hiflier Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 (edited) 39 minutes ago, MIB said: I don't think so. Science comes in compartments. Among those there is "definitely" the ability to do the needed technical work. Unfortunately, that's not the whole picture. One compartment can present all it wants but until another accepts the validity of what has been presented, the lid remains firmly in place. Science seems perfectly ok with the idea of dead-end near-us lineages in the past. Science does not seem ok with something "us-like" still existing today. Fair or not, proving bigfoot is a much heavier "lift" than proving yet-another long dead cousin. Talking about it is easy. Being negative is easy. Coming up with reasons why it won't happen is easy. But none of that get the job done now does it. Try the other shoe and come up with solutions instead for a change and things around here could be quite different. You're a Moderator. Top of the pile. How about something positive. Push back getting old and completely non-productive. It doesn't surprise me at all but shifting dialoge 180 degrees would be a step in the right direction. Edited August 4, 2023 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 31 minutes ago, MIB said: .........Science seems perfectly ok with the idea of dead-end near-us lineages in the past. Science does not seem ok with something "us-like" still existing today. Fair or not, proving bigfoot is a much heavier "lift" than proving yet-another long dead cousin. Thus an illustration of the current crisis throughout Science, just like every other aspect of human endeavor: ideology. For example: the past 164 years since Darwin's first major publication without a single recovered recognized sasquatch carcass proves the difficulty of acquiring one. Norse above claims that we actually need two; one male, and one female. I disagree. It is clearly easier to find two different scientific bodies who can identify a single sasquatch carcass as either sex. In fact, I suggest that you will find such groups willing to sue to be entitled to claim the gender to fit their ideology. "Fair" has absolutely nothing to do with Science. Obviously, neither does gender. There are way too many ideologies regarding the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man to allow easy evolution. Ancient bones allow for vivid imaginations. A fresh, stinking carcass does not, unless it's involving its gender. The evolution of Science will only come with great pain and struggle, if it comes at all. This requires investment, and few have enough motivation to invest in such a market. As a guy who spends quite a bit of time in the field with a rifle and skinning knife, I sure don't care enough to invest anything into the fray. I'm packing right now for yet another bear hunt. If I see a sasquatch in the berry patch minding his own business, I'm going to let him eat his fill in peace, and I'll let y'all know about it. I really don't care who believes me or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 1 hour ago, Huntster said: Thus an illustration of the current crisis throughout Science Is that a rollover? Or better yet, an excuse for a rollover? Accept it and do nothing? Something everyone should just do? I posted those two articles on cave DNA for a reason. Why doesn't anyone take the ball and discuss what's actually in those articles? Because if anyone did then a question that should have popped out is how did science know that the Denisovan pinky finger bone belonged to a young girl? Don't tell me I'm the only one who wanted to know the answer to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 An article by the Matt Moneymaker (BFRO) on The team that Darby Orcutt (a BFF member) has put together at North Carolina State University: https://www.bfro.net/news/hair_DNA_project.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 6 hours ago, Huntster said: What's the difference when it cones to taxonomic identification? If they can identify a human species and gender from a 50,000 year old sliver of finger bone, they should be able to do likewise with a finger chopped off of a living hand two weeks prior to submission. Unless, of course, they don't want to............ If the animal is a living species they require type specimens. If the animal is extinct they dont. Why? My guess would be that if its possible to have two complete specimens representing the species? Thats what they demand. And if they have a couple of bones from a extinct species? They are loosey goosey with the handshakes and back slaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 2 hours ago, hiflier said: ........Is that a rollover? ........ Yup. Quote ........Or better yet, an excuse for a rollover?....... Better yet, it sure is. Quote .........Accept it and do nothing?......... Pretty much. Quote .......Something everyone should just do?........ Certainly not. Everybody marches to their own drumbeat. Want to prove the existence of sasquatches? By all means, be my guest, and good luck to you. Quote ........I posted those two articles on cave DNA for a reason. Why doesn't anyone take the ball and discuss what's actually in those articles? Because if anyone did then a question that should have popped out is how did science know that the Denisovan pinky finger bone belonged to a young girl? Don't tell me I'm the only one who wanted to know the answer to that. Dude, I've been asking that very question, among so many more regarding that fossil, for yaers. If you get an answer, please post it. I'd love to hear that story. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 2 hours ago, hiflier said: An article by the Matt Moneymaker (BFRO) on The team that Darby Orcutt (a BFF member) has put together at North Carolina State University: https://www.bfro.net/news/hair_DNA_project.asp From the article: Quote .........Hopefully you can attend the Smoky Mt Bigfoot Conference on July 22, where I can introduce you to my new hero. I will be handing over the mic to him for most of my scheduled talk at the SMB Conference.......... So who is our new hero? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 7 minutes ago, Huntster said: Dude, I've been asking that very question, among so many more regarding that fossil, for yaers. If you get an answer, please post it. I'd love to hear that story. Because scientists were able to collect the holy grail of that 50,000 year old ancient DNA: Nuclear DNA (Hint: it was in the article). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 26 minutes ago, norseman said: If the animal is a living species they require type specimens. If the animal is extinct they dont. Why? My guess would be that if its possible to have two complete specimens representing the species? Thats what they demand. And if they have a couple of bones from a extinct species? They are loosey goosey with the handshakes and back slaps? My guess is that they really like free license to their vivid imaginations regarding stuff nobody can prove, and they demand near impossible things from the potential realities that pose danger to those imaginations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Huntster said: From the article: So who is our new hero? None other than our very own Darby Orcutt himself And if I was Cindy Dosen of the Olympic Project I would sens a bpiece of every hair sample I had that supposedly sourced from a Sasquatch- including what was found within the Washington nest materials. Edited August 4, 2023 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, hiflier said: Because scientists were able to collect the holy grail of that 50,000 year old ancient DNA: Nuclear DNA (Hint: it was in the article). How did nuclear dna reveal the gender of the 50,000 year dead former finger owner, and why can it not ascertain the gender of collegiate swimmers that are currently still alive? 4 minutes ago, hiflier said: None other than our very own Darby Orcutt himself What university is now conducting research into sasquatch dna, and how/why is that going to be any more successful than Sykes studies (plural). Edited August 4, 2023 by Huntster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Huntster said: How did nuclear dna reveal the gender of the 50,000 year dead former finger owner Because nuclear DNA contains the x and y chromosomes. 8 minutes ago, Huntster said: What university is now conducting research into sasquatch dna, and how/why is that going to be any more successful than Sykes studies (plural). It's been said on this Forum already many times which university he is affiliated with: North Carolina State University. The second part of your question is an easy one. Success would only be achieved if hair or other genetic material actually came from a Sasquatch. The answer to the UNASKED question as far as the Sasquatch DNA goes? Is yes, there is a difference. Otherwise? Why even bother looking Edited August 4, 2023 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 (edited) 48 minutes ago, norseman said: If the animal is a living species they require type specimens. If the animal is extinct they dont. Why? My guess would be that if its possible to have two complete specimens representing the species? Thats what they demand. Only if it's legal. DNA can make it legal. After that, science will collect the specimens as they so desire. But then, you already knew this, right? However, if for some strange reason you didn't already know after all this time? You do now. There are laws. Edited August 4, 2023 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 (edited) 10 minutes ago, hiflier said: .........The answer to the UNASKED question as far as the Sasquatch DNA goes? Is yes, there is a difference. Otherwise? Why even bother looking If so, then Norse is correct: You need two different samples to produce the same..........."difference", or Science will simply throw up the same, tired excuses about "not repeatable" or some such denial. 3 minutes ago, hiflier said: Only if it's legal. DNA can make it legal. After that, science will collect the specimens as they so desire........... What makes THAT legal? Edited August 4, 2023 by Huntster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 4, 2023 Share Posted August 4, 2023 (edited) See my post above. But initially, a representative of the species is all that would be needed. And it also depends on whether a species contains a lot of variations, not just dimorphism, as to making a decision of how many specimens to collect of a certain species. Edited August 4, 2023 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts