Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 OK, but didn't she also state that there was non-human, non-ape and non-archaic-hominid DNA involved on the paternal side? Are they now attempting to allow this claim to subside, or to be otherwise obscured? I think I can clear this up: "non-human" = non Homo Sapiens Sapiens "non-ape" = hominid "non-archaic hominid" = no KNOWN archaic hominid. So the better way to put this would be: hybrid of human and new, previously undocumented species of near-human hominid ^^ could be a problem. Having been on the academic side in a previous life, it is easy to be put off by poor style/register and imprecision in expression. And I'm easy-going - there are some pretty tough-ass academics out there. And the long knives will be out and razor sharp for this one. Southern, So there's approx. 8 billion people on the earth and approx. a couple of hundred or thousand or tens of thousands complete genomes of this type have been done. So statistically we have sampled nothing, so what's more likley the findings are an unknown hominid or wacky DNA may be more common than we think? Complete human genomes? I need a link They would be human by some measure of similarity. The same measure that would be used to define any new species. Find that and you will find where the real statistics come in play. Cervelo is either not understanding or refusing to understand how gene sequences work. There are billions of people on the planet, true, but not one of them would ever show up genetically as anything less than purely 100% H Sapiens Sapiens regardless of race, gender or individual genetic mutations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I think I can clear this up: "non-human" = non Homo Sapiens Sapiens "non-ape" = hominid "non-archaic hominid" = no KNOWN archaic hominid. So the better way to put this would be: hybrid of human and new, previously undocumented species of near-human hominid Cervelo is either not understanding or refusing to understand how gene sequences work. There are billions of people on the planet, true, but not one of them would ever show up genetically as anything less than purely 100% H Sapiens Sapiens regardless of race, gender or individual genetic mutations. Bingo and well put Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I think I can clear this up: "non-human" = non Homo Sapiens Sapiens "non-ape" = hominid "non-archaic hominid" = no KNOWN archaic hominid. So the better way to put this would be: hybrid of human and new, previously undocumented species of near-human hominid I hate to say this, but for once I think Mulder is spot-on. ;P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) corrected* Edited November 25, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) All I'm saying guys is the study of DNA may not be as far along as one may think...and who knows what we will find as it matures. I think it's fascinating how some who rail against "science" have so much confidence in it at other times Edited November 25, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Bingo and well put I hate to say this, but for once I think Mulder is spot-on. ;P I actually made one mistake. It is customary when casually discussing hybrids to place the "dominant" contributor first. A "tigon" and a "liger", for example, are tiger/lion and lion/tiger expressions of a mating of the two, depending on whether the tiger or the lion traits are dominant. We (H Sapiens Sapiens) are generally, but slightly inaccurately described as a human/neanderthal hybrid (since we carry neaderthan genes, but they are not dominant). This new hybrid species therefore would be more accurately described as a "new hominid species/human hybrid", as the non-HSS genes are dominant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I think I can clear this up: "non-human" = non Homo Sapiens Sapiens "non-ape" = hominid "non-archaic hominid" = no KNOWN archaic hominid. So the better way to put this would be: hybrid of human and new, previously undocumented species of near-human hominid I hate to be a stickler here, but that is an assumption on your part. Sure, that could be the case, but that's not what the lady put in her press release. So, proof of the discovery of a previously unknown creature rests on the discovery of another possibly unknown creature? Brilliant! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 At this point the only thing left that determines the credibility of the paper is the list of people who peer-reviewed it. If she stacked the deck with non-credentialed scientists you can be sure this thing is gonna get torn apart in the media. And I wouldn't expect Erickson to associate any of his documentary with the article. To me this is game over with everyone looking silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 HSS is modern human. "Human" by itself has a much much greater range No, "hominid" has a greater range. "Human" is HSS (us) and ONLY us. All I'm saying guys is the study of DNA may not be as far along as one may think...and who knows what we will find as it matures. It's far enough along to show that what you said was 100% bogus, Cervelo. I think it's fascinating how some who rail against "science" have so much confidence in it at other times I've asked you repeatedly to accurately state my position. I have no problems with the scientific process properly applied. I have great problems with the institution of Science, and those who control it. Get. It. Right. I hate to be a stickler here, but that is an assumption on your part. Sure, that could be the case, but that's not what the lady put in her press release. It is an "assumption". I believe that is what she intended to say, but said poorly. So, proof of the discovery of a previously unknown creature rests on the discovery of another possibly unknown creature? Brilliant! It would certainly be ironic after a fashion. It also conveniently explains why previous attempts at putting together the "BF jigsaw puzzle" were incomplete; they didn't have all the pieces until now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I hate to be a stickler here, but that is an assumption on your part. Sure, that could be the case, but that's not what the lady put in her press release. Fair enough. She didn't put a whole lot of info into that press release. I do think it's the safest assumption to make, though. The other alternative I have read ("angel DNA") certainly seems more far-fetched to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) Mulder, Whats bogus about an opinion? Once again you dance around the rules to cast your insults but whatever works for you Edited November 25, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Her PR person posts as Robin Lynne Forest People ??? Wow ! Who is her accountant Gandolf the Grey ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I've asked you repeatedly to accurately state my position. I have no problems with the scientific process properly applied. I have great problems with the institution of Science, and those who control it. Get. It. Right. I share your sentiments, when science is combined with the political and determined by "the powers that be" then it really defies its own definition. I'm cautiously anticipating how all this gets spun.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So, proof of the discovery of a previously unknown creature rests on the discovery of another possibly unknown creature? Brilliant! It would certainly be ironic after a fashion. It also conveniently explains why previous attempts at putting together the "BF jigsaw puzzle" were incomplete; they didn't have all the pieces until now. Well, if that DNA is from an unknown creature, it appears that they still don't have all of the pieces, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 No, "hominid" has a greater range. "Human" is HSS (us) and ONLY us. It's a matter of definition. Semantically speaking, "homo" is the noun to the adjective "human". "Modern human" = "homo sapiens", "human" = could include "homo neanderthalensis" etc. "Hominid" is a synonym of "great ape", including gorillas, chimpanzees and orang-utans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HominidsAs I said, it is semantics: Some people use these terms differently than I just lined out. When Ketchum says "non-human DNA", I am sure that she MEANS "non-modern-human DNA", as you seem to think as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts