Will Dna Species Documentation Be Like The 4 Min. Mile?

[bipedalist]

Proper references please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

[Guest slimwitless]

So Denisova team found a unique DNA sequence and discovered a new homonin.

You are claiming to to have found a unique DNA and therefore also discovered a new homonin.

If this is true, congratulations you found a new homonin (or an entire new species as you claim)! Up until this point what your team has done will be similar to what the Denisova team has accomplished. This is a possible scenario I have been agreeing with all along. However, that is where the line is drawn.

If you notice the Denisova team made no attempt to tie this new found homonin to any mythological creature. For example they didn't say this is the 4 foot hobbit of middle earth or the yellowed hair, blue eyed yeti of Siberia. In fact as we went over this before, they made no claim to say how it will exactly look. Why? Because that would require additional evidence.

To tie the your so called new species of homonin you found through DNA to Bigfoot, the 7 foot primate of the North, you will need additional evidence. So what if you have a hairy tissue sample? I know a number of people with a full set of hair and hairy thighs. It doesn't mean they are hairy from head to toe or that they are necessarily tall. Your hairy tissue sample better be attached to a 3 foot long femur if you want people to believe it came from a giant.

I understand that many Bigfooters would take this as "proof" that Bigfoot exists, as in their minds Bigfoot has been proven to exist to them long ago. However, the scientific community will have to ponder if "your new found homonin" will match the description of a giant hairy biped and hence could actually be the creature known as "Bigfoot" or will it look and be from a creature that is entirely different leaving Bigfooters in same position they have always been in. You are going to need a body to prove the existence of Bigfoot.

They may have said femur. Ketchum and Paulides talked about a large bone when discussing the various samples on a radio program last year. And really, if the DNA isn't from the bipedal creature leaving large footprints around the forests of North America (where I assume most samples originated) then where did it come from? A creature no one has ever reported seeing?

Unlike Denisova, we're talking about a hominid that coexists with homo sapiens in the present age. That would be a mind-blowing conclusion with fantastic implications. I really can't believe I'm reading about it here. I hope it's true.

[Guest nona]

Proper references please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

There I tried to change the spelling in my last post. Though with out the paper I don't know if what was supposedly found was either just a hominid or more specifically a homonid. I guess if it was just a hominid it could possibly still just be a creature that walks on all fours, instead of a homonid which would suggest it walks bipedally as other homonini do. It's a little besides the point in this discussion. Kind of like picking at hairs don't you think?

On another note, I see I will have to learn when to properly use the noun instead of the adjective.

Edited July 24, 2011 by nona

[Guest nona]

They may have said femur. Ketchum and Paulides talked about a large bone when discussing the various samples on a radio program last year. And really, if the DNA isn't from the bipedal creature leaving large footprints around the forests of North America (where I assume most samples originated) then where did it come from? A creature no one has ever reported seeing?

If one saw foot prints in their back yard it would seem logical to assume that it came from the occupants of the house. However, it is also possible they came from someone else such as an unsuccessful burglar or from a kid that may have threw his ball over the fence.

Besides that "Bigfoot" has yet to be scientifically accepted.

Unlike Denisova, we're talking about a hominid that coexists with homo sapiens in the present age. That would be a mind-blowing conclusion with fantastic implications. I really can't believe I'm reading about it here. I hope it's true.

I would agree that it would be "mind-blowing".

[bipedalist]

On another note, I see I will have to learn when to properly use the noun instead of the adjective.

Maybe so.

....as other homonini do. It's a little besides the point in this discussion. Kind of like picking at hairs don't you think?

Well if it fits with a confusing nomenclature and discussion style, no. Clarity of expression is science relevant, no? If you continually misrepresent in print (the correct nomenclature) or what it is you are talking about I'd say it's more like a lack of science. Even in your last post I have yet to find homonini well accepted....science is science is it not? If these are non-standard conventions used internationally, I'm certainly not seeing them in print often.

[southernyahoo]

So Denisova team found a unique DNA sequence and discovered a new homonin.

You are claiming to to have found a unique DNA and therefore also discovered a new hominin.

I'll be letting the published paper do the claiming, I haven't seen all the evidence and how the conclusions are reached. I'm just pointing out that bigfoot could be discovered in the same way as Denisova.

If this is true, congratulations you found a new homoinin (or an entire new species as you claim)! Up until this point what your team has done will be similar to what the Denisova team has accomplished. This is a possible scenario I have been agreeing with all along. However, that is where the line is drawn.

I can't accept any congratulations yet. If a new species is discovered I'll only have a very small part in it The team would be Dr. Ketchum and the assembled team of specialists, along with the major benefactors of the project and numerous other submitters of samples.

If you notice the Denisova team made no attempt to tie this new found hominin to any mythological creature. For example they didn't say this is the 4 foot hobbit of middle earth or the yellowed hair, blue eyed yeti of Siberia. In fact as we went over this before, they made no claim to say how it will exactly look. Why? Because that would require additional evidence.

Correct, A newly discovered hominid in our midst might simply take the place of the mythological one and under a different name. Additional evidence might later connect the two though.

To tie the your so called new species of hominin you found through DNA to Bigfoot, the 7 foot primate of the North, you will need additional evidence. So what if you have a hairy tissue sample? I know a number of people with a full set of hair and hairy thighs. It doesn't mean they are hairy from head to toe or that they are necessarily tall. Your hairy tissue sample better be attached to a 3 foot long femur if you want people to believe it came from a giant.

Again, no claims to giants. Though there are certain observations with some of the samples coupled with the lenght of the hair which can rule out the hairy thigh of a human in my opinion.

I understand that many Bigfooters would take this as "proof" that Bigfoot exists, as in their minds Bigfoot has been proven to exist to them long ago. However, the scientific community will have to ponder if "your new found hominin" will match the description of a giant hairy biped and hence could actually be the creature known as "Bigfoot" or will it look and be from a creature that is entirely different leaving Bigfooters in same position they have always been in. You are going to need a body to prove the existence of Bigfoot.

Yes I understand the bigfooters would consider it proof in some ways, definately a step in the right direction to have science taking it seriously. The thing is, if we have a new and hairy homind in our midst, what other homind could it be that has been witnessed other than bigfoot? What is it's name or do we even have a name for some other?

[Guest nona]

Maybe so.

Well if it fits with a confusing nomenclature and discussion style, no. Clarity of expression is science relevant, no? If you continually misrepresent in print (the correct nomenclature) or what it is you are talking about I'd say it's more like a lack of science. Even in your last post I have yet to find homonini well accepted....science is science is it not? If these are non-standard conventions used internationally, I'm certainly not seeing them in print often.

I was unaware that the discussions on this board will be reviewed academically by the international scientific community. Maybe you should put up a "sticky" (if that is the proper term) on what are the proper terms we are supposed to use in our discussions to meet such standards.

Seriously? Are you implying that a casual discussion between two simple Joes does not belong on this board? I believe many people would be disappointed. As for the scientific community I doubt scientists would even be so strict when talking among friends over a pint. There are many terms used to describe a thing depending on schooling and even culture. Some use old terms. Some use newer terms. Not all accepted terms you see or hear will be easily found in a Google search or on Wikipedia.

As for the lack of "clarity" in using a "non-international standard", I think if one can follow along with convention there is no real problem. Take for example the term ape. On this board you will see it being used as a broad definition to include humans as well and at other times not. Who is to say either use is more correct over the other, when both can be correct depending on the context of the discussion and which classification system they are going by.

In this discussion was the use of homonin or hominin so confusing that you could not follow? Personally I do not see how the use of one or the other would change the context of the discussion much. If it will maybe you can clarify as to what that significance would be?

If however, by some reason or the other an international standard use of terms is simply required by you when joining in on your discussions, I will take note of it and try to abide by it when that time comes.

By the way what would be the international standard nomenclature for Bigfoot? Yeti? Sasquatch? Apparently I will need to know this information for future reference.

[Guest nona]

Yes I understand the bigfooters would consider it proof in some ways, definately a step in the right direction to have science taking it seriously. The thing is, if we have a new and hairy homind in our midst, what other homind could it be that has been witnessed other than bigfoot? What is it's name or do we even have a name for some other?

That will be determined when the creature is finally caught. As for a name to this new "homonid" or "hominid" I guess it will be up to the discovering party to decide.

On a side note, I personally don't believe this project stands much of a chance but I do like to imagine and speculate on the possibility that if a creature such as Bigfoot did exist how would one go about proving it. Thanks for the discussion and good luck to you and your team.

[southernyahoo]

That will be determined when the creature is finally caught. As for a name to this new "homonid" or "hominid" I guess it will be up to the discovering party to decide.

I think we'll name it bigfoot, until someone proves it's not.

[Guest DWA]

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2011 at 9:29 PM, Guest said:

I wonder if, when BF is identified as a species with all of the DNA samples currently being examined (as we are being led to believed, based on the radio interviews, leaked info, etc.), if all of the sudden finding and observing BF for researchers will become as achievable as running the 4 minute mile was for athletes after the record was broken? It was once an impossible barrier, but once it was broken, athletes were consistently breaking that barrier. The same thing happened after the discovery of the gorilla, a species once discredited as fantasy. Once it was proven, Europeans were easily able to find them.

 

Count on it.

 

The reports indicate that this animal might be about as hard to track, once we're cognizant of them as a society, as known apes, or grizzly or polar bears.  And we are doing that.