Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 The point about the misuse of the term "feral" is very well taken. I also do not see any evidence of what I what I generally think of as tribe. The following is the definition of tribe I found on freedictionary 1. A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent. 2. A political, ethnic, or ancestral division of ancient states and cultures, especially: a. Any of the three divisions of the ancient Romans, namely, the Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan. b. Any of the 12 divisions of ancient Israel. c. A phyle of ancient Greece. 3. A group of people sharing an occupation, interest, or habit: a tribe of graduate students. 4. Informal A large family. 5. Biology A taxonomic category placed between a subfamily and a genus or between a suborder and a family and usually containing several genera. The only one that would fit would be number 5 and I am not sure what that means. It seems to me that feral tribe is an oxymoron. My understanding is that most sightings are of a single Animal/Human. In Hunter/Gathering societies when a person separates from the tribe they do not go out alone. You have the hunting party or the gathering party. I do not see a lot of evidence of bf's acting in a group capacity. I'm rather thinking 8 or 9 hours.....but if it's got to be 8 or 9 days so be it. 8 or 9 weeks? I think some people will have burst open with excitement before then. Mike My understanding is that Dr. Ketchum indicated on her face book page that a publication date for the paper has not been set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 This is the actual definition of the term feral fe·ral (fîrl, fr-) adj. 1. a. Existing in a wild or untamed state. b. Having returned to an untamed state from domestication. 2. Of or suggestive of a wild animal; savage: a feral grin. I do not see any problem with the use of the word, considering "a. Existing in a wild or untamed state." As for some of the mentioned extreme physical differences maybe go back and read the super ant article. Or consider a wiener dog verses a mastiff,they are both dogs. Behavior does not define a species. All this speculation is fun, but it will be really interesting to see what comes of it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Swamper Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 If they are a tribe of people just like us- humans- where do all the previous facts and accounts fit in? Such as ---> -mid tarsal break -enormous size, 9 ft and 700 lbs -howls outside of a human range of frequency -coned head -ny baby footage where one is swinging around like an ape -eating only a deer liver -ability to tolerate extreme temps where humans would get hypothermia -arms hanging down past the knees All that we supposedly have learned about them does not make sense. I have often wondered myself Hoosierfoot and that will be the job of scientist to figure out. Fact from fiction. I can give you examples of extremes concerning different races of humans all over the world. Using just one of your facts...Height and weight. The pygmy's of Africa and Asia whose adult men grow to less than 150 cm (4 feet 11 inches) in average height. I have a home in the Philippines and to see a person over 5 foot 11 is a rarity. On the other extreme side I have personally visited the Okefenokee Swamp and seen photos and read on the refuge about the 7ft plus “Mississippian†mound-builders found in burial mounds on Chesser Island. You can read this link for info on the Okefenokee's Floyd island, Chesser Island “Mississippian†mound-builders and Bigfoot here. http://www.skunkapefiles.com/1800.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 If they are a tribe of people just like us- humans- where do all the previous facts and accounts fit in? Such as ---> -mid tarsal break -enormous size, 9 ft and 700 lbs -howls outside of a human range of frequency -coned head -ny baby footage where one is swinging around like an ape -eating only a deer liver -ability to tolerate extreme temps where humans would get hypothermia -arms hanging down past the knees All that we supposedly have learned about them does not make sense. Without discussing your list item-by-item, although I can if you want to, let me just emphasize your own last sentence: "All that we supposedly have learned about them does not make sense." You, in fact are correct. AND - there is nobody that is saying, or expecting the results of the study to indicate that they are humans "JUST LIKE US". That is a problem with your premise. That if there is an undiscovered form of human on this planet they must be just like us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Interesting link. Thanks, Swamper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Given the recent reassuring statements by D. Paulides, I'll be getting my tension jollies from the Strait of Hormuz. Mitch, If you are referring to the statement on his web site: 1/23-There is much talk on the web about a release of data related to the DNA scientific paper, there assumptions would be incorrect. Dr. Ketchum filed a copyright application for a movie proposal based on early data received in testing, this has since changed. We are posting her application here so there is no misunderstandiung that we are trying to hide anything. The reality of the copyright is that the data that was released is no longer accurate and it will not encumber the scientific papers plausibility I actually found that statement to be quite strange in its wording, and not at all reassuring from a scientific standpoint. "The data that was released is no longer accurate...." ! what data were released? who talked about it? I never saw any data....did I miss something? and how can data become "no longer accurate?" I don't know of any data like that...the data are the data. They are as accurate today as they were when they were collected. You deal with it. You start declaring the data to have become inaccurate and you may well be "encumbering the scientific papers plausibility." Maybe Paulides is talking about "conclusions"; that would make more sense. But who am I to prevent him from screwing it up. And of course he didn't mention the two documents that were in the applications. Or discuss what the heck she's doing making a movie? or why he's apparently speaking for Ketchum. The funniest thing is that he suggests "we" (he and Melba?) are not trying to hide anything. Oh I take it back. The funniest thing is "...encumber the scientific papers plausibility." p. Edited January 26, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Parn, I focused on Paulides 'guarantee.' I usually read P as having more experience in law than science, so I don't pick apart all his statements so closely. There are also a few lexical errors in the 1/23 statement, eg 'there' used when he means 'their,' so it appears he banged out the posting pretty fast: I think the 1/23 went up sometime during the eruption on this thread, as well. Edited January 26, 2012 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 What if Erickson had been to the point he was ready to release his own findings on a more documentary entertainment style thing when he ended up involved with Ketchum? Once they became associated maybe her influence led to significant changes in that projects interpretations of their data? As a result they copy righted it,and decided publication at that point would be premature and harmful to the overall success of the study? Why would they not make a documentary/presentation to coincide with the release of a scientific paper, and satisfy those who wished to make money of the study? How would the making of such a documentary jeopardize the validity of the paper? Seriously Parn, I wish to understand these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Mitch, If you are referring to the statement on his web site: I actually found that statement to be quite strange in its wording, and not at all reassuring from a scientific standpoint. "The data that was released is no longer accurate...." ! what data were released? who talked about it? I never saw any data....did I miss something? and how can data become "no longer accurate?" I don't know of any data like that...the data are the data. They are as accurate today as they were when they were collected. You deal with it. You start declaring the data to have become inaccurate and you may well be "encumbering the scientific papers plausibility." Maybe Paulides is talking about "conclusions"; that would make more sense. But who am I to prevent him from screwing it up. And of course he didn't mention the two documents that were in the applications. Or discuss what the heck she's doing making a movie? or why he's apparently speaking for Ketchum. The funniest thing is that he suggests "we" (he and Melba?) are not trying to hide anything. Oh I take it back. The funniest thing is "...encumber the scientific papers plausibility." p. It may simply depend on the definition of the word "human" Edited January 26, 2012 by antfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Mitch, If you are referring to the statement on his web site: I actually found that statement to be quite strange in its wording, and not at all reassuring from a scientific standpoint. "The data that was released is no longer accurate...." ! what data were released? who talked about it? I never saw any data....did I miss something? and how can data become "no longer accurate?" I don't know of any data like that...the data are the data. They are as accurate today as they were when they were collected. You deal with it. You start declaring the data to have become inaccurate and you may well be "encumbering the scientific papers plausibility." Maybe Paulides is talking about "conclusions"; that would make more sense. But who am I to prevent him from screwing it up. And of course he didn't mention the two documents that were in the applications. Or discuss what the heck she's doing making a movie? or why he's apparently speaking for Ketchum. The funniest thing is that he suggests "we" (he and Melba?) are not trying to hide anything. Oh I take it back. The funniest thing is "...encumber the scientific papers plausibility." p. What Parn said x 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Jodie and Parn, you may wish to check Richard Stubstad's recent comments beginning at 8:06am PT today, over at Robert L.'s blog. He's got an explanation for the data inaccuracies Paulides may have been posting about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I´m rather baffled by the header: "A New Species of Contemporary Feral Homo sapiens" on the copyright page, from a scientist. I mean Homo sapiens is a species! if this entity is another species - then it´s not Homo sapiens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 26, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 26, 2012 Welcome to the forum baffled.....errr....rather Darwinist, I'm sure this is the first in many conundrums you will come across perusing some of these more long standing threads around these parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I thought there are technically two species of Homo; Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens(us). So a Bigfoot may be another line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I thought there are technically two species of Homo; Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens(us). So a Bigfoot may be another line. Genus name (Homo) + specific epithet (sapiens) = binomial "scientific" name for a species. Note that the genus (adjective "generic") is ALWAYS capitalized and the specific epithet is NEVER capitalized, and both are set apart in text either by italics or underlining. A species may be subdivided into subspecies. If there are formally recognized subspecies within a species, then the name extends to a trinomial, e.g., Homo sapiens sapiens. Some authorities consider Neanderthals to have been a subspecies of Homo sapiens, i.e., Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Others consider Neanderthals to have been a separate species from us, i.e., Homo neanderthalensis. As my avatar indicates, I am a fan of Ernst Mayr and, by extension, the explanatory power of his "biological species concept." To my knowledge, the available evidence suggests rather easy gene flow between Neanderthals and our own ancestors. Therefore, the two organisms were not reproductively isolated and should be considered variants of the same species, i.e., different subspecies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts