Guest slimwitless Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) Can someone explain again how we can classify a new species from a 40,000 year old finger bone but there's no way we can make any determination from relatively fresh samples of "tissue, blood and bone" (according to Paulides)? Edit to add: TimB, we must be on the same wavelength. Edited March 31, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun 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. Well said Jodie, and both sides need to take that to heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Mulder, I will default to you for the wordsmithing for your argument...... Apples and Oranges No precedent has ever been presented in the history of species identification for what the Ketchum project is attempting, that I'm aware of! It's been brought up by me and many others, it would be a historic and unprecedented for something of this magnitude to be accepted by anyone, (with the exception of those that know bigfoot is real or have already made up their minds) based on DNA alone! I would also suggest that our knowledge of DNA and its workings are still in diapers at this point so buyer beware! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Cervelo- could you please read my and Slim's post and respond? I believe that Desinova sets the precedent, doesn't it? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Ask Jodie I'll roll with whatever she's says! My position is this you got a bluebird and you find some that are a little different over on this island, but they mostly look and act the same. Then some evil scientist comes along with some new technology and deems it a sub-species and then another evil scientist shows up with some even cooler technology and deems it a new species! That's my take on it, heck maybe Devys Bigfoot who knows. The technology much less our understanding is in flux and will be for who knows how long. The whole hobbit thing is another perfect example they are still arguing over that and they have an almost complete skeleton. An 8' foot tall train jumping, cigarette smoking, Bigfoot buddy that hangs out in our backyards socializing with us in his spare time being proven and accepted as a new species on DNA alone could happen I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 If I can re-word what I think you are saying, Desinova isn't universally agreed upon, so it wouldn't be definitive. I could definitely agree with that. How do you feel about saying if there is a bone sample in the Ketchum paper, it's as valid as the Desinova and other hominim species identified using small bone fragments? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Tim, I would say not good enough because of the subject matter. If we knew Bigfoot as a species from previous discoveries in the past and now wanted to prove this a sub-species based on a finger bone that would work. Now if bigfoot is us and we are them that's where it gets tricky and I think that's exactly what the studies position is going to be. But as I've stated before Bigfoot bits and pieces will not work right out of the gate IMO got to have a body or really big piece head, hand or foot would do it for me and the evil scientist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 The Denisovan sample was acquired through meticulous collection on an archaeological dig with provenance established and a known fossil record in the area. I don't think its the same situation as claiming "Undiscovered extant ape/hominid species in North America". If the Denisovan finger bone had only been 200 years old, what do you think would have happened? I think it would have taken more sample and whole lot more research before anyone published anything about it making that claim. The results of the study, and if the bone was also one of those samples chosen for sequencing, would make a difference in whether they accepted it as a type specimen, I would think. Of course, all they have is Giganto teeth from chinese markets, and a couple of jaw bones, and they called it a species. I guess it all just depends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 In my humble opinion, it really is not as complicated as some may think. You have a specific DNA result, from a variety of samples collected in varies locations. Some you can prove a good chain of custody on, others may be a little more shaky, but they all come back with the same overall results. These results are unique enough,and hold enough consistency to claim a new species, or sub species. Its what makes them unique, in my mind, that will make the difference on scientific acceptance. If the testing is done in a thorough, and proper manor, then results are, what they are. No body is required,not even a picture, the DNA would be more than enough to prove the existence of another species or sub species out there. As for complete mapping, and all the other details, that is where it all begins, with the DNA evidence the critter exist, that is square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo 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. I remember Disotell saying that humans are quite variable, but if what you say is true then human Hss will be easier to rule out than Chimps. All animals have some range of variation, otherwise as Mike G. appropriately said, each species would be a group of clones. I think there is a number of comparative approaches that could be done with putative BF DNA. One could align long sequences of well studied loci among several great ape species including extinct hominids, then the closest of those could be further compared in whole genome sequencing, noting all the outliers each step of the way. Species ID seems to rely on a threshold where you fall in or outside what is known for that species,(read as a percent of similarity). I think it would be extremely unlikely that this study would redefine this threshold for the sake of keeping our collective heads in the sand. Yeah, leave it to bigfooters to find such unique samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) No, we don't have much genetic variation overall and probably would not survive as a species faced with another mass extinction event based on what I've read. It doesn't mean we are clones. http://science.kqed....etic-diversity/ From all of this you might have concluded that people are pretty different from each other. They aren't. People are surprisingly similar at a genetic level. For example, any two people from anywhere on Earth are more similar than two chimps from the same troop. Why are we all so alike? One possible explanation is that something in our collective past nearly wiped us all out. And we all come from the few survivors who were left. Regardless of whether his opinion is sound or not doesn't change the fact that we are pretty generic. Once again, here is an example of different opinions from different fields, one a professor of anthropology and the other a geneticist. You just have to pick which opinion you want to go with. Then you have this from the NIH that says we do within the species but not when compared with other species. It depends on how you want to look at it too. http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih1/genetic/guide/genetic_variation1.htm Homo sapiens is a relatively young species and has not had as much time to accumulate genetic variation as have the vast majority of species on earth, most of which predate humans by enormous expanses of time. Nonetheless, there is considerable genetic variation in our species. Edited March 31, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 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 can convict a person for murder w/o producing a body. It has happened. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95807&page=1#.T3eQ39khrgc You think science is not being honest because they dismiss claims of bigfoot? Yes, given the large amount of scientific evidence that supports the contention that there IS a bigfoot. If there was real evidence science would not dismiss it. Any scientist would LOVE such a discovery to take place. Circular reasoning fallacy. Science dismisses all the evidence proffered, even evidence that would be accepted on any other matter. Then it makes the statement that there is "no real evidence". Why? Because Science has dismissed it all. DNA does not spontaneously generate itself. DNA comes from a critter. DNA = critter. I'm going to KEEP saying it until everyone understands that irrefutable fact. And the DNA is just frosting the cake. We already have abundant evidence in the cast tracks and body impressions, forensically typed hairs, statistical analyses of reported data, etc. All of this is a matter of record. We would accept the testimony and expertise of Dr Meldrum, Swindler, Schaller, et al on any OTHER matter within their areas of expertise. BF should be no different. Anything else is massive "special pleading" and is a violation of true scientific objectivity. 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. It SHOULD embrace the DNA even absent a bone. DNA does not spontaneously generate itself. DNA comes from a critter. DNA = critter. Any so-called scientist who denies this is demonstrating intellectual bias and is not being honest. Mulder, I will default to you for the wordsmithing for your argument...... Apples and Oranges No precedent has ever been presented in the history of species identification for what the Ketchum project is attempting, that I'm aware of! It's been brought up by me and many others, it would be a historic and unprecedented for something of this magnitude to be accepted by anyone, (with the exception of those that know bigfoot is real or have already made up their minds) based on DNA alone! I would also suggest that our knowledge of DNA and its workings are still in diapers at this point so buyer beware! 1) It's good enough to send a man to prison for life or execute him. It's therefore more than good enough to establish the existence of a species. 2) The only reason it is "unprecedented" is because Science is not being objective. It would accept DNA results for any other critter...so why not bigfoot? Science responds: "Because BF is different." Classic special pleading, and blatant intellectual dishonesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Mulder, if Dr. Meldrum does not accept the results of the DNA study, how will your opinion be affected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) Right back at ya Mulder!! 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 (edited) Denisova has been described off a finger bone, or was it two? How is that different from a bone found in a stream, given that's the circumstance rumored at is correct? You can't have it both ways- either Denisova is on equal footing with a bone fragement with the same amount of bone matter or it's not. We aren't talking timeline, we are talking about species identification. Tim B. Edited to add- Gigantopithecus Blacki was described from a tooth found in a chinese apothecary shop. Can you show me the evidence trail there? Edited again to say- it is my opinion, thus my argument, that the subject matter has been proven to influence the acceptance of the scientific method on this very page in the recent discussion. Processes accepted for other Hominin ID without question are immediate qualified when applied to this paper. If you are looking for an example of the non-scientific dismissal of things linked to "bigfoot". I see little objectivity in the conversation above. Again- that's my opinion on the arguments presented. Edited April 1, 2012 by TimB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts