Cotter Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I wonder if there's been consideration of trying to clone one of these creatures from the DNA obtained. You could have a live specimen w/o taking one from the wild. Crazy thought of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Mega-bucks required............plus one biiiiiig surrogate mother! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CT Seeker Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) If Ketchum's paper is published in a reputable journal and if it describes a new species just from the DNA signature then this would be unprecedented. I'm not suggesting that DNA alone couldn't be used to describe a new species, only that this would be a case of the thing in the museum drawer labeled "bigfoot" would be an electrophoresis gel or a figure from the paper, rather than a bone or a piece of skin. In my experience that would be unprecedented. But they wouldn't necessarily have to draw a correlation between that thing in the museum drawer that some might THINK is a bigfoot sample with the evidence that Ketchum has gathered, right? Well, we are all speculating on this given we don't know what she really has or doesn't have. We can only believe (or not) what she has told us and that is she supposedly has included many different samples which presumably would be complementary to her one conclusion she is attemtping to draw. Let's hope this doesn't draw out much longer! I wonder if there's been consideration of trying to clone one of these creatures from the DNA obtained. You could have a live specimen w/o taking one from the wild. Crazy thought of the day. The same way that they are cloning Mammoths as we speak (by using Mammoth DNA and modern day elephants (I don't know which kind off-hand) you'd need to nail down which species was going to be the mama! And if the closest species is human, well good luck with that being aproved! Edited March 14, 2012 by CT Seeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 If Ketchum's analysis leads to a formal recognition of bigfoot based just on the DNA, then that would be an example of science bending over backwards to accommodate the evidence, rather than the other way around as several have expressed in this thread. Science has a method in place for naming new species that began before Darwin probably. With the discovery of DNA, and knowing its reliability, shouldn't this age old method of species naming change to use DNA as proof of a new species? This would provide incentive for public fish and wildlife departments to get off their rear ends so BF can be protected. By the way, what would be the method to clone BF? Would a gorilla's egg cell be implanted with new DNA, then placed back into the female gorilla? Seems plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 ^To be clear, DNA is being used to identify new species all the time, but it's more a case of "we've compared material from these different populations of <insert species name here> and found them to be significantly divergent to warrant full species status." This is different than what we're talking about with Ketchum's analysis because the specimens exist in museums and DNA has been extracted from them. With Ketchum's analysis, I think we're talking about tissue samples (e.g., otherwise nondescript blood and/or skin?) for which the tissue can't be identified on its own or has been consumed in the analysis. So the thing that's left to curate and tie a specimen tag to might be a vial with some liquid in it. Now I think there are also rumors of a bigfoot foot bone or something associated with Ketchum's analysis. If that's the case, then the bone could be the type specimen from which the species is described (just like Denisovan description) and "bigfoot" would've been subjected to the same level of documentation as everything else. That's ordinary evidence - a piece of the thing you're claiming is real. Bigfoot cloning? Well, another rumor about Ketchum's analysis is that "bigfoot" is us, i.e., a subspecies within Homo sapiens. If that's the case then (1) every ethical argument that would apply to human cloning would become relevant and (2) a Homo sapiens surrogate mother would be the obvious choice. I doubt there'd be much difficulty in convincing/coercing a woman to serve in that role. It would simply be a matter of enough money being supplied to the surrogate or the surrogate receiving an offer that she would be powerless to refuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Saskeptic, you say this.... Why would you expect those engaged in seeking truth to proclaim something to be real without the proof to support the claim? But haven't you also offered that if you had your own encounter you would share it with us? Would you do that if you weren't certain that what you saw was real? How would this be different than a scientist claiming bigfoot is real without proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 ^I did have a "not sure" encounter and I did share it with the BFF - this answers your first two questions. If I had had an "I'm sure" encounter and I shared it here, I would not make the claim unless I was actually sure that I could prove it. The only way I could prove it would be with diagnostic physical evidence (or perhaps some very lucky and convincing photography). You can bet that if I had that, my paper would be submitted to Science or Nature (and accepted by one or the other) before I'd go public with such a statement here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) It is not uncommon for a paper to get rejected. The claim that they have bias against Bigfoot papers is without basis. In fact, science papers get rejected so often, that this blogger came up with a list of Video game characters representing the reviewers and their standard tactics. http://matt.might.ne.../peer-fortress/ For young scientists, peer review can be a frustrating process. (Actually, it's frustrating for older ones too.) While peer review tends to work well in the long run, its quirks and oddities can bewilder in the short run. Sometimes, it's so absurd that all you can do is laugh (and try again). As with students, it turns out that there are nine kinds of peer reviewers too. Edited March 14, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 These are some great and well reasoned posts Saskeptic, and I'm glad to see such sentiments! I'm very optimistic for this study. Very optimistic. However, my even my optimism stops short at hoping this study will definitively prove the existence of bigfoot. The most I'm hoping for is that the evidence is compelling and overwhelming enough to give pause to those who dismiss it outright, and encourages a wave of research projects, university studies and private studies to get to the bottom of it. For myself, solid DNA evidence of an unknown hominid species across multiple samples will be enough to convince me, but I'm not naive enough (feel free to laugh at the juxtaposition of the two parts of this sentence) to think this will be enough to absolutely convince the greater scientific establishment of its existence. I am hopeful that it will be intriguing enough to prove irresistible to a larger community of researches, and that we'll see a renaissance of sorts in regards to bigfoot research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) Is this some kind of revelation (and six plusses - Oh my!)? Why would you expect those engaged in seeking truth to proclaim something to be real without the proof to support the claim? Is this one of those "science wants proof but science won't look for it" sentiments? If so, it's long past time for bigfooters to abandon that old canard, because it's demonstrably false. This entire thread is ostensibly about a scientist (and not just one we're led to believe) looking for it. This notion that science won't engage bigfoot is a slap in the face to real scientists like Krantz, Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Bindernagle, etc. It's insulting to me too - I'm a real scientist, and I'm here every day looking for some piece of evidence I might have overlooked that would suggest there's something to this bigfoot stuff. We need to cowboy up and recognize that there is no anti-bigfoot bias in science. There is a vehement "anti-paltry/misleading evidence" bias, however. If Ketchum - or anyone - has decent evidence, then there will be no opposition to the recognition of bigfoot. Period. The evidence required is not extraordinary - it's actually the most ordinary evidence one could possibly require: a piece of a bigfoot. That's exactly the evidence required for describing and naming all the other creatures in the world. If anything, the mere suggestion of describing and naming bigfoot solely from a DNA signature is a relaxation of nomenclatural standards. If Ketchum's analysis leads to a formal recognition of bigfoot based just on the DNA, then that would be an example of science bending over backwards to accommodate the evidence, rather than the other way around as several have expressed in this thread. Seems to me that, assuming the DNA study is well done, it would simply prove that a new species exists, but the DNA cannot be pinned directly to any specific subject without a physical body. Unless......, no this has to be wrong. Well I'll suggest it anyway. If every sample submitted had an affidavit of some sort, you know, a chain of custody, a (No! Not this!) report associated with it describing how it is believed to have come from a bigfoot. This could be disastrous. Since all bigfoot reports are false, then the DNA would have to be in error, so there's no point in seeking a body, and we can dismiss the study out of hand. Glad we got that resolved. Just blowing off steam. Edited March 14, 2012 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 It could be something like this: DNA PAPER: We have found A DNA profile unlike any human known to exist. AN ANTHROPOLOGIST: But it is just like human population X, I am working on a paper right now that shows how this population existed in region A during period Q, and their descendants are those of the native americans which settled in the Pacific NW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 SY: so which is it? bias or need for proof that holding up the works? I hope you are giving up on the bias; Saskeptic has shown that there is no bias against bigfoot papers, and do you admit that science would greatly benefit from the existence of a bigfoot? Need for proof is clearly the issue. That is where the problem lies, not in bias. You shouldn't be amazed by a clear view of the process by which new ideas and findings are evaluated by the scientific community. If Ketchum had spent her PR time and effort instead on presenting at a scientific meeting, she would not be where she is today, one way or the other. Either she would be in a leading journal or she would have been informed that her findings don't hold water. I am pretty confident of that. You may not be, but that is, wadr, because you aren't familiar with the process. p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 ^I did have a "not sure" encounter and I did share it with the BFF - this answers your first two questions. If I had had an "I'm sure" encounter and I shared it here, I would not make the claim unless I was actually sure that I could prove it. The only way I could prove it would be with diagnostic physical evidence (or perhaps some very lucky and convincing photography). You can bet that if I had that, my paper would be submitted to Science or Nature (and accepted by one or the other) before I'd go public with such a statement here. I'm talking about a clear sighting Saskeptic, not a " I heard foot steps in the woods" encounter. I do recall you stating that you would share an encounter here like that, but wouldn't expect people to accept your experience as real. Isn't that correct? You seem to have changed your decision from the last time we discussed it. SY: so which is it? bias or need for proof that holding up the works? I hope you are giving up on the bias; Saskeptic has shown that there is no bias against bigfoot papers, and do you admit that science would greatly benefit from the existence of a bigfoot? Need for proof is clearly the issue. That is where the problem lies, not in bias. You shouldn't be amazed by a clear view of the process by which new ideas and findings are evaluated by the scientific community. . I acknowledge the process Parn, but also acknowledge that the process can't get started if doubt says there is no reason to initiate it. Is that bias wearing the disguise of skepticism or vise versa? Do understand that this perspective is not aimed at the status of Dr. Ketchums study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CT Seeker Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 ^I did have a "not sure" encounter and I did share it with the BFF - this answers your first two questions. If I had had an "I'm sure" encounter and I shared it here, I would not make the claim unless I was actually sure that I could prove it. Really? If you saw a Sasquatch from ten feet away--looked dead in its eyes and then it lumbered off away from you, you wouldn't want to share the encounter at a Bigfoot forum with other people who say they've seen them? You'd only do it if you took a picture to be able to provide evidence? I'd like to think I would talk about a sighting whether or not I could prove it. And I don't know why you can't talk about your not sure encounter here? This place is supposed to be special in that it invites discourse between "believers" and "skeptics". The thing you don't want to talk about is the supreme story which people would LOVE to hear here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I do recall you stating that you would share an encounter here like that, but wouldn't expect people to accept your experience as real. That sounds about right, but you might be missing some subtleties of context. In post 3412 this morning, I was referring not just to the experience of me seeing a bigfoot, I was referring to the specific, scientific claim that "bigfoot is real" based on my sighting. I'm drawing a distinction between "I saw a bigfoot" and "I saw a bigfoot and that proves bigfoot is real." I acknowledge the process Parn, but also acknowledge that the process can't get started if doubt says there is no reason to initiate it. Sure that process can get started in the face of doubt. I doubt bigfoot, but if I ever find a piece of one during my field work, you can bet that I'll follow up with it. It doesn't take an army of people to make discoveries - we've recently been exploring some great examples of this in the recent "Cryptids" thread over in "Campfire Chat." Hopefully my response to SY will clear up my position, CT Seeker. I'm no less prone than anyone else to hallucination, misidentification, hoaxing, etc., so having a sighting myself would not necessarily convince me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts