Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Mulder is right, the DNA would be that evidence, that "piece " of body. DNA of a living unknown hominid, or primate even, in North America, is proof. To argue about it, is simply an argument against what to name it. If you don't accept it as proof, then that becomes a personal problem, not a scientific problem. I think you're right. Once something becomes scientifically proven it's then part of science. Until proven otherwise I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I think you're right. Once something becomes scientifically proven it's then part of science. Until proven otherwise I guess. I think that I can agree with that statement!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 What is limiting about proving bigfoot the same way all the other species have been proven? If bigfoots are real, then there is no reason one couldn't be about to embark on a new career as a Peterbuilt hood ornament right about . . . now. There's no reason it couldn't, but that's not a requirement for BF to be real. If one were to have reports and pictures of bears in a certain area, and upon investigation bear tracks were found, and bear hairs found, only the most irrationally obstinate Skeptic would deny that there is a good case for bears being in that area. No reasonable person would dismiss that evidence However, reports and pictures of uncatalogued bipedal primates, along with the supporting evidence of uncatalogued bipedal primate tracks, and hairs forensically identified as being those of an uncatalogued primate are routinely dismissed out of hand as proving nothing about the presence of an uncatalogued bipedal primate in the area. You say we should have the same standard for BF as any other animal...I agree. We should, and we have met that standard. We need to move past the "prove that they exist" nonsense. We've done that to any reasonable standard (which ought to tell you something about the standards of Science as an institution). Put in legal terms, a competent attorney with access to full resources could certainly prove BF to a civil standard of evidence (preponderance of the evidence), and a really good attorney would have a very good chance to prove it to a criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt). We need to move to the next phase of full documentation of the species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 In response to whether she's been bothered by the media: "There has been a lot of producers, etc., but I have turned them all down. There have also been a handful of media but I am not giving interviews. I am SO glad that they are mostly leaving me alone!!!! All eyes are on Oxford since they jumped out with a press release...SO glad they did, let them deal with the media!!!" https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/457633610915427?comment_id=5881245&offset=0&total_comments=1 In response to whether she's been to the Kentucky site (to see the Erickson bigfoots): "No, not there." https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/457384297607025?comment_id=5879061&offset=0&total_comments=4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 You don't need science to prove bigfoot. You just need a truck, a well-placed bullet, a person asking "Hey what's that?" when their shovel knocks into a rather large femur, etc. Ketchum et al. are apparently using science to try to prove bigfoot. That's fine too, but unless the samples they're working with actually came from bigfoots - and they can prove that - then there's no getting "almost there." It's not like mountain gorillas or okapis or saolas were "almost proven" and then the science advanced to the point at which they were. There shouldn't be anything else that we'd need to learn how to do to prove bigfoot. We'd just need a piece of a bigfoot and application of techniques that science has already developed. Relative to this study and the results, I've heard nothing indicating that it is "almost a new hominin". So, I don't know why you say this. It's simply a matter of how the results will ultimately be published, ie; major journal or some other media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 You say we should have the same standard for BF as any other animal...I agree. We should, and we have met that standard. We need to move past the "prove that they exist" nonsense. These are truly epic statements, Mulder. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 ........... Put in legal terms, a competent attorney with access to full resources could certainly prove BF to a civil standard of evidence (preponderance of the evidence), and a really good attorney would have a very good chance to prove it to a criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt). We need to move to the next phase of full documentation of the species. The courtroom is a stage; "justice" is the goal. DNA has overturned many a criminal conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 These are truly epic statements, Mulder. Thank you. They are epically accurate statements. As I stated, the current body of BF evidence would be sufficient to establish the existence and presence of any other animal in a particular location. Intellectual honesty demands that it be sufficent to establish the existence and presence of an as-yet uncatelogued bipedal primate. The courtroom is a stage; "justice" is the goal. DNA has overturned many a criminal conviction. And many a criminal conviction has been obtained absent DNA. People have even been convicted of murder without a body. So what is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) Saskeptic says... "You don't need science to prove bigfoot." I say you do, because even a body would have to be declared a bigfoot by science, and not before they sequenced a great deal of DNA to be doggone sure of that fact. Edited June 18, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Dude, if I shot a bigfoot today and hauled its smelly hide into my lab, I'd publish a paper on it and name a new species from it. (Mulder thinks this has already been done, apparently.) Yes, I would publish that paper in a scientific journal and hope that the ICZN (a body of scientists) would accept my proposed nomenclature. I would not, however, have to do any science in this process; my work could be entirely descriptive. Discovery is not inherently scientific. Some have written that a potential benefit of Ketchum's analysis would be that it "advances the science," e.g., a result that came back as "unknown" would somehow help us be better able to discover bigfoot at some point in the future. I disagree; there is no incremental progress to be made in "bigfoot science." If Ketchum's DNA analysis can prove that there's a bigfoot - and hypothetically it can - then that's it: there's a bigfoot. If Ketchum's analysis cannot do that, then it will ultimately be irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Last I checked, laymen don't do taxonomy, phylogenetic placement or binomial classification and naming, so my statement stands. Whether you have a body, or drool we still have to have this.... The relevant science needed to address the potential reality of bigfoot is that sufficient to warrant the naming of a new species. New species don't get named and properly placed within phylogeny without DNA anymore. If you had a body, it had better not look "human" at all or you'd be needing that DNA done pronto. Official recognition will advance the science applied to the other evidence at hand. Existence would just be the begining. It surprises me you wouldn't go straight to "Nature" with your paper, I mean Henry G. would just eat that up wouldn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Dude, if I shot a bigfoot today and hauled its smelly hide into my lab, I'd publish a paper on it and name a new species from it. (Mulder thinks this has already been done, apparently.) The shooting and hauling, not established yet, but the paper actually has been published, by Dr Meldrum based on track morphology. Not that it would change anything if he hadn't published the paper. Publishing a paper says nothing about whether or not something exists. Only in the realm of institutional Science do people have the arrogant assumption that they and they alone decree things into and out of existence by their acceptance or denial. Yes, I would publish that paper in a scientific journal and hope that the ICZN (a body of scientists) would accept my proposed nomenclature. I would not, however, have to do any science in this process; my work could be entirely descriptive. Discovery is not inherently scientific.Some have written that a potential benefit of Ketchum's analysis would be that it "advances the science," e.g., a result that came back as "unknown" would somehow help us be better able to discover bigfoot at some point in the future. I disagree; there is no incremental progress to be made in "bigfoot science." If Ketchum's DNA analysis can prove that there's a bigfoot - and hypothetically it can - then that's it: there's a bigfoot. If Ketchum's analysis cannot do that, then it will ultimately be irrelevant. Only in your binary yes/no, on/off narrow view of how science is done. Even if somehow the paper fails to become stand-alone definitive proof, any significant finding pointing towards the probability of an uncatalogued primate native to NA still becomes a valid piece of evidence buttressing the already substantial existing body of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 It surprises me you wouldn't go straight to "Nature" with your paper, I mean Henry G. would just eat that up wouldn't he? What are you talking about? I would go straight to Nature or Science with such a hypothetical paper. My point is, however, that I wouldn't need to do any actual science to prove the reality of bigfoot in that paper. The paper could be entirely descriptive. Also, new species get described all the time without publication of their genomes. "Laymen" can and do publish discoveries of new species. I think where you're getting hung up is in the difference between discovery (an event) and science (a process). There is much science invested in, for example, developing treatments for cancers. Scientific advancements in cancer treatments have helped increase the survivorship rates for certain cancers. That's an example of progress in science. Compare that to the discovery of a new species, say saola. There was no actual process of science involved in the discovery of that species. It was simply a matter of biologists visiting the place where the animals lived, obtaining pieces of said animals, and publishing a descriptive paper making the case that it was a new species. The hypothetical description of bigfoot (sorry Mulder, this has not actually happened as of 18 June 2012) will be a scenario like the saola, not like the cancer research example. There's no such thing as "getting closer" to proving bigfoot, there's only proving bigfoot and not proving bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 And many a criminal conviction has been obtained absent DNA. People have even been convicted of murder without a body. So what is your point? Each of the criminal convictions eventually reversed by DNA was a case 'proven' beyond a reasonable doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 What are you talking about? I would go straight to Nature or Science with such a hypothetical paper. My point is, however, that I wouldn't need to do any actual science to prove the reality of bigfoot in that paper. The paper could be entirely descriptive. How would you go about determining what species this is? It's hypothetical, but it's a start on the description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts