Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 http://www.pnas.org/content/103/4/968.full.pdf http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2842 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC518999/ http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/ru-nbb021207.php http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/new-species-of-clouded-leopard-recognized/ And, again (and I will keep saying this until it sinks in) it is simple logic. DNA comes from tissue/blood/body fluids. Tissue/blood/body fluids come from a body. Therefore DNA comes from a body. Therefore if you have DNA, you have proof of a body from whence the DNA came. Mulder: those examples largely concern differentiating species or subspecies from specimens "on hand," not identifying previously unknown living species from trace evidence. Comparing apples and oranges, I think. In the case of Sas, there are no (or few "qualified") specimens on hand with which to compare, and (though I know that is hopefully what the Ketchum study is doing) there will be calls for more specimens from outside of the study, which leads inevitably down the type specimen/body path, I think. If there is a large chunk (limb) or a head floating about, then perhaps these are game changers...I get what you are saying, so no need to repeat - DNA comes from an animal and isn't manufactured - BUT I think BF is a special case, and convincing the mainstream will require some significant body parts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I get what you are saying, so no need to repeat - DNA comes from an animal and isn't manufactured - BUT I think BF is a special case, and convincing the mainstream will require some significant body parts... I give you props for the intellectual honesty to admit that you are submitting a "special pleading". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) I give you props for the intellectual honesty to admit that you are submitting a "special pleading". The way I see it, the recognition of a large previously unrecognized (and currently thought laughable, by most)homin/primate would be a pretty special case. My previous question still stands: What newly discovered currently living large animal species has lacked a type specimen at official recognition? That is the argument(alongside my "special case pleading" for BF) that makes me (unfortunately) think that science (being mostly skeptics) will clamor even more for a body on a slab after Ketchum's paper (IF the science is good and it is not ripped apart, which it should not be if it passed peer review)...Or maybe "I just don't get it..." Edit to add: Thank you for the compliment (I think)...I try to be pretty darn intellectually honest...I am not one to argue for the sake of argument or to not recognize logically sound and possibly valid points Edited November 6, 2011 by notgiganto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I get your point Mulder... with me the results would be enough, and I dont have any personal doubts myself but that's just me (more related to personal experience though). It's my belief that the majority of average folks may take an interest in reading about the results, and yes some would agree that when you put one and one together- the yield is "two". Maybe it can be looked at as a stepping stone of sorts- if at the very least it may trigger some more serious consideration from those within the scientific community, who've been so quick to dismiss the idea/entire subject as they have in the past. Some, whether they are being intellectually dishonest or not (wouldn't be a 1st afterall), will still hold out and insist it's not enough- and sadly their opinion will be valid to many people who either dont want to believe, or are holding out for the "body".... The "body" scenario just shuts them all up- for good, and that's why I think although some feel its unnecessary and cruel- that it's ultimately the only way to take the real "next step". -Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) The way I see it, the recognition of a large previously unrecognized (and currently thought laughable, by most)homin/primate would be a pretty special case. My previous question still stands: What newly discovered currently living large animal species has lacked a type specimen at official recognition? That is the argument(alongside my "special case pleading" for BF) that makes me (unfortunately) think that science (being mostly skeptics) will clamor even more for a body on a slab after Ketchum's paper (IF the science is good and it is not ripped apart, which it should not be if it passed peer review)...Or maybe "I just don't get it..." The cynical part of me suspects you might be right...and some of the Skeptics will still deny deny deny even IF the science is good. I don't see it as an issue of "has it been done before". I see it as an issue of "don't you trust your own processes"? Analogy: I have a hen house. Something breaks in and kills my hens and I want to know what it was. My only evidence is a bit of tissue found on a screw at the point of break in. If I had that sample DNA tested, and it was a "good sample" (not contaminated, not degraded, fully sequenced, etc) and the results came back "dog", or "cat", or even "human", you would be inclined to accept that finding. And you would be correct to do so. This same technology is admissible court evidence that can and has put people in prison or to death. It is reliable technology. But if the sample comes back "unknown/no match, but identifiable characteristics [insert]", NOW you start questioning the validity of the process and/or the sample. My question (to which no one has EVER been able to answer) is: what has changed? You had a "good sample" and a proven process. The ONLY difference is the result, which you are not comfortable with. Edit to add: Thank you for the compliment (I think)...I try to be pretty darn intellectually honest...I am not one to argue for the sake of argument or to not recognize logically sound and possibly valid points Which is more than I can say for some around here. The "body" scenario just shuts them all up- for good, and that's why I think although some feel its unnecessary and cruel- that it's ultimately the only way to take the real "next step". You have a point, Art...I don't like it, but you do have one. My response to those people who feel that way would be: why should we have to kill a living creature on account of your lack of intellectual consistency and integrity? What I see is their dishonesty passing a death sentence on a life that did not need to be taken. I thought we'd passed beyond that sort of barbarism. Edited November 6, 2011 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 So would it be fair to say that Patty didn't buy her genes off the 'rack'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) I get what you are saying now,too, Mulder. If DNA is good enough for Denisova, or whatnot, from small amounts of evidence, why not BF, if the science is good? The answer is, of course, there is bias against anything that was previously scoffed at, paradigm changing...in some ways that bias can be good (after all there have been some pretty good hoaxes that were not exposed for some time and became accepted by mainstream science, and resistance to evidence that points away from long held notions can fight that kind of thing)...Well, the answer is that it SHOULD be good enough so as to save a BF life. But, even if science decides it will spare one, I think someone else will kill, or someone possibly already has killed, one. If they are real and recognized, although elusive, there will be an awful lot more folks looking for them. Hordes of hunters around the nation will go looking once the paper hits the news. I don't foresee BFRO sized mobs roaming the countryside (j/k), but I think that there are a lot more of us than them, and even with their gifts, the odds are that one will be provided to science, whether science wants it or not, once more people start looking. Not arguing kill vs. no kill. I see it as an eventuality of scientific discovery, no matter whether or not the DNA is "good enough" not to require the specimen. Of course, it is all moot if they are not real, or if the paper is a flop... Edit to add, for pattywagon...<sad trombone>WAH WAH WAH WAAAAAAHHHHH... Edited November 6, 2011 by notgiganto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 In a year and a half from now we will not be discussing this topic. Ketchum's paper, if there is one, will be no more conclusive than the numerous blobsquatches we see on YouTube. Most scientist will look at the DNA and say it is simply a human being. She needs to produce the actual sample and it needs to be a recognizable body part like a finger, nail, skin, something that obviously could not come from a human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Like a hairy piece of flesh (with skin)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 In a year and a half from now we will not be discussing this topic. Ketchum's paper, if there is one, will be no more conclusive than the numerous blobsquatches we see on YouTube. Most scientist will look at the DNA and say it is simply a human being. She needs to produce the actual sample and it needs to be a recognizable body part like a finger, nail, skin, something that obviously could not come from a human. If the samples are just human, then they "are" conclusive. DNA can prove they aren't human as we know it also, which would be conclusively some other hominid or ape. If not any of the other apes but most closely related to those, then thats a conclusive result to explain the bigfoot phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 It will be interesting to see Radford squirm when this paper is published since it wont be just Ketchums word he would have to take. If the DNA is truely unique, it will be like a powerfull magnet that pulls scientists into a testing and retesting frenzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Is Radford a scientist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) The answer is, of course, there is bias against anything that was previously scoffed at, paradigm changing...in some ways that bias can be good (after all there have been some pretty good hoaxes that were not exposed for some time and became accepted by mainstream science, and resistance to evidence that points away from long held notions can fight that kind of thing) Bias is never good. Objective skepticism is entirely appropriate. Properly done, science has NO conclusion to support at the start of a study. It does the study and then goes where the evidence leads. Edit to add, for pattywagon...<sad trombone>WAH WAH WAH WAAAAAAHHHHH... "Wokka wokka wokka!" Edited November 7, 2011 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Anyone know of a situation where science has accepted the reality of a new species or subspecies without a significant type specimen (full skin or full body)? Why would BF be any different, if that has never happened? From ICZN... "Consequently new species can be described on the basis of DNA sequences, and while not mandatory, it is strongly recommended that the type specimen(s) from which the DNA was sequenced is preserved and deposited in a museum with a type label and data linking it to the sequence (for example a GenBank number)." So, again, are there any currently living large animal species that have been cataloged and classified after being newly discovered using only DNA, or nothing more than a small mass of tissue? To bring up a different aspect of this inquiry, after we have the DNA we will need a species to tie it to physically so could we then be able to have some possible BF bones in museums around the country tested?..How do/can we bring those bones into the equation? Those could work (if not too old or poorly stored?) unless a body is discovered, or a BF is killed somehow.If the bones test BF we would have something solid to tie the DNA too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 If it was truly sent to several independent labs and the findings all match and point to an unknown primate. I think that there will be very little problem convincing the science community that AT LEAST it deserves further study. IMO, (as I said on another thread) the biggest worry is that it comes back as human. Then all bets are off, folks will scream "contamination" and that's that. Not a thing will be gained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts