Guest Cervelo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Mike, Here is my position DNA is great for all the reasons you mention no doubt about, perfect for identify sub-species of known animals. But to prove a near human/apeman walks among us ain't gonna happen in a million years without a body. As far as the general public your right they will buy it hook line and sinker because its on TV,or a scientist said its so, or MM says their out there! If this report is read by anybody outside this community or the DNA nerd society, it will most likely be about as comprehendable as this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Well, there is a subtlety to the word "prove", I reckon. The report could perfectly well prove the existence of Sasquatch to science's content, yet not be accepted by Joe Public. That probably says as much as you need to know regarding the mis-information about science that has been kicking around for a few years now. There is a section of society which would argue furiously with a scientist if he/ she said the sky was blue and that grass was green. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Mike, Heres how it's done, has been and always will be no matter how much anyone here or anywhere else wants to plead differently! 1) animal is reported 2) someone goes looking for it 3) type specimen is found and or harvested 4) new organism discovered happens almost everyday! If anyone thinks Bigfoot of all things is going to leap frog this process on DNA alone they are in for a big disappointment! I would love to be wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Cervelo- Without a body? What about denisova? no body there but was proven to be its own subspecies. Can you please explain the difference there? ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Slim, Why does it always have to be a hoax? Can't they just be wrong? I think it's going to go down exactly like that misinterpretation of human DNA. Assuming the misinterpretation originated with Ketchum (with twenty years experience running a DNA lab), we'd have to assume the people she chose to co-author the paper were also unable to spot the error. Next we'd have to assume the first batch of peer reviewers didn't set them all straight. It's possible this could have *started* with a misinterpretation but they would know the truth by now. That would have to mean they are deliberately misleading people. That's what I call a hoax. I don't believe that's what happening but like everyone else here, I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Cervelo- Without a body? What about denisova? no body there but was proven to be its own subspecies. Can you please explain the difference there? ptangier We are in complete agreement and you used the magic word subspecies!!! No new species has ever been proven to exist to my knowledge with DNA alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Yeah I know. See my next post. Edited March 24, 2012 by grayjay deleted quote of removed post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Slim, Not at all Hypothetically speaking if one had some DNA that was human but had some unusually characteristics to it and you run with that, it's not a hoax, it's a theroy or hypothesis. You take that DNA to experts and they confirm you have some weird human DNA and walla you got Bigfoot, what else could it be!! Now I would rather it comes back ape because I know they are real, that would get me behind it real quick! You show me multiple sources of DNA all over the US that's ape, that would be interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 It would take more than an "unusual characteristic" to explain the morphology of these things (and the peer reviewers would surely set them straight - assuming the team couldn't figure this out). Also, we're talking about more than one sample here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Cervelo, How about "weird human DNA" that is all weird in the same way and comes from all over North America and has a chain of custody back to BF research organizations and the woods. Walla you got Bigfoot, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I don't recall denisovans being labelled subspecies or species yet. From what I've seen and read they are more distant from Homo sapiens than neanderthals were and neanderthals aren't consistently listed as a subspecies. I for one think they were a separate species and that would make denisovans a separate species as well. http://racehist.blogspot.com/2011/09/denisovans-homo-erectus-after-all.html The implication is that denisovans split off from the rest of our common lineage before neanderthals and sapiens did thus making them more distantly related to the rest of us. Just because we did interbreed occassionally does not mean we were all the same species. There is only a scant level of neanderthal and denisovan genes in modern humans suggesting that interbreeding was not usually successful. Lions and tigers can breed together and some of their offspring can still reproduce. We do not label them as the same species though. The ability to breed is not necessarily the defining characteristic of a species. So if denisovans are a separate species then they have indeed been discovered based on DNA. Ketchums DNA does come in physical specimens however. allegedly I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 That Barnes and Noble gift certificate awaits one of us yet, Slim, the stakes are getting high here, and I'm trying not to break a sweat over it. . I've always wanted the Fire but I guess I'll make do with a Nook. Kidding. Hopefully it will cover the cost of Mike Greene's book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 That chain of custody will be an amazing thing to see for sure!! Because it most likley needs to end at a body! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Hmmm... I believe Gigantopithecus blacki is a species unto itself described only from fossilized teeth found in an apothecary shop. Perhaps fossilized bones are more accurate than DNA findings? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Hmmmm show me a Bigfoot bone to get the DNA from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts