed at anyone participating in this discussion or this board. Tim B. So G. Blacki was described from a fossilized bone only? How is that more accurate than a bone fragment with DNA testing? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Tim, Have no idea what your talking about at this point and will gladly concede the goggle wars to you my friend we all know how this ends after the same old tired exchanges are done on both sides. If you think there is enough precedence for a creature such as Bigfoot to be declared real by the scienctific community and the masses just on DNA only great I just happen to disagree and have stated my position as such. And yes I can have both ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 My argument, since I first got involved in this, is there is a very big difference between a scientist and a skeptic. When a scientist lets his or her belief system get in the way of the pure objectivity of the scientific method, then they move into the position of skeptic. They aren't evil by any means, just ignorant. This is, by the way, a generic argument- definitely not aimed at anyone participating in this discussion or this board. Tim B. I agree with you. I do not think a true "scientist" should ever state that sasquatch doesn't exist, as most have never looked into the subject. I believe that many people are biased toward disbelief, and this is extremely dangerous for a scientist, because the views of a scientist are going to influence other people. Even if it isn't the truth, when something comes from a scientist people are inclined to think that they have either studied what they are speaking of, or at the very least know what they are talking about. That is why bias can be extremely dangerous when coming from a scientist. For a scientist to say that sasquatch is an impossibility just proves that they are not a good scientist, in my honest opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lone Squatcher Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Lets ask ourselves, How was an animal proven scientifically, before we had the knowldege and technology to do a DNA study cause DNA has really not been around all that long, Can one still do a discovery without touching DNA. Lets think about that. How would we have done this lets say in, 1980, pre DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 They did it with physical remains and morphology, but when DNA came along, some species got moved around in taxonomy, so DNA is an added standard now. If we did it old school, you would hope for a body or forget it all together, but science has longer arms with DNA and trace evidence, so we don't have to touch a body, to know it exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) SY, DNA analysis looking for markers, as in barcoding, does not tell you the function of the gene. .... In this case, all you can do is guess at the affect the mutations in the new sequence will have if there is nothing else in the database that matches exactly. You can't do this without a type specimen to get the full picture. Kicking post. Are you doing anything next Saturday night, Jodie?? Well there isn't much, a troop of chimpanzee's has more genetic variation than the entire human race. I've heard this argument used against genetically-based racism, viz. that there is more genetic variation within a "race" than there is among the "races". It makes sense if the recent theory of an evolutionary bottleneck is true (and probably otherwise as well). ... Anyway, as for chain of custody, or experts involved this way or that: How is chain of custody, or the opinions of credentialed people, Meldrum or other, whether deemed "admissible in court" or not, not another instance of the ol' Appeal to Authority or Ad Hominem fallacies? I would hope that science requires an unimpeachable standard of evidence. Just sayin'... edit: The great thing about a holotype is no room for interpretation. Edited April 1, 2012 by Peter O. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) If the Denisovan finger bone was found in a Walgreen's parking lot, it'd still be a Denisovan finger bone with Denisovan DNA. I don't see how you could accept one result over the other. It'd be another story if we could forge DNA that could fool genetic anthropologists. If that were possible, I wouldn't necessarily accept the result from a Siberian cave either. And really, what is Walgreen's if not a western version of a Chinese apothecary? Edited April 1, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 ^ Well played Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I've heard this argument used against genetically-based racism, viz. that there is more genetic variation within a "race" than there is among the "races". It makes sense if the recent theory of an evolutionary bottleneck is true (and probably otherwise as well). I was gonna mention this from one of Jodie's links. Ongoing investigation of human genetic variation has even led biologists and physical anthropologists to rethink traditional notions of human racial groups. The amount of genetic variation between these traditional classifications actually falls below the level that taxonomists use to designate subspecies, the taxonomic category for other species that corresponds to the designation of race in Homo sapiens. This finding has caused some biologists to call the validity of race as a biological construct into serious question. Haplogroups must be based on the smallest measure of divergence in taxonomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 IF there is a bone or other body part that can provide a DNA signature that identifies a heretofore undescribed species of extant hominim then why are people jumping to the conclusion that scientists wouldn't accept that result? I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Scientists can be funny like that...you hear of skeletons of giant "humans" being unearthed, then sent to a museum only to quickly "dissappear".... If they were found to be fakes or hoaxes, why wouldn't they simply return the junk to the person submitting them, expose it as such, and possibly a legal action for falsifying this or that....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 It's the "you hear of" element of your sentence, Aaron, where the trouble lies. These are never substantiated claims. I'll bet you can never ever find a direct quote from an individual first-hand witness to such an event. So, until or unless I hear otherwise, I'll put those sort of stories into the drawer marked "rumour & hearsay". Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 1, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 1, 2012 Well, the Minaret skull in Cali. apparently was a pretty big "hear of" incident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted April 1, 2012 Admin Share Posted April 1, 2012 Wow, you guys are a day late and a dollar short. I can't believe no one is discussing the published paper yet, it's been out since 12 PM yesterday. Thought for sure I'd log on to a flood this morning. I guess news travels slow..... Clicky Linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts