Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Was there something unclear about the species/subspecies explanation I provided back in post #1770? The reason there can't be a new species of Homo sapiens is that Homo sapiens is a species. There can be a new subspecies within Homo sapiens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 The newest copyright replaces the other and moves away from usage of Homo sapiens. It seems pointless to discuss Feral Human or Feral Homo sapiens when the paper now says New Hominin. I would think everyone would be happy with it having a completely seperate species classification. Of course hopefully really soon. Happy Friday-Eve everyone! This is a curious development. Did the evidence for feral Homo sapiens vanish and evidence for a New Hominin suddenly appear? At the very least, it must be admitted that the DNA project was at one point willing to go with a "new tribe" of feral Homo sapiens as the identity for sasquatch. What changed? Perhaps further DNA developments? Maybe the preemptive criticism of Bigfoot as mere forest people and not something more romantic, such as wood apes, led the DNA team to reorganize their material. I would guess Bigfoot will still retain its humanness, just maybe the terminology will be revised. Here is what hominin could entail. http://archaeology.about.com/od/hterms/g/hominin.htm 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 suspect that if sasquatch do exist, they may not correspond to everything proponents have allegedly deduced from the evidence. For instance, the only way to know if sasquatch has a mid-tarsal break is to directly examine its foot's bone structure. This has never been done. The idea of a sasquatch mid-tarsal break is, to date, just a hypothesis advanced first by Dr. Meldrum and later accepted by other theorists. As yet, it has to no factual basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Was there something unclear about the species/subspecies explanation I provided back in post #1770? The reason there can't be a new species of Homo sapiens is that Homo sapiens is a species. There can be a new subspecies within Homo sapiens. you are no longer the go to guy on this matter. Robert Lindsay's classification system has superceded your paradigm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) I suspect that if sasquatch do exist, they may not correspond to everything proponents have allegedly deduced from the evidence. For instance, the only way to know if sasquatch has a mid-tarsal break is to directly examine its foot's bone structure. This has never been done. The idea of a sasquatch mid-tarsal break is, to date, just a hypothesis advanced first by Dr. Meldrum and later accepted by other theorists. As yet, it has to no factual basis. With chunks Edited January 29, 2012 by HucksterFoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 This is a curious development. Did the evidence for feral Homo sapiens vanish and evidence for a New Hominin suddenly appear? At the very least, it must be admitted that the DNA project was at one point willing to go with a "new tribe" of feral Homo sapiens as the identity for sasquatch. What changed? Perhaps further DNA developments? Maybe the preemptive criticism of Bigfoot as mere forest people and not something more romantic, such as wood apes, led the DNA team to reorganize their material. I would guess Bigfoot will still retain its humanness, just maybe the terminology will be revised. Ketchum stated earlier in 2011, that while they were doing testing that they were thrown a curveball, they probably found something that changed the study . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Ketchum stated earlier in 2011, that while they were doing testing that they were thrown a curveball, they probably found something that changed the study . Which does not change the fact that they were willing to go with feral human initially. This is important. It implies that they were willing to advance a study that was incomplete or inaccurate initially. Which implies that the study participates already had in mind to demonstrate the "existence" of sasquatch before later developments in the evidence.In other words, bias existed before the final report outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Doesn't it seem obvious that this "curve ball" was the mitochondrial DNA coming out as 100% human? If they tested that first, as it seems they did from Richard Stubstad's interviews, then surely the obvious thing at that point is to assume they are dealing with some form of human. When the nuclear DNA test told them something different, they changed their assumptions. I assume.... Why on earth would anyone criticise scientists for thinking "X" at one point in their study, then, when further information is uncovered, thinking "Y"? That strikes me as exactly what they should be doing, and I just can't fathom how anyone can turn that into some sort of flaw in the process. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 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 I think Jane Goodall argued in maybe like 1998 that chimps should be reclassified under Homo. I think Prof. Hawks has a great discussion on this on his website. Isn't the current system subject to (as he puts it) aesthetic classifications rather than merely scientific or DNA? Homo genus is my vote w/o DNA. I also vote something close but different enough to casually refer to for my pleasure as Homo indomitus - untamable man. Of course, not restraint by the taxonomic rules I guess.... I don't like Sasquai, and I dont think hirsutti is dignified enough..but, then I don't have a say.... Bigfoot would be a bummer ....it will be interesting and now I am rambling sorry I think also the use of the term "facts" wrt to BFs might be too early. We have anecdotal accounts, some less than definitive digital images, and a whole lot of tracks, and interesting sound files. If there is a body, it's tucked away and the DNA promised by mid-Feb, but not here now. when I found my first BF tracks I took of my shoes and pounded around..in the creek, on the road, all around. On slopes or wet sand I left a print that looked like it had a mid-tarsal break...(that just from photos so not great for comparing), and the tracks of the same individual BF I followed over several seasons didn't show an obvious mid-tarsal break. So, i don't know what that is from my limited perspective, a 2-dimensional review of Dr. Meldrum's paper and book and photos with what I was seeing out there. Wish I did. I have some BF prints from slopes that seem to show a flexibility more mid-range than my own...perhaps that is the tell tale sign? Otherwise on flatter surfaces it was not obvious to me. Guess that is what experts are for.. I also do not accept so easily the "no-neck" or limited mobility..not at all really, but again based on what weight I place on what evidence, all of which is subject to question...my bias I suppose. I tend to think it is probably musculation in combination with hair and fright by witness. Possibly some structural reason as in H.erectus Turkana boy...so if we had the Erectus genome I think we would be closer to Bf..my bias again...or maybe it is the more recent genome...Heidel..something or Denislova... so much is happening in the genome projects...a little to dense for me though these days, I wait for the popular works now. but, I also agree without the actual skeleton, these "facts" aren't and simply are educated best guess, like the rest of our evidence is, especially when viewed in isolation or without a nod to variability within a population. So, I don't feel like we have too much to hang a hat on, to the exclusion of other ideas or evidence for so many "facts." I thought there is still some old school, slow shift to accept Neanderthal as subspecies rather than it's own? So, you guys are way over my head regarding classifying, and many of you regarding the specific functunality of some genes.... so I better leave and go do some chores and quit checking this thread. Maybe it will be a Valentine release, so romantic! Edited January 29, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Doesn't it seem obvious that this "curve ball" was the mitochondrial DNA coming out as 100% human? If they tested that first, as it seems they did from Richard Stubstad's interviews, then surely the obvious thing at that point is to assume they are dealing with some form of human. When the nuclear DNA test told them something different, they changed their assumptions. I assume.... Why on earth would anyone criticise scientists for thinking "X" at one point in their study, then, when further information is uncovered, thinking "Y"? That strikes me as exactly what they should be doing, and I just can't fathom how anyone can turn that into some sort of flaw in the process. Mike Not necessarily a flaw in the process. If at one point it seemed that Bigfoot was 100% human, then why was it Bigfoot? (Put another way): What we have here is 100% human ---- and evidence of Bigfoot! Correction -----what we have here is not 100% human after all ---- and evidence of Bigfoot! It appears that the hair samples and other evidences were declared as from humans and converted to Bigfoot samples by way of eyewitness accounts and superficial morphologies that allegedly bolstered the claim for Bigfoot. This, to me anyway, suggests researcher bias. They declared the (apparently human) samples as Bigfoot related prior to the "further information" that, well, while changing the complexion and path of the study, still led to the same conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Doesn't it seem obvious that this "curve ball" was the mitochondrial DNA coming out as 100% human? If they tested that first, as it seems they did from Richard Stubstad's interviews, then surely the obvious thing at that point is to assume they are dealing with some form of human. When the nuclear DNA test told them something different, they changed their assumptions. I assume.... Why on earth would anyone criticise scientists for thinking "X" at one point in their study, then, when further information is uncovered, thinking "Y"? That strikes me as exactly what they should be doing, and I just can't fathom how anyone can turn that into some sort of flaw in the process. Mike I agree Mike. It would seem that scientist are a different breed today than they use to be. Politics, consensus, ego's. Could it be this is why many don't trust science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Which does not change the fact that they were willing to go with feral human initially. This is important. It implies that they were willing to advance a study that was incomplete or inaccurate initially. Which implies that the study participates already had in mind to demonstrate the "existence" of sasquatch before later developments in the evidence.In other words, bias existed before the final report outcome. Changing conclusions based on new data is pretty much the essence of good science. It doesn't necessarily mean she had a bias. It could have been just the logical assumption based on what was current data. Your conclusions should change as the evidence changes. There is no such thing as completed science especially when it comes to DNA analysis this complex. Hypothetically, if they stopped at a mtDNA test, then none of this would matter if it came back modern human. Different tests could certainly disprove that hypothetical example. It would only mean that a female modern human had mated successfully with one of the bigfoot ancestors sometime in the past. The logical conclusion based on the data of it being a modern human would have been wrong if it were descended from a hybrid. Feral human has a broad definition ranging from something that diverged millions of years ago living in the wild to a modern human living in the wild. It is unlikely any new data would change so much that it fell out of that broad definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Not necessarily a flaw in the process. If at one point it seemed that Bigfoot was 100% human, then why was it Bigfoot? (Put another way): What we have here is 100% human ---- and evidence of Bigfoot! Correction -----what we have here is not 100% human after all ---- and evidence of Bigfoot! It appears that the hair samples and other evidences were declared as from humans and converted to Bigfoot samples by way of eyewitness accounts and superficial morphologies that allegedly bolstered the claim for Bigfoot. This, to me anyway, suggests researcher bias. They declared the (apparently human) samples as Bigfoot related prior to the "further information" that, well, while changing the complexion and path of the study, still led to the same conclusion. Would you rather they just quit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Would you rather they just quit? Not the issue. The issue is why would they decide they had Bigfoot evidence before the "further information" that was evidence of Bigfoot?(Accepting recent statements as accurate for sake of argument). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Which does not change the fact that they were willing to go with feral human initially. This is important. It implies that they were willing to advance a study that was incomplete or inaccurate initially. Which implies that the study participates already had in mind to demonstrate the "existence" of sasquatch before later developments in the evidence.In other words, bias existed before the final report outcome. So are you suggesting that scientific bias existing before the final report comes out is a bad thing? Or only a bad thing if your bias is toward the existence of a new hominid, not a bad thing if your bias is against the existence of a new hominid. Because I have to be honest here, I'm seeing a whole lot of bias expressed about a report that is not final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Changing conclusions based on new data is pretty much the essence of good science. It doesn't necessarily mean she had a bias. It could have been just the logical assumption based on what was current data. Your conclusions should change as the evidence changes. There is no such thing as completed science especially when it comes to DNA analysis this complex. Hypothetically, if they stopped at a mtDNA test, then none of this would matter if it came back modern human. Different tests could certainly disprove that hypothetical example. It would only mean that a female modern human had mated successfully with one of the bigfoot ancestors sometime in the past. The logical conclusion based on the data of it being a modern human would have been wrong if it were descended from a hybrid. Feral human has a broad definition ranging from something that diverged millions of years ago living in the wild to a modern human living in the wild. It is unlikely any new data would change so much that it fell out of that broad definition. My point is that they didn't change conclusions. The DNA showed Bigfoot, no matter what the DNA showed, initially, or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts