Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I have smelled a whiff of change in the last couple of months, the feral human and deformed human, Etc has seemed to work it's way around in different places,could be just coincidence cause of the talk about human DNA in the samples, perhaps this is the reason for thinking there is a change going from Ape to more man like. Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 ... Purely modern human DNA is not going to prove bigfoot to anyone. I bet you're wrong....I bet there are a whole lot of people who will be on board. We'll see. (I also take issue with the "simple to evolve," but that is another matter.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I have smelled a whiff of change in the last couple of months, the feral human and deformed human, Etc has seemed to work it's way around in different places,could be just coincidence cause of the talk about human DNA in the samples, perhaps this is the reason for thinking there is a change going from Ape to more man like. Tim ~ Well I believe there have been divergent descriptions in the facial features for some time. I don't understand the rub with all this human talk if these creatures split from us in the last few million years. Of course their DNA would come back human like, there would be no other creature who's profile would come closer to them than ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) Chimpanzees have been known to throw items. They also use sticks to make them selves appear larger and to gather ants. They also carry their young. They also build nests. well, you folks get your stories straight with the BFRO and Meldrum and Bindernagel and Krantz and the knowers and let me know what bigfoot is supposed to be; it's only been 400 years since the folks with the written history arrived here, which isn't much time, I realize, to get your stories straight. Am I wrong or are we already seeing the modern human characteristics "emphasized?" Edited December 11, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 well, you folks get your stories straight with the BFRO and Meldrum and Bindernagel and Krantz and the knowers and let me know what bigfoot is supposed to be; it's only been 400 years since the folks with the written history arrived here, which isn't much time, I realize, to get your stories straight. Am I wrong or are we already seeing the modern human characteristics "emphasized?" That's right we 'footers' obviously forgot we're supposed to think the same way about this issue at hand. I'm glad you showed up to get the herd back in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I bet you're wrong....I bet there are a whole lot of people who will be on board. We'll see. A whole lot of people who won't be taken seriously by a whole lot more people within the BF community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Thanks for the link. Yeah that is hardly jumping on the "bigfoot is human" bandwagon. well good for him if he doesn't; I hope he doesn't give in to the "humaners." But I bet he will. We shall see. That's right we 'footers' obviously forgot we're supposed to think the same way about this issue at hand. I'm glad you showed up to get the herd back in line. protect and serve.... "The grammer and spelling is terrible...." his efforts to lecture on DNA are comical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 SY, You are referring to the methods of science. Science as a generally accepted enterprise is a fairly new acquisition in the history of thought. I'm thinking of such "Great Minds" as George Berkeley, who argued for metaphysical idealism, itself questionable, and became a big advocate for the medicinal use of tar water, or much further back, Plato, considered by many as the greatest mind ever, even though most of the intelligentsia today ignore his "Platonic" theory of forms. My original point expanded: Over the years, Bigfoot phenomena have been almost exclusively disseminated by Bigfoot believers (and largely ignored by everyone else). It cannot be denied that once something is believed, sincerely believed, that belief is less open to objective reflection or criticism. I'll use myself as an example. When I was a young guy, I not only believed in Bigfoot, I believed in Nessie as well. When I first saw the Lachlan Stuart Nessie photo in a book I was excited: Stuart said the photo represented the animal he saw --- end of story for me --- I believed. Didn't think to doubt it. No reason to -- Nessie did exist --- I believed. As to sasquatch, my point is that the Bigfoot story is almost solely nurtured and promulgated by believers, and the phenomena really is in need of fumigation by interested, relevant scientific disciplines. The Bigfoot story seems to be driving off the cliff nowadays, as this example shows: http://treepeekers.w...this-obsession/ As to the Ketchum paper, we will have to wait and see what it has to offer, of course. My speculation based on all I've read:: 1. The report will not suggest the DNA results are 100% human. 2. It will locate what it perceives is a genetic variation that is consistent in its samples and not consistent with human DNA in the GenBank. 3. This genetic variation is large enough to rule out homo sapiens sapiens and close enough to declare it a member of the family of homo sapiens. 4. Eyewitness accounts and morphology of samples will be used to bolster the case for the DNA not originating from modern humans.. Thanks, On the matter of belief, perhaps some know, and logicly , once someone knows through personal experience, there's not much science can do to change that. For the life of me, I don't understand how some people can't recognize that as the main perpetuating mechanism. Without the persistent witnesses , and occasional compelling pieces of evidence, nobody would be investigatiing this, and no fumagation would ever take place, or likely be needed. Thumbs up on the bolded part. That best fits my speculation as well, but accompanied with Ericksons videos, which I haven't seen. I'm in the cautiously optimistic camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Agreed. I think jerrywayne's speculation best fits everything I've heard so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 ]so by your definition you and I would be divergent? no. If every SNP defined a new species there would be 7 billion just amongst us upright bipedals. You're way over-reaching on what constitutes divergence. Us modern humans differ by a half dozen on average, and sometimes by a couple dozen. "Amassing SNP's"? what does that mean? I think you just made that up. Amirite? Because Ketchum has never said anything about that amirite? We might be divergent, we don't agree on much.... but seriously, if your hypothesis is that Ketchum has a bunch human samples, then you could say that she would be assembling alot of the SNP's to ID the various haplogroups, and perhaps find new SNP's in areas of the genome that are well studied in primates/ humans.This might be why Paulides feels that there is a future in the study of these samples regarding medicine and disease susceptability. Having modern human mtDNA is presumptive evidence of being a modern human. Unless you think that bigfoot is some sort of hybrid between a what? 11 foot 900 pound monster furball with 36 inch feet; and human ? women? "I had Enormousfoot's baby and called it bigfoot?". And no enormousfoot females are involved in this? It just doesn't make sense. imo. All the hominids we have DNA for seems to have interbred with us, maybe Paabo will help you make sense of it when the paper is published and maybe presumption has been the mistake regarding suspected bigfoot DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Honestly, if you are using Stubstad's and Paulides as your sole sources, I think both of these guys have either misunderstood what they were told or didn't understand what they were looking at. There is no way that a species with human mtDNA can not be a human. And human DNA isn't going to convince anyone that bigfoot is out there, Parn is right about that. But according to Stubstad, the samples he analyzed weren't used in the study. So obviously those samples were some kind of misinterpreted human DNA. However, that doesn't explain the 28 samples (this # is just an unverified rumor) out of 150+ samples that were submitted as coming back with something unique enough that they were subsequently sequenced. What they turn out to be remains to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 well, you folks get your stories straight with the BFRO and Meldrum and Bindernagel and Krantz and the knowers and let me know what bigfoot is supposed to be; Hi Parn It ain't going to happen brother, in a nut shell to many well described sightings mixed with too many fabricated and outer worldly sightings has left a big stain covering up the picture. Throw it in with the fact that this BF community ( shrug ) is so divided within it's self, no one knows what BF might be cause no one can agree, so it's everything until one from each area of the country or world get's bagged, that ain't going to happen so like so many have to, pick your favorite and stick with that. Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 11, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 11, 2011 Honestly, if you are using Stubstad's and Paulides as your sole sources, I think both of these guys have either misunderstood what they were told or didn't understand what they were looking at. I agree with this portion of the posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Throw it in with the fact that this BF community ( shrug ) is so divided within it's self, no one knows what BF might be cause no one can agree, so it's everything until one from each area of the country or world get's bagged, that ain't going to happen so like so many have to, pick your favorite and stick with that. This isn't unique to the BF community. Sit 10 physicists in a room and probably half of them will tell you that String theory is BS because it's not testable. The other half will divide on which variation of string theory is valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Good to see we are not alone but sad on the other hand, anyway ya look at it we all lose with so much misinformation. Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts