Guest Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 No, because bigfoot would be extraordinary as opposed to finding a new salamander. An attitude that says more about the lack of intellectual integrity in the scientific institution than it does about the conclusiveness of the evidence (caveat: assuming the reported findings ARE the findings). ONE science standard for ALLclaims. THAT is scientific integrity. The Sagan Fallacy is the ultimate expression that institutional science is NOT objective. Maybe they had to wait for the entire genome to be sequenced? I wonder about that too, indiefoot. Or at least a really big, statistically significant chunk of it. That was my understanding as well, that after the mtDNA came back human/near human they had to do a full sequence which came back decidedly NON-human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Mulder, what makes you think the full sequence came back decidedly non-human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Southernyahoo- The Genomics Core "likes" to start to with 1 microgram of DNA, but they can go down to 50 nano grams. bipedalist- Sequencing of specific target genes in an unknown species might be a bit more tricky. I'd try to amplify the gene of interest using primers sets for closely related species and hope the sequences are sufficiently conserved that a product is generated. Select primers, order primers form commercial source, overnight delivery = 2 days PCR amplify target DNA and gel isolate product = 2 days Sequence target gene = 2 days If you were lucky with your primers and conditions, a little more than a week. Primers are cheap as are PCR reagents. You might also get some information from a whole genome sequence by looking for regions with sequences similar to your gene of interest. The hurdle to this method is knowing for sure that "gene" you're looking in the whole genomes sequence is truly the bona fide gene of interest and not a related gene or pseudogene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 31, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted July 31, 2012 Appreciate the thoughtful and comprehensive response GRUS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 An attitude that says more about the lack of intellectual integrity in the scientific institution than it does about the conclusiveness of the evidence (caveat: assuming the reported findings ARE the findings). ONE science standard for ALLclaims. THAT is scientific integrity. The Sagan Fallacy is the ultimate expression that institutional science is NOT objective. According to your idea of what a standard should be, I could emphatically insist that we have an extant living unicorn in North America just as easily as I could claim that we have sasquatch based on the same level of evidence for the existence of both creatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) You could. And that claim would be immediately discarded. If you could provide video evidence, audio evidence, thousands of eyewitness accounts, DNA (hair, blood, saliva, flesh), footprint casts, and had multiple labs doing extensive research into your evidence, then maybe it might be somewhere around even. I'm not saying any of this evidence has approached being conclusive, and no one is claiming it is proof. With Bigfoot there has been an established starting point. Unicorns. . . not so much. Edited July 31, 2012 by arizonabigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) - If this was debunked I never heard about it.Thousands of accounts throughout history are present, you might even get a few recent ones at the local bar at about closing time. There are casts of hoof prints in fields not occupied by other known animals with hooves. Strange whinneys have also been recorded in these same pastures and fields. I have a friend, who has a cousin,whose boyfriend works for a well known DNA lab. There is a story going around that a hunter shot a unicorn, cut the horn off as a trophy, and sent a piece of the hide for testing to this same lab. There is a rumor that a major study is in the works at this same lab but I'm under an NDA and can't speak further pending the results and release of the book about the unicorn slayer. There is my evidence, every bit as good as any sasquatch evidence I've ever read about or seen. Edited August 1, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Here is a photo of the horn that has been tucked away: http://www.flickr.com/photos/83943578@N05/7688021794/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Looks like ice to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 If you could provide video evidence, audio evidence, thousands of eyewitness accounts, DNA (hair, blood, saliva, flesh), footprint casts, and had multiple labs doing extensive research into your evidence, then maybe it might be somewhere around even. I'm not saying any of this evidence has approached being conclusive, and no one is claiming it is proof. With Bigfoot there has been an established starting point. Unicorns. . . not so much. That's what arizonabigfoot said. I thought it was reasonable. He even granted the fact that none of this is conclusive proof, mind you, but it is evidence. What you provided in your stubborn assertion that there is as much proof for unicorns as bigfoot is a ridiculous blob-corn (or is it uni-blob?) video that shows absolutely nothing and is an obvious fake; this does not compare to clear video that can ONLY be either a person in a costume or the real deal, and thus far an effective costume and method has not been produced. That's the piece of "evidence" you provided, and the rest is just an obvious attempt to mirror the current goings-on in the world of bigfoot, substituting your unicorn bs. Nobody is saying anything about the Sierra Kills story constituting proof, it's just an interesting story for those of us who ALREADY believe in it's existence due to the other EVIDENCE we have considered. Your talk of "strange whinneys" and the like are fairly offensive, as they are an obvious attempt to dismiss these claims and ridicule those who have made them. Nobody is asking you to believe anything; just don't be outwardly rude to those who do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I think there is a substantial difference between unicorn claims and Sasquatch claims. Grouping them together is nothing but an attempt to weaken the Sasquatch investigation/claim by associating it with something that has no valid comparison what so ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 And that was the point I was trying to make to Mulder who said that the standard should be equal regardless of the claims. You are responding exactly the way skeptics do to bigfoot evidence. I thought it was funny, it was meant to be a joke. I do not believe in the evidence for bigfoot thus far, when higher quality evidence is produced, I might change my assumption that sasquatch does not exist. I'm hurt that no one is impressed with my unicorn horn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I do not believe in the evidence for bigfoot thus far, when higher quality evidence is produced, I might change my assumption that sasquatch does not exist. And that is perfectly reasonable, however, your assertion that there is as much evidence for unicorns as for bigfoot is not reasonable. There as a great deal of evidence out there for bigfoot. It's not conclusive proof by any means, but it is evidence. For some people like myself, it's enough. For some people like yourself, it's not enough. Both reasonable positions. What is NOT reasonable is to assume any evidence is not real evidence, because the animal is known to not be real. That's bass-ackwards as they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) And so my unicorn evidence example should back that up, No? Also another point I was trying to make, who gets to see this evidence? I'm not seeing it, am I on the wrong forum? Edited August 1, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 IMO, in bogfoot research, what consitutes reasonable and conclusive evidence is often determined by the person or persons who find it or who's agenda is furthered the most by it. Maybe some one could provide an example to counter my statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts