Guest Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 in other words, you are correct. There can be no new species of Homo sapiens. And you are not alone in being baffled by the stuff that comes out of the Ketchum/Paulides (or is it Paulides/Ketchum) camp. For example, the entire concept that modern human DNA is something to get excited about in this context, or even write a paper about, not because it is bizarre or a hybrid or anything out of the ordinary, but rather, simply because it was sent in to a laboratory by a bigfoot believer. There are 7 billion of us modern humans on the planet, and our DNA is (almost) everywhere, and always readily at hand, should someone want to send it in to a laboratory. But even more interesting is that some people will take the claim seriously, looking up the possible influences of this or that gene or the frequency of this or that polymorphism to try to make a bigfoot out of what is actually, say, a 45 year old schoolteacher from Puyallup, out for a camping trip, who brushed her hair and cleaned out the hairbrush in the woods; or a hoaxer; when the result is right in front of a person, saying M-O-D-E-R-N H-U-M-A-N. It's like, the emperor's new clothes. Incorrect. Under modern taxonomy (which I have had to become familiar with, an animal could be homo sapiens and NOT be human. The correct modern designation for modern man is homo sapiens sapiens, not simply homo sapiens. Not saying that this is going to be the end claim. Ketchum has distanced herself in the past from the Paulides/Stubstrad(sp?) "human relation" claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Incorrect. Under modern taxonomy (which I have had to become familiar with, an animal could be homo sapiens and NOT be human. The correct modern designation for modern man is homo sapiens sapiens, not simply homo sapiens. Not saying that this is going to be the end claim. Ketchum has distanced herself in the past from the Paulides/Stubstrad(sp?) "human relation" claim. you better keep on "getting familiar". All Homo sapiens are human. That is a species. Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies, so-called "modern humans". Why not? The reasoning seems circular, since you can't prove that negative. SY Homo sapiens is a species. There can be no new species within a species. There can be a new species within Homo eg H. hairyus, or a new subspecies within Homo sapiens ie Homo sapiens needsdeodorant, but there can't be a new species within Homo sapiens. p. Edited January 28, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 I don´t think we should put anything scientific into the 90 percent human statment, other than it´s a layman´s way of saying close, but slightly different. It´s a statement meaning just that, which´s beeing used all the time to adress many issues outside the BF world - in the real world. The classical way to look at differences between hominins, say H. (sapiens) neanthalensis and us, is to look at the parts of the genome where we, H. sapiens sapiens, differ from the chimps and not all the other genes , which we share with chimps. Thus the chimp genes that differ from ours are thought to constitute the "archaic" or "wildtype" genes in those places. These wildtype genes will of course not always constitute the true "archaic" genes, since the chimps also have evolved in the passed 6.5 million years or so. So in conclussion I would say, you will have to be very precise when using percentage in arguing: for ex. 90 percent of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Incorrect. Under modern taxonomy (which I have had to become familiar with, an animal could be homo sapiens and NOT be human. The correct modern designation for modern man is homo sapiens sapiens, not simply homo sapiens. Mulder, It depends if you believe neanderthals are the same species as we are (expressed as a subspecific taxon) or a different species, earning their own specific designation. This is where the lumpers and splitters contest over taxonomic status, and you can drink either of their kool aid flavors. Edited January 28, 2012 by wudewasa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I have not been paying too much attention to this project and the drama it has caused thus far, although I am still holding out hope. The main problem area, in my opinion, is that so long ago Ketchum insinuated that the paper had already been accepted by a journal. If this was true, since it was so long ago, I cannot think of too many situations were revisions would take as long as they have. And if the paper were already ready back then, then shouldn't all the work be done? Please excuse my ignorance on the matter, and hopefully I am not correct in my interpretation of events. Can someone show me that I am incorrect here please? This is my issue with it as well. I have published papers in scientific journals and although the circumstances here are very different , I have never had it take longer than six months from initial submission , to acceptance . In most cases this has involved going back and forth with the reviewers a couple of times , addressing their concerns which usually included follow -up expts . Additionally, once accepted , the print publication of the data usually followed within a couple of months , and was available for online access far sooner .. usually within a couple of weeks . According to the statements that I have read , which may or may not be accurate , this thing has been sitting with reviewers for well over a year . This is just not the way that I have ever seen it work . Reviewers usually make the decision to accept, reject, or accept pending revisions within a few weeks time following initial submission . It is possible that she has had to send it out to multiple journals ( one at a time ) prior to receiving anything other than a rejection , but this is not what has been reported . I also do not understand the reasoning behind her stating that any leaks would jeopardize the study . We commonly present our unpublished preliminary data at scientific conferences in written , oral , or poster form well prior to submission for publication .It could have to do with media attention , however, there have been plenty of research studies that have been picked up by the media prior to publication without that jeopardizing the publication of those data . I want very much to believe that the paper is forthcoming , but I do have trouble making sense of the timeline and absolute requirement for secrecy . If anyone has any insight , I am really interested in hearing your thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Everyone can agree that the subject of Bigfoot is a special situation. Given those circumstances, it is not surprising that special considerations might apply to publication of the paper. Among those considerations are those utterly opposed to publication for reasons having nothing to do with truth and validity of the paper or the reality of Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 That definitely may be and is most likely what is going on. I do hope so as I think a lot of people across the country have worked very hard and invested a lot in this , inluding Dr. Ketchum . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Mulder, It depends if you believe neanderthals are the same species as we are (expressed as a subspecific taxon) or a different species, earning their own specific designation. This is where the lumpers and splitters contest over taxonomic status, and you can drink either of their kool aid flavors. Which unnecessarily complicates things to no end. Which makes discussions like this almost impossible to hold without first having an extensive debate on terminology... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Very Interesting article, Zigoapex. It has always been of interest to me that, if Bigfoot does not exist, that is not necessarily the end of the story as it will almost certainly be possible to create such a creature in the future. I remember raising this issue back on BFF 1, but no one was interested in debating the issue in those days. Makes you wonder if was done already, kind like that creepy video of the Russian scientist keeping the dogs head alive.who knows what goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 kool aid flavors. You should try the asinine flavor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 29, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 29, 2012 This is my issue with it as well. I have published papers in scientific journals and although the circumstances here are very different , I have never had it take longer than six months from initial submission , to acceptance . In most cases this has involved going back and forth with the reviewers a couple of times , addressing their concerns which usually included follow -up expts . Additionally, once accepted , the print publication of the data usually followed within a couple of months , and was available for online access far sooner .. usually within a couple of weeks . According to the statements that I have read , which may or may not be accurate , this thing has been sitting with reviewers for well over a year . This is just not the way that I have ever seen it work . Reviewers usually make the decision to accept, reject, or accept pending revisions within a few weeks time following initial submission . It is possible that she has had to send it out to multiple journals ( one at a time ) prior to receiving anything other than a rejection , but this is not what has been reported . I also do not understand the reasoning behind her stating that any leaks would jeopardize the study . We commonly present our unpublished preliminary data at scientific conferences in written , oral , or poster form well prior to submission for publication .It could have to do with media attention , however, there have been plenty of research studies that have been picked up by the media prior to publication without that jeopardizing the publication of those data . I want very much to believe that the paper is forthcoming , but I do have trouble making sense of the timeline and absolute requirement for secrecy . If anyone has any insight , I am really interested in hearing your thoughts Well, if our search engine here did "three letter words" like nda and you did a lookup on all those instances, you'd start getting a feel for the "secrecy" involved. But, then again, there have been a few leaks or threads like this wouldn't exist too. Anywho, the paper allegedly was shopped about some in the time period described (according to rumor), may have been rejected or handed back at least once......but who really knows. Sit tight it sounds like the April 2nd date is sounding pretty good?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Under modern taxonomy (which I have had to become familiar with, an animal could be homo sapiens and NOT be human. How is that even possible? Do you have a source for this claim? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) Copied here for information only: Wikipedia (Human Taxonomy): Genus - Homo [or humans; specific and specialized development of memory/learning/teaching/learning application (learning driven ethology)] Species - Homo habilis [refined stone technology; earliest fire control] Species - Homo ergaster [extensive language, complex articulate language] Species - Homo erectus [fire control, cooking; aesthetic/artistic refinement of tools] Species - Homo heidelbergensis [possible earliest sanitary burial of deads, accompanied with symbolic/formal supplement] Species - Homo sapiens [further development and specialization of learning application; active environment transformation, acclimatization and control; infrastructures and advanced technology] Subspecies - Homo sapiens idaltu Subspecies - Homo sapiens sapiens In other words, Modern Humans are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, and it is perfectly possible in theory that other humans (Homo sapiens) could exist but not be H. sapiens sapiens. Mike Edited January 29, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 In other words, Modern Humans are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, and it is perfectly possible in theory that other humans (Homo sapiens) could exist but not be H. sapiens sapiens. Yes, the species Homo sapiens includes all humans. Mulder has stated that it could be Homo sapiens and NOT be human. (his emphasis) I'd like to know what source(s) led Mulder to believe that. In addition to the link you provided, here are a few more sources in favor of Homo sapiens = human. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1350865/Homo-sapiens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_%28disambiguation%29 http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=12100795 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Undef&name=Homo+sapiens&lvl=0&srchmode=1 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) There is some good arguments that the Chimpanzee should be re-classed Homo troglodytes. Note: The current Pan troglodytes would become part of the genus Homo. Note: Human (Homo sapiens) Modern Human (Homo sapiens sapiens) Chimpanzee (Homo troglodytes) not (Homo sapiens). Bigfoot Genus: ? Bigfoot family: ? Bigfoot Tribe: ? Bigfoot species: ? Putting a big H. (Homo) in front of Bigfoot is questionable. To add: Homo tilltheaurochscomehome Edited January 29, 2012 by HucksterFoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts