Guest Cervelo Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I'll stick with my original statement! I'm not trying to reorganize anyones veiw on their interpetation of how new species are discovered. It's a proven method and it follows the same path for every new discovery. Whatever works for you SY is good by me. I have a tremendous amount of respect for your position and presentation it's always well thought out. But it's my opinion that the know, accepted, criteria, for species recognition can certainly accommodate new technology but it's not going to be rewritten for any animal, much less Bigfoot. It's the old cart before the horse! If Dr. Ketchum pulls it off, fantastic, awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo 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? I think it would be premature jerrywayne. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot 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? Yes, you can infer that she is capable of mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Finding a new species is possible and happens often enough. However most new animal species discovered are insects and found in a specific location/region. The case against Bigfoot is huge in comparison. These things are big. and they're reported in a vast number of locations. We either throw out the idea that they are actually inhabiting the wide range reported and consider them to be a rare and in a tiny geographical area or we dismiss it entirely. That a type specimen has eluded us for well over a hundred years indicated to me that there is nothing to it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I think it would be premature jerrywayne. . SY, Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that you know more about the report than you let on? You posted this link: http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/5/729.full Care to expand and expound as you relate it to the DNA paper? Yes, you can infer that she is capable of mistakes. Continuing mistakes? More power to you, and I wish your examination well. For me, the real validation will be from Dr. Ketchum's peers and contemporaries. I1, Sometimes your potshots hit the mark. Congrads. (p.s.- o.k., you can tell us now what really happened to the lovely Natalie those many years ago.) Mulder, Just curious. Your neandertal as vicious ape: you state others have told you this looks like the animal they saw -- yet you saw one too and you didn't say something like "hey, this is what I saw." Did you see a vicious ape, like your avatar, or something different? Is your thinking along the lines of more than one cryptid responsible for "Bigfoot" and do you have any feeling that this may be played out in the DNA paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 The case against Bigfoot is huge in comparison. There is no "case against Bigfoot". There is a strung-together series of logical fallacies, improper debating and outright misinformation that Skeptics attempt to pass off as a "case against Bigfoot", but it is just that: logical fallacies, improper debating and outright misinformation. On the proponent side we have eyewitness reports, forensically typed hairs, cast tracks and body/body-part impressions, etc with the potential of now adding dispositive proof via DNA findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 SY, Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that you know more about the report than you let on? You posted this link: http://sysbio.oxford...t/55/5/729.full Care to expand and expound as you relate it to the DNA paper? I think the article is good reference material in understanding thresholds for speciation. Consider it a primer. I have only a smidge more info than most on this board, and it is key to my optimism. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Mulder we don't have a type specimen. We've never had one and to date we still don't have one. That is a huge case against the reality of the beast. I'm of the opinion that if there was something to it proof positive would have arrived decades ago. I read on another thread that Melba Ketchum had a sighting of a 10" Bigfoot. As I'm firmly in the camp that such a size is unlikely or simply not realistic then it calls into question the objectivity of the entire issue as she is not a detached observer/researcher at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Mulder, Just curious. Your neandertal as vicious ape: you state others have told you this looks like the animal they saw -- yet you saw one too and you didn't say something like "hey, this is what I saw." Did you see a vicious ape, like your avatar, or something different? I didn't see it from the front, so I can't say if it looked like that in the face or not. I was told that the picture looked similar to the animal witnessed by others in OK, (close enough that at least one person commented on flashbacks), but not exactly like it. It's been a bit, but most of the comments seemed to focus on the face more than the entire head. Is your thinking along the lines of more than one cryptid responsible for "Bigfoot" My personal thinking is that it is either a single group displaying regional variation (much like chimpanzees do, or humans), or it could be a closely related group of groups. I waffle back and forth as to which I think more likely. Sorry if that sounds like fence sitting. and do you have any feeling that this may be played out in the DNA paper? I really don't know. What would be interesting to me would be to see if all the specimens came from N America or if there were samples submitted (and accepted) from other continents. This in a way relates to my dilemma about single/group of species. Internationally speaking, I think it far more likely that "giant hominids" (covering BF/Almasty/Yeti/Yowie/et al) represent a group of closely related species. Mulder we don't have a type specimen. We've never had one and to date we still don't have one. That is a huge case against the reality of the beast. No, that is the "absence of evidence" fallacy at work. How many species have we lost entirely that we never even knew existed? In 2006, we discovered ~17,000 new species. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/finding_new_species_the_golden_age_of_discovery/2129/ It is estimated that we may be losing as many as 27,000 species/year or more. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html Just getting a good DNA sample may be the best we get. And it is more than sufficient. DNA does not "create itself" it does not come from anything other than the type of creature that it is encoded to create. DNA may not be the "full slab monkey", but it IS dispositive proof of the critter it came from. DNA = critter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I'm not sure where you have the impression that the level of secrecy is "unprecedented". This seems to me like normal procedure for publication in any major science journal. Yes, there are procedures for sequestration of results, but it seems that some in this thread who are familiar with the process have mentioned that it is not uncommon for scientists to present their findings at conferences and what not as long as they are not giving away the meat of their paper. In this case, since photo evidence has historically proven to be worthless w/regard to BF, I don't really see a reason to tie the alleged photos or videos to the paper, which is based on DNA evidence and sequencing. And the physical specimens that it came from. Admittedly, I'm just pissed because they're holding back and see no real reason for it. 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. . Don't wait til B&N goes the way of Borders! ;-) 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. I don't think this is very far fetched. Combine the genes responsible for hypertrichosis (http://en.wikipedia....rewolf_syndrome) with those responsible for gigantism, and, voila, Bigfoot! Maybe we have the alleles and this really is just an unlikely variant that originated from some sort of bottleneck? Who knows... Peace, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Yes, there are procedures for sequestration of results, but it seems that some in this thread who are familiar with the process have mentioned that it is not uncommon for scientists to present their findings at conferences and what not as long as they are not giving away the meat of their paper. No "repubtable" or "mainstream" conference would accept such a presentation at this point in time, and if she appeared at any conference that would accept it the Skeptics would be all over her case for presenting in an invalid forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 If you make something, using human DNA, is the resultant creature, by definition, human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) What do you mean Buzzard? Like cut and paste, only with genes, or are you talking about clonig? If it is clonig then it would be human, a combination of genes done artificially would be a chimera of both. Naturally occurring hybrids usually fall into the category of mosaicism of both from what I gather. Edited March 26, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 No "repubtable" or "mainstream" conference would accept such a presentation at this point in time, . . . John Bindernagle delivered a bigfoot presentation to the American Society of Mammalogists a few years ago, and that's as mainstream and reputable a group of relevant scientists as you could find anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I think he was also told he needed DNA to go further, as other scientists fought to hold back their incredulous smirks, if that was the same presentation I'm thinking of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts