ShadowBorn Posted November 25, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 25, 2012 Well, if that DNA is from an unknown creature, it appears that they still don't have all of the pieces, doesn't it? No ,it means they have found DNA belonging to an udiscovered creature that has crossed with human.They have found a new species and that is what the DNA is confirming. Anew species living in our back yards is not a bad thing since they now have a way of confirming a new species.That is what makes this DNA special to everyone and it should to the skeptics as well.Confirming evidence is what this study has led too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo 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... You may be missing an important component in the release..........to predict the outcome of future studies. You get your credit and credibility back that way. if you speak the truth, you own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So MK proponents are putting forth this. You are willing to accept MK's results. No problem with lack of peer review. No problem with going out of country to publish (online only?). No problem with Russian Scientist. No problem with the completely unorthodox process of research. No problem with yet another unknown DNA source that isn't Squatch and isn't us. Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 When and if it passes peer review...what's next? I feel like the fish who escaped into the harbor in Finding Nemo...yay we made it...now what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) Agreed Julio. But, I would rephrase it to "previously undiscovered" species. Thus the label "angel DNA".........likely pertains to newly discovered DNA. Edited November 25, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 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... Objective fact....where do you come up with this stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 When and if it passes peer review...what's next? I feel like the fish who escaped into the harbor in Finding Nemo...yay we made it...now what? Pets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Yes, and still waiting to see whatever supporting data may be included; videos and the like. Well whatever it is, keep in mind it will be a lot more than what was used to establish the past existence of Denisova. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Seeing what is going on now, I think that things that have been in the works are coming out. The Pres group reactivated, an article about DNA, in a simple, palatable form is on both FB pages. Maybe soon a main website...just sitting here waiting for what comes next. At least it is not boring here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 If they have the DNA, then it IS "discovered", See...why do you have a problem conceptually with that? Look - I've already stated that I understand that. However, I'm under the impression that the paternal DNA - at least in part - is unknown. I don't know about you, but I'd like to know what that undiscovered creature is. Sure you may have its DNA, but do you have something to compare it with? As I've said before, I know that DNA comes from a creature of some sort. That isn't the issue here, which is why I'm perplexed that you continue to allude to the fact that I have a problem with that concept. I don't. But you can bet your sweet hiney that there will be those like me that have questions that statements like "It's science. You wouldn't understand" just won't be good enough. We need to be able to not only produce quality additional evidence to accompany the DNA Ketchum has, but we should also be able to present evidence as to what the "unknown" is in the paternal DNA. Anything else will possibly (probably) be scoffed at. Science has a way of filling in gaps with hypothesis and theory, which is what this appears to be lining up to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So MK proponents are putting forth this. You are willing to accept MK's results. No problem with lack of peer review. No problem with going out of country to publish (online only?). No problem with Russian Scientist. No problem with the completely unorthodox process of research. No problem with yet another unknown DNA source that isn't Squatch and isn't us. Etc. Generalizing and putting words in peoples mouths, okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Well whatever it is, keep in mind it will be a lot more than what was used to establish the past existence of Denisova. Good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Since we only have sequenced DNA from Denisova and Neanderthal, it just means NOT them, but some other one. Cro Magnon? Or was he "human"? Gigantopithecus? One we have no fossils for? Could be anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So MK proponents are putting forth this. You are willing to accept MK's results. No problem with lack of peer review. No problem with going out of country to publish (online only?). No problem with Russian Scientist. No problem with the completely unorthodox process of research. No problem with yet another unknown DNA source that isn't Squatch and isn't us. Etc. I don't think you will see, find or publish anything refuting Dr. Ketchums findings about bigfoot DNA Woodswalker. So go use anyone you like, publish where you want, I won't be holding my breath.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Since we only have sequenced DNA from Denisova and Neanderthal, it just means NOT them, but some other one. Cro Magnon? Or was he "human"? Gigantopithecus? One we have no fossils for? Could be anything. Yep, that's it exactly. We have no proof of what it is and that should be good enough evidence for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts