southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) 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? Denisovan DNA was compared to all known hominid sequences and found to be unique, so now it is known. The same it will be for squatch. Denisovans is also called a genome in search of an archaeology. Edited November 25, 2012 by southernyahoo 2
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) Only the evidence hasn't been published yet, and already it seems to have been dismissed. Let me clear things up. She has produced NO evidence. Nothing, nada, not a single mention of the details. She has produced only claims. Claims that have not been backed up. Edited November 25, 2012 by rockiessquatching
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) I am surprised the Report made it this far, as I never expect it to get published at all. Maybe this is how it ends, with the correct data presented eventually, but bashed into oblivion by those who have issues with how and where it is presented. Make the data appear so unreliable, regardless of fact, that it isn't acceptable to most of the world. And disappears to be swept under the rug... Edited November 25, 2012 by madison5716
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Yep, that's it exactly. We have no proof of what it is and that should be good enough evidence for anyone. Here's the inescapable fact See........ It is extant, genus homo and not us 100% or any other known hominin from the fossil record to date.. The only thing that could fit inside those confines is the hairy hominid we know as bigfoot unless you want to dream up some other.
Guest VioletX Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 I am surprised the Report made it this far, as I never expect it to get published at all. Maybe this is how it ends, with the correct data presented eventually, but bashed into oblivion by those who have issues with how and where it is presented. Make the data appear so unreliable, regardless of fact, that it isn't acceptable to most of the world. And disappears to be swept under the rug... Uh huh, and that is no conspiracy theory, it could actually happen, but I still have hope the evidence will be irrefutable .
Guest Cervelo Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) That's what's so funny about this whole thing, nothing she has said is anything new but the reaction is astounding, same you know what different day, same arguments, same defenders of nothing....kinda like this Edited November 25, 2012 by Cervelo
Guest VioletX Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) Here is what I want to know. Where is the response from the Big guys of the Bigfoot world. Mostly silence, and not much negativity that I am aware of. Is everyone waiting with bated breath? Or maybe waiting for Sykes to rescue them ; ) Cervelo, I am not looking at that Groundhogs day video again, lol! Edited November 25, 2012 by VioletX
Guest Cervelo Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) V, Becuase nothing has changed Edited November 25, 2012 by Cervelo
Ronnie Bass Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 I will give skeptics of bigfoot credit for one thing, they are very apt at getting under the skin of those who believe.
Guest VioletX Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 V, Becuase nothing has changed Not yet
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Denisovan DNA was compared to all known hominid sequences and found to be unique, so now it is known. The same it will be for squatch. Denisovans is also called a genome in search of an archaeology. OK, I'll agree that the DNA is known. However - as I said in an earlier post - science seems to fill in the gaps, coming to grandeose conclusions that are accepted as fact and promoted as such by science. It appears that if you find DNA without a type specimen, all you need to do is name it and proceed to conclude whatever you'd like from a minimum amount of evidence. The Denisova DNA was extracted from a pinky finger, molar and a toe bone. Yet from this, we're supposed to believe that we can know where the creature came from, when it migrated, what it looked like, etc. This is the problem I have with this type of science, but at least in the case of Denisova we at least have a few fragments. To conclude that the unknown Bigfoot DNA is proof that a discovery of the animal's lineage has been determined is nonsense without finding - and thus presenting - the type specimen or a fragment thereof to compare it to. Scientists found a few bones from Denisova. Look at what's been speculated from those few bones. If science did this with those few bone fragments, isn't it fair to assume that they'll do the same with this unknown paternal DNA?
Guest Cervelo Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) Any time I "hear" from Mulder or Southern I know I'm on the right track Edited November 25, 2012 by Cervelo
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Here's the inescapable fact See........ It is extant, genus homo and not us 100% or any other known hominin from the fossil record to date.. The only thing that could fit inside those confines is the hairy hominid we know as bigfoot unless you want to dream up some other. Oh, brother. My problem isn't necessarily with the Bigfoot DNA, but with the unknown paternal DNA. I won't bother to dream up anything. The scientists will do that aplenty when attempting to classify the unknown paternal DNA.
Recommended Posts