Guest Cervelo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 SY, Well thats some great info on some well known species. Just not sure how its going to apply to this case other than its good practice for the discussion when and if the study comes out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Cervelo, I think it is good info for understanding results prior to this study, as in the human/ unknown primate/ no match stuff. Think specificly about false positives/ negatives etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 If the study even exists and it comes out, the results will be the results -- albeit open to some interpretation by those who have the expertise to look at DNA evidence. The key for me in examining the validity of the study will be the source and quality of the samples. Unknown sample provided by bigfoot researcher will be open to a lot of questions and differing interpretations. I don't think a body is necessary if you can somehow verify the source of the DNA. Example would be a high quality video showing the subject from whom which the DNA was extracted. Bigfoot researcher obtains several hours of high quality bigfoot video. At some point in the video, you see hair caught on branch. You see someone putting hair in evidence bag. Then some DNA analysis that is close to modern human might raise eyebrows and cause some who wouldn't otherwise lien towards the existence of bf. Unfortunately if Erickson/Ketchum had such a scenario I think we would have seen something by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Is it important that Dr. Ketchum, at some point, was ready to go with the evidence that Bigfoot is not a surviving relic human species or ape/human hybrid or ancient homo/modern homo hybrid or sub-species of modern human or anything else but modern humans gone feral? Is this important; can and may we infer anything from this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Cervelo, I think it is good info for understanding results prior to this study, as in the human/ unknown primate/ no match stuff. Think specificly about false positives/ negatives etc. Sorry SY I won't be buying into the what's its not, therefore It must be Bigfoot method nor do I think it's going to be accepted by the majority of the general public without that head, hand, foot or body. Like I've said it would be unprecedented for something of this magnitude to bypass the accepted identification process with DNA only. But there's a first time for everything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Melba Ketchum has evidence that is going to blow the Sasquatch question completely out of the water. She is going to prove conclusively that not only are Sasquatch not Homo sapiens sapiens, but they are entirely their own species that will gain scientific acceptance due to irrefutable proof. She is going to produce a type specimen!!! Producing an entirely mapped genome is going to basically just be a formality because once the cornucopia of evidence is rolled out by Dr. Ketchum, this argument is over. It's basically a "horn of plenty" of evidence. In my opinion. Your opinion is noted. As is the fact that it is totally unsupported by evidence. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 The key for me in examining the validity of the study will be the source and quality of the samples. More power to you, and I wish your examination well.For me, the real validation will be from Dr. Ketchum's peers and contemporaries. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Sorry SY I won't be buying into the what's its not, therefore It must be Bigfoot method nor do I think it's going to be accepted by the majority of the general public without that head, hand, foot or body. Like I've said it would be unprecedented for something of this magnitude to bypass the accepted identification process with DNA only. But there's a first time for everything! What it's not, but yet closest to, tells you what it is, in phylogenetics. Thats not just a bigfoot method Cervelo., but yes recognizing another species and extant member of the genus homo, is unprecedented, and as such it would not be standard procedure to take a specimen as with other animal species. If you think differently show us legal and ethical precedent for it. You might ask, why I would think bigfoot is a member of the genus homo and I would put it this way, If patty isn't a man in a suit, every joint in her body moves in the same way as a man, the tracks follow suit in form, and the vocalizations are indiscernable from human in many cases. That for me has predicted findings both prior to this study and during. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) SY, Legal, ethical precedent for what? A mythical creature that doesn't exsit for 99.9% of the rest of the world. Sorry for me this conversation just took the usual turn into the twilight zone of a belief system as opposed to a reality based discussion. How about we just agree to disagree and we can revist our discussion after the big reveal! Edited March 25, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Yes, this is precisely true. However, it will depend on the "bounty" placed on capture of a species that has been verified by DNA and photographic evidence without capture of a holotype. How much would you pay for the Homo neanderthalensis x sapiens (or whatever it is) holotype? Peace, Peter Edit: for typos The moment they become recognized, they go OFF the hunting schedule. Most state F&W (and the Feds as well IIRC) have a clause in the regs that says you can ONLY hunt those animals with a declared season/bag limit/etc. If it's not explicitly permitted to hunt it, you may not hunt it. 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. Still waiting for a viable alternative to confirmed unique, undocumented higher primate dna coming from a unique, undocumented (previously) higher primate. It can't come from a trout, or a butterfly or a moose or a squirrel. That's just the way it is. DNA comes from critter. DNA = critter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Legal, ethical precedent for what? A mythical creature that doesn't exsit for 99.9% of the rest of the world. Sorry for me this conversation just took the usual turn into the twilight zone of a belief system as opposed to a reality based discussion. How about we just agree to disagree and we can revist our discussion after the big reveal! Agreed... however, you may want to reconsider your 99.9% don't believe in bigfoot. I mean, based on some kind of facts.... http://www.livescience.com/19178-tracking-belief-bigfoot-infographic.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) Sure thing facts on a Bigfoot fourm I'll get right on it! whew you guys crack me up LOL! Edited March 25, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 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. It's just that for most of the human (in the genus sense) and subhuman specimens all we have is bones, not even complete skeletons, either...so if we want to compare a hypothetical new species of human with the others, we will have to look at a skeleton, sooner or later. Footprint morphology does give a pretty good wallop of info, though, I think, too. And we already have that. A DNA sample (nuclear AND mitochondrial) and a karyotype would also be very good to have but with the latter we can only compare with Denisovans and Neanderthals, as well as modern humans and non-human living ape species. We need bones, preferably a whole skeleton to figure out where in the homo family it fits. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) never mind... Edited March 25, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 SY, Legal, ethical precedent for what? A mythical creature that doesn't exsit for 99.9% of the rest of the world. Sorry for me this conversation just took the usual turn into the twilight zone of a belief system as opposed to a reality based discussion. How about we just agree to disagree and we can revist our discussion after the big reveal! It's pretty simple Cervelo, unless a bigfoot chooses to fall dead in our laps, my hypothesis on bigfoot prohibits my taking one. So, with the precedents we have for discovering new species today, and with our ability to use DNA in phylogeny, it is best to find out what it is, before taking it. You do believe that can be done, otherwise you wouldn't be so interested in the results. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts