Guest Jodie Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Well there isn't much, a troop of chimpanzee's has more genetic variation than the entire human race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 It would be great if certain people actually read the papers I have shared, because at least one is a "positive" paper. In other news, there might not be any better illustration of the "moving the goal posts fallacy than this: "Journals won't publish Bigfoot papers!" (shown Bigfoot papers) "Journals won't publish positive Bigfoot papers!" (shown that too) Which does not change the fact they will not engage on the taxonomy paper, the track distribution paper, et al. Any honest scientist who engages ALL the evidence and science on offer can only conclude that there is at minimum a strong case in favor of BF. That Science has not so admitted (outside of "proponents", such as Meldrum) demonstrates unequivocally that it is biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) Mulder, Your argument would be (and often is in spite of) much more robust if you could find your way clear of terms like "honest", imply that someone is lying just doesn't makes sense in relation to this subject. Something like dismissive (as I am often) may be more what your trying to say? Edited March 31, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted March 31, 2012 Admin Share Posted March 31, 2012 Without a range, there could be no variation and we would all be clones. There has to be a range to allow for all the variations that define us as individuals, yet still human. Mike, I was talking about comparing primers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Oh, right..OK................I know nada about those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Mulder, Your argument would be (and often is in spite of) much more robust if you could find your way clear of terms like "honest", imply that someone is lying just doesn't makes sense in relation to this subject. Something like dismissive (as I am often) may be more what your trying to say? When a group sets a standard, then fails to evenly apply that standard, I consider that less than honest. I feel that the position of Science as an institution (no BF), and the claim of "lack of scientific evidence" in the face of the small mountain of such evidence that has been adduced over the last 40 years more than qualifies as self-serving intellectual dishonesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Okey dokey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) Mulder, the growth of "science" is a continuos process. Everyday the laws are being changed and improved for what we hope is the better. We are trying constantly to set new standards for what we hope is the better. It has been going on for quite a while. If I am reading you right, you would like to skip back to where we were at in the year 1247 on this topic. I'm trying to, but I'm more comfortable where we are right now as far as "science" goes. Hence this lengthy peer review process, instead of them just saying okey-dokey. ETA All of these things you always mention should not be about a scientific bias of claims. Nobody should care about claims. They should care about verification. Verification is what it is all about. Two completely different things. Edited March 31, 2012 by FuriousGeorge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Mike, All I was looking for was clarification of the definition as Mulder uses it. I think we all know what would rain down upon a skeptic if it was insinuated, however worded that one of the highly regarded scientist/researchers was being intellectually dishonest This study is nothing but an exercise in statistical probability wrapped up in some DNA mumbo jumbo which will most likley be panned by the evil scienctific intellectually dishonest empire, unless of course they plop the head, hand, foot or body beside it at the presentation, which would be awesome, but unlikley me thinks...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Ok, well you said that much better and more concisely than I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 This study is nothing but an exercise in statistical probability wrapped up in some DNA mumbo jumbo This is exactly the attitude I mean. DNA would be accepted in any court in the land to send someone to jail for life or the death penalty, experts like Tom Moore, Pinker, Dr Meldrum, et al would be fully granted the respect of their credentials IF we were talking about anything other than BF, or if they were "debunking" BF evidence. Yet because the findings (apparent in the case of Ketchum) and professional opinions support the case for BF, they are dismissed and otherwise ruled "not credible"... Why? If there is one standard, fairly applied, then Science should not care what conclusion they reach, so long as they followed the process (which they have). The fact that Science DOES care tells me that it is not being honest with itself, or with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Mulder: Its a completely different scenario to verifying someone being linked to a crime via DNA. Its an unknown species and there is/has never been a body. You think science is not being honest because they dismiss claims of bigfoot? If there was real evidence science would not dismiss it. Any scientist would LOVE such a discovery to take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Well Mulder, I don't think we count since we haven't read the report yet. Wait to condemn after it's been published and the legitimate opinions start pouring in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) Ok, well you said that much better and more concisely than I did. LOL you were just being nice about it Jodie (as always) Had to put it in Cervelo terms which I think might help some folks Edited March 31, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 If you accept the fact that there is a bone involved in this study, then this is exactly the same as the study that concluded that denisova- i.e. a previously unknown species verified by a bone fragment and DNA study. So as long as there's a bone involved and the DNA works out, "science" should embrace this study the same way, right? Or am I missing something? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts