Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 From Bigfoot Report: LOL, You might as well get rocky and bull winkle to do a you tube video about the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 This may be of interest http://m.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/faq/#rejresub_faq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Why not do the same and send one to Sykes, double your pleasure! It would cost me about 600 bucks, but I could send it right through the front door of Oxford Ancestors. I'm waiting on more info to determine if it would actually work. The Unknown thing might come up, and it would seriously delay my results. I fear my paternal line might be jacked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) http://www.skeptic.c...rtalk/12/12/05/ Latest article on Ketcham...has links too. http://www.skeptic.c...rtalk/12/12/05/ Recent Disotell interview (Pod cast): Advance this clip about HALF WAY to get to the meat of this discussion. Topics in this episode The difference between Homin, Hominid and Homini (and Hominy) The perils of dictionary updates Science by press release v. peer review What can evolution do in 15,000 years? A primer on DNA Chimps, Neanderthal and how related we are to each other How plausible is this press release? hom·i·nin noun \ˈhä-mÉ™-nÉ™n, -ËŒnin\ Definition of HOMININ : any of a taxonomic tribe (Hominini) of hominids that includes recent humans together with extinct ancestral and related forms Origin of HOMININ New Latin Hominini, from Homin-, Homo + -ini, tribe suffix, from Latin -inus 1-ine First Known Use: 1989 hominin (Concise Encyclopedia) Any member of the zoological “tribe†Hominini (family Hominidae, order Primates), of which only one species exists today—Homo sapiens, or human beings. The term is used most often to refer to extinct members of the human lineage, some of which are now quite well known from fossil remains: Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthals), Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and various species of Australopithecus. In addition, many authorities place the genera Ardipithecus, Orrorin, and Kenyanthropus in Hominini. The primate group most closely related to Hominini today is Gorillini (the African apes), comprising the gorilla, the chimpanzee, and the bonobo. Gorillini and Hominini are part of the great ape family, Hominidae. Some characteristics that have distinguished hominins from other primates, living and extinct, are their erect posture, bipedal locomotion, larger brains, and behavioral characteristics such as specialized tool use and, in some cases, communication through language. hom·i·nid noun \ˈhä-mÉ™-nÉ™d, -ËŒnid\ Definition of HOMINID : any of a family (Hominidae) of erect bipedal primate mammals that includes recent humans together with extinct ancestral and related forms and in some recent classifications the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan Medical Definition of HOMINID : any bipedal primate mammal of the family Hominidae —hominidadjective hominid noun (Concise Encyclopedia) Any member of the zoological family Hominidae (order Primates), which consists of the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) as well as human beings. Formerly, only humans (with their extinct forebears) were categorized as hominids, and the great apes were categorized as pongids—that is, members of the primate family Pongidae. However, morphological and molecular studies now indicate that humans are closely related to chimpanzees, while gorillas are more distant and orangutans more distant still. As a result, it has become more common among zoologists to consider humans and great apes to be hominids. Has he seen the Ketchum report? Edited December 8, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 From Bigfoot Report: Ok boys and girls todays word of the day is Propa (cough) ganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I enjoy SNL so much more....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Melbaudian Slippage? That has a nice ring PNWsquatch, I like it. Lets see how many times I can work it into a post from this point forward. Edited December 8, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Has he seen the Ketchum report? Have you listened to the POD cast? (Start half way) LOL, You might as well get rocky and bull winkle to do a you tube video about the paper. He's not the only one in this vid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Picture, thousand words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Moderator Statement: Folks, some of you have been getting personal with your posts to each other. Please keep your comments directed at the topic, not other members! Thankyou in advance for your efforts. AaronD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Fair enough....I don't disagree. A jury is supposed to make a decision based on facts, without bias, or prejudice, too. There are smart people here, and there are also others. I wasn't throwing a blanket statement out towards everyone, and maybe I should've been a little more tactful in how it came out, but man....It's a never-ending semantical argument, at this point, about rumors, leaks, drama, some fact, some fiction, etc, etc. Trolls, devils advocates, believers, skeptics, laymen, experts, etc, all waging a semantical war with little facts, armed to the hilt with their individual biases, and opinions. All started and perpetuated because MK can't act like a professional. I still hope she comes through, but this whole debacle is a joke!(Which I will still be watching with great interest until the grand finale) She hasn't needed to say one word the whole time, but she can't help but dropping a Melbeudian slip every so often when things slow down, someone leaks something, or if ANYBODY says anything inaccurate about HER study. Then, armed with her word, we go calling out katz like Disotell, and state how biased he is, or we call out MK because she wears too much make-up, so her data's no good, or discounting science from other countries because they don't watch football. It's ridiculous sometimes, and that's all I was really saying. Agreed totally. My point was that there are plenty of folks here like myself that don't really attempt to argue a science they do not know, and as on a jury, will rely on the final evidence and how the experts parse it. All we can do until then is ask some questions along the way to help further educate ourselves on the science which will help us come the end game decipher just what we see, even though we have a basic working knowledge of the subject. Which will be important in this case as there seems to be many who do know the science that have already made up their mind and seem to have a biased approach, and I include both sides of the discussion in that. Sorry, y'all. Didn't mean to ruffle anyones feathers. As you were... No worries. No feathers ruffled here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Is there a dedicated group, conference, or commitee that actually gives new species its proper name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) I believe, in past, any new discovery was named after the discoverer. corrected for grammar by TM Edited December 8, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I believe, in past, any new discovery will be named after the discoverer. Typically the discoverer gets to name the species, but that is a general rule. I'm not sure of the details. GK Any analysis that a guy like Disotell performs, however, is burdened by that unanswered question. To objectively analyze evidence, he has to suspend either belief or disbelief. This is hard to do. Disotell has a track record of skepticism, and that's fine, but his beliefs are going to color his conclusions. It is also clear that he is a person who actively manages his public reputation, and his statements may be self-serving to the extent that they further what he wants people to think of him, and at this stage this likely skews things towards dismissiveness. Watch for a 180 when proof finally breaks, in whatever form that may take. I think in a practical sense it's virtually impossible for a Scientist who has not had some sort of personal experience with Bigfoot to get from A to Z on the subject. I think you almost have to be a semi-advocate in advance to be willing to put in the time. Most seem to to dismiss the subject fairly quickly (and sometimes quite glibly). It's very easy to come up with a roadblock-why no body? Fossil record? It's simply ridiculous etc . That stops them from really looking hard at the evidence acquired over the years and deciding to press forward. Ketchum has indicated that she was skeptical, and had tested hairs for possible BF in the past and they were always negative. I think Paulides' sample was the one that made her pause and consider that the stories and other evidence might be true. But they were already there for anybody to see. If any of these other people had decide to be even a little forward publicly about the subject, they would have been flooded with samples, some probably good and would have gone on from there. But their self-imposed barriers stopped them. Sykes seems the only exception. It's a sad testament to Human Nature that Bigfoot DNA was out there waiting to be analyzed, but instead all these guys and gals spent their time studying the fine points of Gibbon vs Siamang DNA or whatever. Not that what they were doing was worthy Science, but there was this elephant in the room they all missed. Pretty much almost deliberately ignored, really... BTW I always enjoy yr Posts, JDL. Your encounters are some of the most fascinating and well described of anybody on this board, GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 BTW I always enjoy yr Posts, JDL. Your encounters are some of the most fascinating and well described of anybody on this board, GK Isn't that the truth? JDL has a lot of good material to contribute and he has the ability to articulate quite well, IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts