Guest Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 We know DNA must come from a body...but to look ONLY at DNA without a morphological reference..is INFERIOR to having both. Perhaps a body would be better in the strictest technical sense (certainly easier to ascribe exact morphology to), but it is absolutely NOT needed to "prove the species", nor to place said species phylogenically. In fact, in the case of phylogeny, DNA is superior because it can show with great precision just how close an unknown is to known animal species. Nebulous sources like..*tissue extracts*...are not tantamount to having a body or identifiable body parts (macro like head..foot leg..etc) that were used as a DNA source. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I don't doubt there is dna, what my concern is the interpretation of the dna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Mulder, I give you an "A" for effort. You definitely put in the time. Good on ya. Now continuing the home building analogy.... could a reasonable claim be made that someone has dropped a stack of paper containing multiple plans and then picked them up, maybe intermixing some of the sheets belonging to different plans? Maybe the electrical schematic of one home has been mistakenly intermixed with HVAC diagrams for a different house? Wouldn't it be hard to tell since the plans are 98% alike? Is there a draft version and page number at the bottom of each page? And has the architect signed off any of the plans? I agree these details are pedantic but we have all seen the modified spec home that ended up being both ugly and non-functional. I am just having fun with you. Have a nice New Years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Mulder, me and you have banged heads in the past, but I have to tell you, your drive to make your point is fasinating. That, I admire. Even though, I may not agree with you on stuff most of the time. What I'm trying to say is, if there is no confirmed, BF dna on record, how can MK's study prove the existance of BF? Hope you and your loved ones have a safe/happy New Year my friend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 In support of Mulder and his untiring stint as DNA supporter. . . he's right, folks. Let's say you do find a Sasq body and present it to Science. The morphology is obviously unusual. The Press goes wild. You become famous, and maybe rich. But who's to say that it isn't a new species? Probably a fair number of scientists who could argue that it is a one-off freak of Homo sapiens (unless you've got about ten other bodies laying around to compare it to and establish that there is a population of these things). It took a while for mainstream science to come around to H. floresiensis as a separate species, and not all researchers are convinced even yet. What to do then? Look at the DNA, the final arbiter of the question (which they have tried, and so far failed, with H. floresiensis). That'll tell you, for absolute 100% sure, from the get go, that you have a new species (or hybrid or whatever) and where it goes in the ape/hominin phylogenetic tree. I don't think the body advocates realize that a single, full specimen wouldn't necessarily be the immediate slam dunk with Science that they imagine. It'd be more drawn out and, ultimately, have to rely on DNA analysis to convince everyone. Since bodies seem to be rare, but potential DNA sources fairly common, why not just cut to the chase and just do the DNA analysis, as several groups appear to be doing now? And, no, you don't need Sasq DNA in a gene library to compare the new DNA to see how similar they are. You compare the new DNA to humans, chimps and other known primates to see how different they are. That's the logic, and it is completely reasonable and more practical (since we don't know when a body will ever turn up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) What I'm trying to say is, if there is no confirmed, BF dna on record, how can MK's study prove the existance of BF? My answer to you is in multiple parts: 1) If a suspect sample is a valid DNA sample (no contamination, fully sequenced, etc), yet matches nothing on record, that in and of itself is prima facie evidence of a new species from whence the sample came. 2) Absent a "comparison sample", it is still absolutely possible to say what an "unknown" sample is genetically (x% similar to A, y% similar to B, etc). If it's "not known" and not BF, then what is it? Are you proposing that there is BF and some other as yet undocumented N American primate/hominid running around? Side Note: Thanks for all the holiday well wishes! Edited December 31, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 If you can prove the existance of an un-described primate that is closely related to hss, would Bigfoot be on the list of possible candidates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 What I'm trying to say is, if there is no confirmed, BF dna on record, how can MK's study prove the existance of BF? This question doesn't make a lot of sense. Someone would need to put it on record in the first place (i.e. make the "discovery"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 If you can prove the existance of an un-described primate that is closely related to hss, would Bigfoot be on the list of possible candidates? I would certainly think so. wickie, on 31 December 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:What I'm trying to say is, if there is no confirmed, BF dna on record, how can MK's study prove the existance of BF? This question doesn't make a lot of sense. Someone would need to put it on record in the first place (i.e. make the "discovery"). That's another good way of putting it. Invoking the "comparison" argument is circular reasoning because nothing is accepted as proof until the subject is already "proven" so as to have a point of comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 It seems like to me a lot of people are assuming these samples came from bigfoot/sasquatch without any confirmation other than someones word, or someone thought the sample might be from one. The problem is this: There is no way to verify WHERE the sample came from. With results that include modern human DNA some might insist that the samples simply came from a human donor that was not in genbank. With no way to verify each samples provenance, there is no way to say this "unidentified" sample came from a bigfoot. Especially so when the samples contain what has been claimed to be modern human DNA. Just because a sample is "unidentified primate" does not equate into bigfoot. It just means the sample could not be positively identified. Ketchum in my opinion is assuming sources of the samples or taking peoples words for it. She did not collect any of the samples, and cannot provide provenance for each of those samples. It might be different if you had video of a bigfoot getting hit by a car, and then taking a blood or tissue sample from that car. However, Ketchum has not provided any of the samples or any of the data to be analysed. She keeps claiming peer review, and other excuses as to why her data and samples cannot be released. It looks to me like a big media draw attempt, without providing any proof of the claims. How many years are you willing to wait to see "ketchums data/samples". In my opinion, she has nothing to gain by doing so, and likely the data and samples will never be released. If it ever is, it's game over for her claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I strongly suspect that many of the posts on the last couple of pages are nothing more than attempts to get Mulder to do his catchphrase. You lot on the sauce already? Happy New Year to the Ketchum thread hardcore x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 A Toast to the Ketchum Thread! HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I strongly suspect that many of the posts on the last couple of pages are nothing more than attempts to get Mulder to do his catchphrase. You lot on the sauce already? Happy New Year to the Ketchum thread hardcore x LOL! Mulder's a valueable asset here, even thou he comes off sounding like a Vulcan scientist. He's the man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 There has been statements made that there is accompanying video of the sample providers in question. Stand by, let me go through my files. Oh wait. . . um yeah. . . I don't have any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 It seems like to me a lot of people are assuming these samples came from bigfoot/sasquatch without any confirmation other than someones word, or someone thought the sample might be from one. The problem is this: There is no way to verify WHERE the sample came from. With results that include modern human DNA some might insist that the samples simply came from a human donor that was not in genbank. With no way to verify each samples provenance, there is no way to say this "unidentified" sample came from a bigfoot. Especially so when the samples contain what has been claimed to be modern human DNA. Just because a sample is "unidentified primate" does not equate into bigfoot. It just means the sample could not be positively identified. Ketchum in my opinion is assuming sources of the samples or taking peoples words for it. She did not collect any of the samples, and cannot provide provenance for each of those samples. It might be different if you had video of a bigfoot getting hit by a car, and then taking a blood or tissue sample from that car. However, Ketchum has not provided any of the samples or any of the data to be analysed. She keeps claiming peer review, and other excuses as to why her data and samples cannot be released. It looks to me like a big media draw attempt, without providing any proof of the claims. How many years are you willing to wait to see "ketchums data/samples". In my opinion, she has nothing to gain by doing so, and likely the data and samples will never be released. If it ever is, it's game over for her claims. Excellent points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts