Guest parnassus Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 He said modern human. sapien sapien human. If that's what the results say , they are worthless and any conclusions made that allude to anything other than modern humans will be also worthless. Bigfoot isn't us.If it somehow is, then it's much ado about nothing and there's just people living in the woods and being mistaken for a monster. why can't I express myself that clearly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TexasTracker Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 John C. GREAT post. It shows how much we truly DONT know. I like his thinking. It's radically different. He has several assumptions that have merit. I'd like to see that model with completely black eyes. Again, natural selection for a species that based it's survival on being bigger, stronger, faster may evolve into an eight-foot, 600 lb beast. Thanks again man, TT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 This entire line of inquiry brings up fundamental issues such as "what exactly is a species?" 300 years after Linnaeus, the answer is still fuzzy. It seems to be in part a set of slowly evolving criteria, in part 'I know it when I see it'. So long as a body is not on a slab, even compelling evidence will not overcome this redoubt of equivocation. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I wonder if he meant 'anatomically modern human', i.e., homo sapiens sapiens. But what he claimed was that something can be Homo sapiens and NOT be human, though he failed to provide any source that supports that assertion. He may as well claim that while the subspecies Megasoma elephas elephas is a beetle, the species Megasoma elephas might NOT be a beetle. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I did not mean it as a slight Parn, I honestly have not read anywhere where the whole term was used. I have no doubt at all you understand the term,nor was it an attempt to correct you in anyway. I was trying to find out, who stated the results in those terms, I have heard "near human" a variety of percentages,and human, but I have not heard anyone from the "leak" camp mention the Homo sapiens sapiens. I like to see those things first hand,so I can see the context,and know the source,that is all. So does anyone have a link that will lead me to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) But what he claimed was that something can be Homo sapiens and NOT be human, though he failed to provide any source that supports that assertion. He may as well claim that while the subspecies Megasoma elephas elephas is a beetle, the species Megasoma elephas might NOT be a beetle. RayG In this forum, particularly when discussing the particulars of anthropology, the term "human" is one that is all too often equivocal. Perhaps as parnassus suggests we should take pains to specify anatomically modern human or genus homo when making statements of this kind. But in the absence of this specificity, I think it would be charitable to interpret the term in a way that is renders the statement consistent, if such a reading is possible. In this case, it does seem possible to distinguish between genus homo ('human' in the most general sense) from homo sapiens sapiens in a meaningful way. So, for instance, homo sapiens idaltu is not "human" in the sense that it is anatomically modern, i.e., it is a different subspecies. Perhaps there could be other subspecies. Edited February 8, 2012 by exnihilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 What I want to understand exnihilo is not how we view the term here, I want to understand if the source used the basic term Human, or modern Human, or Homo sapiens sapiens , simply because its relevant to how much merit there is in criticizing the possibility. There has been more than one Homo sapiens,but only one Homo sapiens sapien. How the term was expressed at the source, is something I would really like to know. I really don't care beyond that how it is expressed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 It appears that you have a wait in front of you. Until then, join in the fun and speculate until you're blue in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Like this right here. So this is a photo of putative bigfoot hair? Great! Was there DNA extracted from it? Has it been analyzed? So long as a body is not on a slab, even compelling evidence will not overcome this redoubt of equivocation. Ever. So why not just get a body? If some dude can shoot a bigfoot and slice a "steak" out of its thigh, then it's certainly possible to take one with a lethal shot. And for crying out loud, if some dude can put out glass shards that he can trick a bigfoot into licking (is that right?) then why the heck can't we at least get a decent photo? What I want to understand exnihilo is not how we view the term here, I want to understand if the source used the basic term Human, or modern Human, or Homo sapiens sapiens , simply because its relevant to how much merit there is in criticizing the possibility. There has been more than one Homo sapiens,but only one Homo sapiens sapien. How the term was expressed at the source, is something I would really like to know. I really don't care beyond that how it is expressed here. Strictly applied, all species within the genus Homo are "human." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Thank you Saskeptic. I have been digging around trying to find any of the "leaks" who called it modern Human, or Homo Sapiens sapiens, and I cannot find either, all I can find is reference to Human. I just wonder if its premature to find that result laughable, or predictable, although we are talking about what could be mythical creature. But still.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) As homo sapiens sapiens morphology has evolved via a process greatly resembling neoteny, it may very well be the case that very small genetic differences (those regulating the timing and amplitude of hormonal production, for instance) could lead to profound morphological shifts. Thus, a big, hairy, scary looking creature with significant muscoskeletal divergences might be only a few genes away, if those genes were strongly selected for in the niche they occupy. Edited February 8, 2012 by exnihilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) ex, this sort of thinking is exactly what Ketchum is counting on. It is basically the classic case of the fallacy known as appeal to probability. If something is somehow even remotely possible, then that "may very well be" the way it is. I would suggest it's not even remotely possible, it's more like "super unlikely as in orders of magnitude less likely than remotely possible." Think about this: How do you explain the fact that according to the copyright document and Stubstad's statement,the polymorphisms are different in the several specimens?!! whoops. Capiche? And if that isn't enough (ProTip: it is), how do you explain the fact that you and I and Winona Ryder seem to be part of the same gene pool ie the same place on the great tree of life, as the sources of these specimens. Yet, you and I and Winona don't aren't 8 feet tall, don't have hinged and bizarre feet, a conical head, glowing eyes, superhuman speed, olfaction, strength, or an inline gait, can be photographed, can be killed, and do use tools, fire, shelter and clothing, and could not survive naked in a temperate climate in the mountains....Hmm? And its not only us three that don't show bigfoot characteristics, but NONE of the 130 million babies from our gene pool born to us regular humans each year, grow up to have these bigfoot characteristics; and we WOULD know if they did. These are only two of the reasons why the Ketchum "hypothesis", if it is similar to the copyright document, will not gain any traction in the scientific community. Here is what actually "could very well be the case": the modern human DNA came from regular ole human folks, a music teacher, a pipe fitter, a hiker, a forest ranger, a hunter, a hoaxer, a teenager...modern humans. Not only "could very well be the case,' it is super overwhelmingly almost completely totally supremely likely. I am quite interested in why an individual like yourself would choose to believe the supremely unlikely choice over the supremely likely choice. p. Edited February 8, 2012 by parnassus Removed previous user quote from post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) parnassus, I am neither an endocrinologist or an evolutionary genetic anthropologist. Even if I was I wouldn't be able to explain the interplay between genes and the body's hormonal system. I couldn't even explain the mechanisms within the endocrine system itself that factor into wide divergences in human appearance -- and humans are a remarkably homogenous group, genetically speaking. As an MD you are no doubt quite aware of this fact: that comparatively minor genetic differences across AMH populations created appearances so varied that they led to antique scientific heurisms like "race". Indeed many of your medical and scientific antecedents busied themselves with the task of cataloging and rationalizing superficial ethnic differences into the field of "racial anthropology". The point is, I am not elucidating a belief or even sussing out probabilities. I am eliminating the impossible, and speculating about the rest. No one can tell me how many genes it would take to make you and I appear like BF, and consequently what an hypothetical genetic distance might be. But we do know that small genetic differences can lead to drastic changes, even if we don't understand the mechanisms in play. After all, only a 4% change in our genome would turn us into chimpanzees. Edited February 8, 2012 by exnihilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Parn, why do you keep going on about the Copyright stuff? All concerned have explained very well that it is utterly irrelevant, and doesn't represent the findings of the report at all. Why are you talking about people's understanding of the results of the tests, when those results are unknown? The one bit of information that has leaked is that the animal is said to be roughly 70% human........which is utterly meaningless, other than being pretty clearly not human. You are simply hypothesising about the hypothetical. I would also remind you that you are committing yourself to a terribly inflexible position, in writing, and in public. You could find yourself trying to defend the indefensible once the actual results are out, and, as I said at the time of your last outburst (around the time the copyright thing reared its head), the wise know when to keep their counsel. Mike PS Exnihilo.....you'll get told off by the Mods for quoting the immediately preceding post. Do some deleting, quickly, whilst you can still edit. Edited February 8, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts