Guest parnassus Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Edited March 22, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 *takes bow* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) @MikeG - I'm sorry if I missed the intent of your post. While I always appreciate kind words, please don't single me out among our skeptics as having an opinion on this any different from that of parnassus or RayG or any who've expressed reservations about Ketchum's analysis. So you've seen the report then? You have a factual basis for doubting her results? News to me. I do not believe this, no way, if this is a serious claim I think this report is never going to materialize! Nobody can prove this creature exists, yet there is somehow biological evidence representing 28. Sorry, not even remotely convinced this represents reality. [spock]"Highly illogical"[/spock] Thank you for your submission, unfortunately we cannot publish this paper, next time include the type specimen. Say it with us, Drew: "DNA comes from critters. DNA = critter." The DNA IS the type specimen. Edited March 22, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 The worth of the pudding is in the tasting of it. -- Old English Proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 There's what's right and there's what's right and never the twain shall meet. -- H.I. McDunnough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Check Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god. William Shakespeare There is plenty of action and apprehension out there. Have always admired that quote, such a way with language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 And yet . . . Re: tangent on gorilla-like, bloodthirsty Neanderthals: sensationalist artwork does not good science make. I was glad to learn in the video that Neanderthals were "primates" - apparently unlike us who are not primates? - and apparently very much more like gorillas, even though gorillas are highly specialized primates. I don't see any issue, The degree of hair on Neanderthals isn't known, but their diet being mostly carnivorous falls within the mesocarnivore description. The early depictions of Neanderthals were very apeman looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Happy ketchum day everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Discussion of the Neanderthal Predation hypothesis should move to this previous thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 247 days and counting! ..and that's only the length of this thread, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I don't see any issue, The degree of hair on Neanderthals isn't known, but their diet being mostly carnivorous falls within the mesocarnivore description. The early depictions of Neanderthals were very apeman looking. Not to mention that every other critter from Ice Age Europe was well adapted to the extreme glacial cold and thus very hairy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Like the humans of the time? Speculation and assumptions. And you know what happens when you assume... Edited March 22, 2012 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Thank you for your well reasoned observation, summitwalker. Care to fill us in on how you arrived at your conclusion? It is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Like the humans of the time? Speculation and assumptions. And you know what happens when you assume... Which group? The ones that migrated from warmer climes in the south? They weren't, but they compensated with skin clothing. European Neanderthals developed in glacial Europe over several hundred thousand years just as the other native animals did. The author covers this in his presentation. It is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. On the contrary, it is quite a bit less, as it has no evidence or logic to support it. It is simply Denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Yes, Mulder, I agree that in order for a statement to rise to the level of an opinion it means that it appraises a set of facts. Summitwalker's "opinion" that there can't be 200 samples from 28 specimens because "nobody can prove the existence" of BF doesn't really qualify. It is more a statement of belief that bigfoot CAN'T exist, therefore there CAN'T be evidence. It would follow from his belief that it is therefore useless to look for BF because it doesn't exist, and will reject any evidence because the evidence is .... [fill in the blank]. Edited March 22, 2012 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts