Guest Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 A bone isn't really necessary. Skin, fur and perhaps some muscle fibers in the form of the flesh sample the General claims he found would be sufficient for such a purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I certainly can't but I'm sure you are aware that there is purportedly a bone fragment involved in the study. Now IF, and I do mean IF, the bone is in the study, and shows a distinctive species and or previously unheard of subspecies, and the DNA "matches up" with the findings of the hair samples and the toe sample, then you are fine with that? Assuming, of course, it makes it through peer review of a well-established and legitimate journal. Am I reading you right or is there another hurdle for your convincing? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo 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 You may not see it yet, thats exactly how this is playing out. You just can't have the body if it is technically human. No new species has ever been proven to exist to my knowledge with DNA alone. The thing is Cervelo, you don't prove a new species "without" DNA anymore. Even if you have a few bones to look at. Case in point http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-14921665 But detailed DNA studies and analysis of skulls in museums showed the two populations are in fact a new species. You simply can't get DNA that is a unique species without there being a body/ bodies to produce it, and in this day and age, some species will go unproven without it, no matter what is in the fossil record, or sitting in a museum. If you took this new species of dolphin for instance collected a type specimen, sequenced the DNA and it showed no divergence, would it be a new species? You've got to have the DNA anymore, and it will show that a new species is there, with or without the thing laying on the table. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Tim, Yes the rest of the Bigfoot would be awesome! In all seriousness if your asking how small a piece of a Bigfoot would convince me personally or in reference to the Ketchum report? These are different issues in my argument/position 1) acceptance that Bigfoot exsit based on the current accepted sciencetific method (like it or not folks just roll with it for now please) 2) what I would accept personally 3) as they relate to the Ketchum report I will answer the personal acceptance in regards to the Ketchum report (which for me doesn't exist at this point) head, hand or foot. It also has everything to do with who's vetting this report, if it comes out in Nat Geo, that would give it some legs for sure. But little bits and pieces would have to come with some really good back up so how about a very squirmy definitely maybe Bigfoot will not be accept by "science" without a specimen (maybe hand, head or foot) If I see one it's all I'll need or want for proof Hopefully that clarified my position as a skeptic or makes it clear as mud! SY, Are you suggesting the report concludes Bigfoot is human? Yes technology helps confirm a sub-species or a new species. But I still don't think a unknow species has even been recognized with DNA alone. Edited March 24, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 With all due respect Cervelo, science would certainly accept a new species based on DNA evidence alone, because science understand you can't have the DNA evidence of something that does not exist. As for your own personal level of validation, again, with all due respect, I don't think science would care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Show me an example of something accepted on DNA alone, not a sub species! It would be unprecedented in species recognition as far as I know it's never happened. Oh ya with all due respect Edited March 24, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Maybe Cervelo would be satisfied if we only had DNA and then cloned it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) BFS, Now your talking!!! Then I could start my Bigfoot Army!!! Edited March 24, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Now that is a scary thought... special ops on steroids cubed. I do think they would make excellent rangers and game wardens. Edited March 24, 2012 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Didn't someone say the aliens brought them to build the pyramids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Cervelo- point well taken about the sub-species, however you also asked about a sample from a bone?. well what about a fingernail. To any extant this DNA report will be informative to us all, you and me inclueded of course. Oh yeah! just to mention what about blood samples, now that is pretty good sourse to get DNA from so throw that in there to. ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 one member on here also had a (big) foot although there is a high probability it turned out to be from a bear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) PT, Like Mulder has always said DNA has to come from something! The bits and pieces could add up to something but I don't think it will result in recognition of the species. If the DNA comes back as human or some variant the skeptics answer including me and most likley the rest of the world is going to be, big deal you got some wacky human DNA where's the beef, that's where something a little more substantial would be needed. The "we found it all over the US in remote places and we're really honest researchers" blah blah blah won't pass for recognition of Bigfoot. That's not going to work for this subject new sub-species of dolphin, bluebird, extinct species I've seen with my own eyes maybe! As I've said I hope I'm wrong but your very point is valid, we have a whole bunch of cobbled together stuff that for us here might be enough, but I think only a body or really significant part will push it over the edge. This whole mantra of what it can't be that therefore it must be this is not part of the scientific method as I understand it, if you got human DNA you got a human, but that doesn't prove Bigfoot exist. Sorry the circumstances of the collection don't matter, they can only be reproduced to the point of you keep bringing more DNA for testing and have the same results. At some point you've got to produce the specimen Or something else pretty compelling! Edited March 24, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 SY, Are you suggesting the report concludes Bigfoot is human? I said if bigfoot were human, you couldn't have a body. You ask for bigfooters to show you ape results, humans are great apes......... There's only a few % that seperates humans and those other great apes, so you have the same challenge distingusihing BF from each of them, maybe a bigger challenge in human vs bigfoot, unless the BF curve ball got knocked out of the park. Here's an informative article that could account for less than conclusive results. http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/5/729.full 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I hope we're not falling into the trap of thinking that all humans are modern humans? For most of the time that modern humans have existed, there were other species of humans living alongside them. The species were different, and thus the DNA was different.........and you could write that sentence the other way around and it would still make sense. So, if we do hear that we have DNA from a human running around in the woods, it is perfectly possible that it is a completely separate species, with obviously different DNA.....and yet still human. It isn't the case that this would mean it was just a variant/ rogue/ feral/ sub-species/ whatever of modern human, it would mean that we have a species that may have split from a common ancestor millions of years ago, before the emergence of modern man. Two species of human. Very different humans. That's all. Just as was the case when we shared the planet with Neaderthals, Denisovans, the little guys from Flores, and some of the others that will undoubtedly emerge in time. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts