Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Can't wait 'till next Thursday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Who needs dna? Well, I'm pretty grateful for mine! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Correct. Anatomically modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens are anatomically modern humans. No one has disputed that. The thing you seem want to dispute is the fact that Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo habilis, etc. are also human. Homo means human in biosystematics. That is a subject that is still under debate, as others have said. I do not place myself in the camp that non HSS HSes are human, properly defined. They may be hominids, that is "man-like", but they are emphatically NOT human. Yep. This is not going to go as smoothly and as simply as paper is released -> scientific community embraces sasquatch *looks back at 80+ pages of thread* Whatever gave you THAT idea?[/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 That is a subject that is still under debate, No, it isn't. Homo means human. Homo erectus was human. Homo habilis was human. You can keep saying that they're not but you will be wrong every time. In a biosystematic sense - which is the relevant one here - humans are defined as bipedal primates with enlarged brains and great manual dexterity. If an organism can be determined to be fully bipedal, have an enlarged braincase, and is associated with the making and using of stone tools, it is considered human and placed in the genus Homo. Maybe this will help: Neanderthals were NOT anatomically modern humans, i.e., the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. Whether considered another subspecies of Homo sapiens or with full species rank as Homo neanderthalensis, you do not consider them to have been human. Please enlighten me as to what is inhuman about the following: "Neanderthals made and used a diverse set of sophisticated tools, controlled fire, lived in shelters, made and wore clothing, were skilled hunters of large animals and also ate plant foods, and occasionally made symbolic or ornamental objects. There is evidence that Neanderthals deliberately buried their dead and occasionally even marked their graves with offerings, such as flowers. No other primates, and no earlier human species, had ever practiced this sophisticated and symbolic behavior." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 This just in a minute ago: "While I am giving thanks to the many people responsible for the success of the project, I also want to mention Adrian Erickson because this study would have taken a lot longer if he hadn't been generous with his funding also. So, without these two generous people (Adrian and Wally) this study would not have been able to be done. I will also tell you that the study is not coming out next Thursday as everyone keeps saying. I do NOT have a date. So that is why I ask you for patience." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 17, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 17, 2012 Whew...... now some fingernails have time to grow back.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 This just in a minute ago: " I will also tell you that the study is not coming out next Thursday as everyone keeps saying. I do NOT have a date. So that is why I ask you for patience." Let's start a pool as to when it will be released...and we'll call it a March Madness pre pool... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 You mean the former member who's name isn't mentioned is...is....wrong??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I think we could potentially see a whole new debate, about that word Human. Good because the debate going on here about what is human really sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 2013 then 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Over at Bigfoot Evidence, Sally Ramey posted an extended comment on the embargo policies of journals. Her comment falls on Feb. 16 at 5:48pm. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/02/about-peer-review-process-and-when-to.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Yawns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Never seen or heard of this before, posted by Shawn today. David Claerr Prepares For Ketchum Bigfoot DNA Study By Laying Groundwork For Analysis Of The Structural Anatomy Of Bigfoot By now, it's clear to most Bigfooters that there is a significant scientific effort taking place that will finally help prove the existence of Bigfoot. Last July, David Claerr, who writes for Yahoo! Contributor Network wrote an article titled "Bigfoot DNA Report Analysis 2011: Preliminary Results in Mitochondrial DNA Indicate an Astonishing Relationship Between Sasquatch and Humans." It's an interesting article that talked about the recent mtDNA findings and how it should be examined in the standard process of peer review. In his latest article published on Yahoo! titled, "Bigfoot Bones: Sasquatch Skeleton Analyzed and Compared to Human," David positions himself accordingly in regards to the DNA study by constructing a visual 3D model of Sasquatch based on "current evidence both from still and video imagery as well as what may be the actual physical, skeletal remains that have been exhumed in a few rare instances." According to David, he had the privilege to view an actual "physical hominin skeletal remains of indeterminate origin that are in excess of 8 feet tall.": As this article is being written, there are some significant scientific efforts that are expected to be published in the near future, particularly in the field of DNA sequencing, that will provide exceptional evidence to help verify the existence of Sasquatch, or Bigfoot as a living species of hominid. Preliminary reports suggest that they may be more closely related to humans than any of the other "great apes" or higher primates, such as chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas or orangutans, perhaps even related to or within the direct lineage that resulted in modern humans. The purpose of this essay is to lay a groundwork for analysis of the structural anatomy, based on current evidence both from still and video imagery as well as what may be the actual physical, skeletal remains that have been exhumed in a few rare instances. (The important images accompanying this article can be enlarged by selecting them by the numbers and then clicking directly on the image.) In the course of both my independent and collaborative research of the Sasquatch, or Bigfoot, I have had the very good fortune to have access to collected evidence that is not available to the general public, and that in some cases, is either copyright protected or, by request, kept confidential pending further verification. I have been able to perform analysis and biometric measurements of cast prints of hands and feet as well as photometric measurements of skeletal remains of images from still and video footage. In addition, in my travels, I have been able to view physical hominin skeletal remains of indeterminate origin that are in excess of 8 feet tall. Source: http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Sounds like this is going the way of a discovery of an extinct hominim and not of a living bigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Wasn't a new primate found later in the general area where the hair Dr.Sykes examined was collected? Yes. The hair that Dr. Sykes examined in early 2001 came from the eastern part of Bhutan. The eastern part of Bhutan borders on Arunachal Pradesh. In 2004, a new species of primate called the Arunachal macaque (Macaca munzala) was described, inhabiting the Arunachal Pradesh region. It's entirely possible that the hairs Dr. Sykes examined actually came from the Macaca munzala which had not yet been described. It would be interesting to know whether or not there was any comparison of hairs to see if they matched or not. Here's how close Bhutan is to Arunachal Pradesh: RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts