Ronnie Bass Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So wait a minute, if the scientific community rejects her research despite her data being valid, its the believers who look bad because the other side is too yellow to accept her work because of the subject matter, that's what I'm hearing mostly. At least it's my take or at the very least a possibility. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) One I'm sure they will classify and have drawings of despite the fact it remains undiscovered, no doubt. Heck, I bet they'll also tell everyone how long ago it lived, what it ate, where it came from and many other "facts." Doctorates may even be awarded to students that present a thesis in Anthropology class as well. That might be good enough for you and others, but I'd like them to discover the creature and put it to rest. You are steering back to the body argument, which would still give you DNA unknown to science. Denisovan DNA was unknown to science until they sequenced it from a pinky bone. Same deal, except these samples are from an extant species. Edited November 25, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Here is my gloomiest prognostication. This study is published in a Russian journal, having exactly the effect See mentions above, very negative, and Sykes, having only tested mitochondrial DNA from hair, comes up with human typing...thereby essentially ending the potential Bigfoot renaissance we've been anticipating. But one hopes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 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/Hominids As 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. I agree that we seem to be thinking similarly. My argument with "homo" = "human" is one of precision. Declaring something "human" in the modern world has specific implications which is why the term is closely scrutinized and should be narrowly drawn. Would, for example Homo rudolfensis (which existed almost 2 million years ago), should one be found alive today, be considered a human (as we are), entitled to the full range of rights we assign to beings of that classification? This is the can of worms Ketchum is opening. Maybe it was inevitable. Her data could be valid but it wouldn't be surprising if the scientific community still wouldn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Precisely, which is why I decry Science (note the capital S, denoting the institution) as opposed to science (small s, denoting the process). Again, matter of defintion. Some consider this human, others consider that human. Just saying it's not as black-and-white as Mulder implies. It will have an impact, PN... A negative one. Might as well put it in a freezer in the bed of your pickup truck and drive it on down to Georgia, calling Tom Biscardi en route to hire him as your PR guy. I sincerely hope that isn't the case. So do I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Indeed CoGrizzly. You know he is watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So at this point the actual evidence doesn't matter anymore then, is that you are saying Rockies? Only the interpretation of said evidence as to its credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So, are you saying that they know what "unknown" creature the paternal DNA came from? These are the kinds of questions people will have unless they just believe everything they hear, which could be possible, I suppose. I say that falling back on an unidentified creature to fill in the gaps still leaves some pretty big gaps, IMO. See, there ARE no gaps, not any more, not with a full-sequence DNA chain. We can show PRECISELY what the non-human, non-ape gene sequences are. (Again with the caveat that the analysis holds up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Fair enough Mulder. Precision is key. Ketchum has probably misplaced hers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 One I'm sure they will classify and have drawings of despite the fact it remains undiscovered, no doubt. Heck, I bet they'll also tell everyone how long ago it lived, what it ate, where it came from and many other "facts." Doctorates may even be awarded to students that present a thesis in Anthropology class as well. That might be good enough for you and others, but I'd like them to discover the creature and put it to rest. If they have the DNA, then it IS "discovered", See...why do you have a problem conceptually with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Only the interpretation of said evidence as to its credibility. Only the evidence hasn't been published yet, and already it seems to have been dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Fair enough Mulder. Precision is key. Ketchum has probably misplaced hers... After all, she's only human... In all seriousness, people overlook precision in language all the time. We come to rely on "commonly accepted" definitions and when someone comes along and uses the precise definitions that are not necessarily the "common usage" it throws people off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 When your "opinion" is 100% factually wrong, it is not "throwing insults" to point it out. And that is your opinion and like certain body parts most have a bit stinky as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Only the interpretation of said evidence as to its credibility. What interpretation would you prefer? One that doesn't fit the data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Only the evidence hasn't been published yet, and already it seems to have been dismissed. Yes, and still waiting to see whatever supporting data may be included; videos and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 And that is your opinion Hardly. Objective fact is not "my opinion". All human beings will test out genetically AS human beings, and nothing else. Trying to dig holes in that fact to cast doubt on a non-human DNA finding smacks of desperation on your part. I'll ignore the rather pedestrian attempt at trolling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts