We may soon have definitive proof of the existence of another bipedal homonid. A paper detailing the study of over 100 DNA samples of alleged bigfoot is now under peer review, and if published, will finally put this mystery under real scientific scrutiny.
http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/11/ first-bigfoot-dna-peer-review-results.html
He wanted my mothers cookies. When she was little she claims, as do two of her sisters, that they saw big foot at their door behind my grandmother, when they lived out in a feild. They swear it up and down and my grandmother agrees to the story aswell, having been the one to shut the door and grab a gun.
| |
Well, in all seriousness, I do agree that big foot exists. I've watched numerous documentaries and shows about big foot and a couple were quite convincing. I don't remember if it was a show or documentary but there were 2-3 witnesses that reported (something that looked like big foot) throwing a giant rock or boulder at their car while they were driving at night and another instance where someone actually fired at it with a rifle(i think it was a BB gun) and apparently they injured it and found a clearing in the bush to where it ran. Anyway, wouldn't be surprised if they catch it soon. There's too much evidence floating around to not at least be a little interested in it.
| |
While this is certainly an interesting subject, I'm going to call this a hoax until the evidence is confirmed as legitimate. While I could accept the possibility that yetis (the name I call them) exist, I just don't understand how they could escape detection for what would have to be at least tens of thousands of years. I simply ask where are the bones? What makes this strange is that their DNA is supposedly very close to ours. So, why have we not seen evidence of these things in the fossil record? Also, people surely would have spotted these things in ancient times as well, when they would likely have had a higher population than today, so where is the archaeological evidence?
Putting aside the lack of evidence here, I would say the best place to look for yetis is in Siberia, since that's where the name seems to be coming from (likely from local legends), and it happens to be one the least inhabited areas of the world. I would actually be surprised if they didn't find any new creatures there. Anyway, it just doesn't add up that these yetis/bigfoot/sasquatches would have DNA so similar to ours, and at the same time, seem to have only appeared recently. Given that much, I would think that something has to be getting fabricated here. That would be either the evidence or perhaps even the creature itself. I certainly hope we are not dealing with a fabricated creature; a result of secret genetic experimentation. If there are people who can splice genes together at such levels, it could turn lots of things we think we know about zoology on its head. Well, while we are on the subject, what do you think of the loch ness monster? Could it also be another extremely endangered creature waiting to be proven? It definitely has lots of fossil evidence from prehistoric times. I still don't really believe in it though. I think most of the pictures are just logs or something that floated up out of the water. | |
I've lived in the woods up here for some months, and I know that I could have disappeared completely into the bush, if I was willing to give up all human contact. There are a ton of people out there who do just that (hermits, hippies, gorilla growers and crazy ELFs, just to name a few), but you'd never find them unless they wanted you to, or if they walked out to the roads. The forests are huge, and if a person could hide out, I see no reason Bigfoot couldn't.
I think people's assumptions about them being primitive animals isn't correct. Early humans and neanderthals both buried their dead. A bipedal hominid would likely more closely resemble our early ancestors than jungle apes, and most likely behave similarly. As for the fossil record, we'd need definitive fossil evidence to link a modern living relative to ancient species, and without any bones, we're left to speculate origins. It is interesting to note that homo sapiens and their ancestors, homo erectus, shared this planet with many bipedal hominids in the not-so-distance past. That fossil record is still incomplete, and I see no reason to dismiss the possibility of an undiscovered species. Remember those "hobbits" they discovered back in 2003? It only makes sense that a bipedal hominid would share much of our DNA, given the way evolution works. After all, we're 90% or so, identical to the great apes at the genetic level. Anyways, these creatures are not exactly undiscovered. Thousands of people claim to have seen them, if only briefly. There's hair, footprints, and video evidence that make a compelling argument. Ancient native American tribes have plenty of stories about their harry brothers in the woods. I doubt Tonto was hoaxing his tribe back then. In addition, we're still discovering new species of animals all the time. Sure, most are small and easily overlooked, or live in places modern humans don't frequent, but we're far from stating that we've cataloged all known life on this planet. Nessy and Champ are most likely sturgeon, a common fish. There's not much space for a large aquatic creature to live, let alone a breeding population. It would be neat if we did find a modern relative to an ancient dinosaur lurking in the deep, but I don't see it as likely. | |
Xooxer wrote:
We may soon have definitive proof of the existence of another bipedal homonid. A paper detailing the study of over 100 DNA samples of alleged bigfoot is now under peer review, and if published, will finally put this mystery under real scientific scrutiny. As someone who has submitted numerous papers to peer-reviewed academic journals, as far as I can tell, the article is not under peer review. Having a peer review your paper (or in this case some researchers recognizing the work) is not the same as being accepted in a peer-reviewed journal. A peer-reviewed paper has numerous well-known, qualified researchers anonymously read the paper and provide harsh criticism on the methodology and data analysis. The paper is then sent back to the author to rewrite with the chance of not being accepted (pretty large chance depending on the impact factor of the journal). A press release was sent out and from there speculation started. In fact, that can cause bias during the peer-review process. The title of the post you linked is an attempt at irony but it really just caused more confusion than anything if you read the comments. For what it's worth, I'm not arguing about whether or not there is a bipedal hominid living in the wild because it is definitely possible. Furthermore, the questions that the Professor from Midwestern University asked are similar to the questions I would ask regarding the methodology. By the way, good to hear from you Xoox, glad you've made it out of the forest. | |
I know the article I linked to says the title is supposed to be ironic, but the work in question is actually being reviewed by a peer group. Yes, she will have to publish her work if it passes, but this point is still further along the road than we've seen.
And who says I'm out of the woods? ;P ~X | |
The paper has been peer reviewed, passed and published. Bigfoot exists, and it's either a human hybrid, or mutated descendent. The mitochondrial DNA is human, this is the DNA found in hair. The nuclear DNA is a mix of human and an unknown hominid source. The Bigfoot species split from the human species around 13,000 years ago, making it a modern human species.
They're us, sort of. The journal is selling a special edition featuring Melba's paper, which you can access via the link below. Fret not, penniless paupers, Dr. Ketchum assures us the paper will be freely available soon. http://www.denovojournal.com/#!special-issue/crrc Now, considering the implications... How do you suppose we should proceed? These people aren't like any other human tribe we've encountered before. It's clear that world governments will have to take a position. I can only see two possible outcomes. Either we set aside a reserve for them to live in, or we eradicate them from the planet. I don't see us giving up prime timber resources, or the Bigfoot staying put without constant enforcement. It's sad, but I think Melba's work will likely lead to the demise of the Bigfoot. | |
Honestly, I really don't know what to make out of it. I'm not going to pay $30 dollars to buy it to review the methodology and determine validity. In fact, an article that said they did purchase it and it was "a mess". They listed the techniques and I agree that there are definitely some fundamental flaws. http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/ bigfoot-genome-paper-conclusively-proves-that-sasquatch-is-r eal/
Also, the journal website looks like a sham. The article is a "special" release which is the justification for charging $30 dollars on a typically free, open access journal. I'm calling BS. The journal is volume 1, issue 1. I don't trust a new journal stating they peer reviewed an article that just so happens to be alleging they found a new hominid species along with shady science practice. I'm not trying to shoot down your beliefs, I'm just very skeptical. | |
Xooxer wrote:
How do you suppose we should proceed? These people aren't like any other human tribe we've encountered before. It's clear that world governments will have to take a position. I can only see two possible outcomes. Either we set aside a reserve for them to live in, or we eradicate them from the planet. I don't see us giving up prime timber resources, or the Bigfoot staying put without constant enforcement. It's sad, but I think Melba's work will likely lead to the demise of the Bigfoot. the bigfeet seem to be doing a good job staying put, considering nobody has ever captured one or even found their remains constant enforcement seems unnecessary considering the lack of bigfeet in populated areas and the lack of public knowledge of such creatures existing I'm going to have to agree with Kalzar and Ars Technica on this one. I still don't see real evidence of Bigfoot. We need independent verification of the supposed DNA evidence at the very least. | |
Kalzar wrote:
In fact, an article that said they did purchase it and it was "a mess". To correct you, since you're making it sound like the paper itself is a mess, the article you linked to stated that, and I quote: "As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess." Meaning the author doesn't understand the results. This is fine, since I don't think anyone understands what's going on the the nuclear sequences. They listed the techniques and I agree that there are definitely some fundamental flaws. Now you're just putting words in their mouth. Again, I quote your own reference: "The team used fairly standard forensic techniques on these items: minimize contamination, gather the DNA of those who collected the samples, then ship everything out to contract facilities for analysis, with a large variety of tests being performed." Also, the journal website looks like a sham. The article is a "special" release which is the justification for charging $30 dollars on a typically free, open access journal. First off, if, as you imply, this is a new journal, what basis do you have to claim it is "a typically free, open access journal."? Your two statements contradict each other. If you mean to say that most science journals are free, I would highly disagree. Here's a nice little article detailing some of the average costs for subscriptions to scientific journals. http://scienceblogs.com/digitalbio/2012/01/09/ how-much-does-it-cost-to-get-a/ But, to address the "newness" you mention, according to Melba, this journal was set to publish her paper when, at the last minute, the paper's editor was given an ultimatum by the journal's lawyer. The journal backed out, so Melba arranged to buy the journal outright, revamped the website and went ahead with the scheduled publication. You can listen to Dr. Ketchum explain this herself in a radio show interview recently conducted. The following link has a youTube video of the entire interview. The pertinent explanation can be found at time mark 6:58. http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/ketchum-c2c-4/ I'm not trying to shoot down your beliefs, I'm just very skeptical. No, you seem to be rather biased, as I have pointed out above. As far as beliefs go, it doesn't even enter into it. This is a scientific study which was peer reviewed, available for validation to those who wish to, and in every way outside the realm of belief. You can believe what you like, but I, as always, present facts and pose questions. | |
Warlord Fred wrote:
the bigfeet seem to be Now just a second here. Before we get too far along, the plural of Bigfoot is Bigfoot. Like the plural of moose is moose. In fact, it's a proper name, like David or Jim. Just stick to Bigfoot. the [Bigfoot] seem to be doing a good job staying put, considering nobody has ever captured one or even found their remains Except for those people who claim to have. Captured one and found remains, I mean. I won't get into it here, but you can Google up the relevant stories. And no, they don't seem to be staying put, considering sightings have been reported in every state except Hawaii. constant enforcement seems unnecessary considering the lack of [Bigfoot] in populated areas and the lack of public knowledge of such creatures existing Certainly you won't see a Bigfoot strolling down Park Ave, but they don't stay away from populated areas. Again, you can Google the relevant claims yourself. The problems will arise, not when we recognize their existence, but when lawmakers and politicians attempt to control their populations, either through habitat sequestration, or mass murder. I'm going to have to agree with Kalzar and Ars Technica on this one. Yes, it does feel safer in that boat, doesn't it? Never mind that a scientist has just proven you wrong. I still don't see real evidence of Bigfoot. No, I don't suppose someone who already has their mind set would be open to persuasion, no matter what the source. I would wager that even with remains and a captured specimen, you would still claim they were either a hoax or a one-off mutant. We need independent verification of the supposed DNA evidence at the very least. Well duh. That's happening as we type. It shouldn't be long before multiple sources of validation are presented. To be honest, I don't expect anyone on BYOND to take this seriously. You've all proven to be quite set in your own beliefs, and no amount of evidence, however compelling, will ever convince you that you're wrong. Maybe it's a programmer thing, or maybe I've just overestimated the intelligence of this community. Either way, I don't care. I'm presenting the facts as they are. | |
Very interesting OP
| |
Xooxer wrote:
Kalzar wrote: I was agreeing with the paper. The paper and the methodology is a mess. Until there is overwhelming evidence, the most logical, simplest choice is most likely correct. Occam's razor. The quote you are referring to is what researchers do in an ideal world. It is way more likely, there was human contamination especially after reading this: "As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess. Sometimes the tests picked up human DNA. Other times, they didn't. Sometimes the tests failed entirely. The products of the DNA amplifications performed on the samples look about like what you'd expect when the reaction didn't amplify the intended sequence. And electron micrographs of the DNA isolated from these samples show patches of double- and single-stranded DNA intermixed. This is what you might expect if two distantly related species had their DNA mixed—the protein-coding sequences would hybridize, and the intervening sections wouldn't. All of this suggests modern human DNA intermingled with some other contaminant. The authors' description of the sequence suggests that it's human DNA interspersed with sequence from some other primate—hence the interbreeding idea. But the best way to analyze this would be to isolate the individual segments of non-human DNA and see what species those best align with. If the authors have done that, they don't say. They also don't mention how long the typical segment of non-human DNA is. Assuming interbreeding took place as the authors surmise, these segments should be quite long, since there hasn't been that much time to recombine. The fact that the authors don't mention this at all is pretty problematic." Let's just forget for a second about the possibility of bigfoot, but instead imagine if the hair they found were human campers and maybe other samples had some chimpanzee DNA. If the DNA was contaminated, it would not properly assay nor amplify. Regarding the results and the mess, I'll explain it simply. The nuclear genome analysis should return with unique DNA. Instead, in some samples modern human DNA was found. "But Kalzar, it's a hybrid! Of course there will be human DNA". There should be no modern human DNA in the analysis because DNA replicates, mutates, degrades, parts are lost or changed through generations, and especially over the course of thousands of years. When we run DNA comparison's for chimpanzees, one of our closest related species, the difference in the genome from duplications and deletions is 2.7%, however, when analyzed it's obviously not human DNA. Now, as the Ars Technica article mentioned, if interbreeding is the hypothesis for the modern human DNA occurring, for human DNA to be identified, it has to be a very large sequence embedded in bigfoot DNA because not enough time would have passed from interbreeding to the present day to recombine but Ars Technica said the author didn't touch on that. Now, the most overwhelming evidence for contamination is in the DNA amplification. The way PCR works is you dump a low concentration of DNA along with a particular sequence in the DNA you're attempting to amplify, then throw in some proteins to make it polymerase and replicate. As this goes on, the DNA should become individual helixes, in this case, the DNA becomes single and double stranded hybrid complexes. That means that some of the DNA isn't like the rest which means there was a contamination and the similar parts are binding interspersed with areas of with no complementation. The DNA from similar species, have some areas that are similar (a lot of the same proteins are found in both humans and chimps) but there large areas called introns which will be different and they won't hybridize together in the PCR. Also, the journal website looks like a sham. The article is a "special" release which is the justification for charging $30 dollars on a typically free, open access journal. She has irreproducible results so she wasn't going to be published and therefore bought her own journal to publish herself. I'm curious who did her own peer review, it's the editor of the journal job to designate people to review it. I simply don't understand why she is charging $30 dollars for a special edition. I have never seen any reputable journals do that before. Edit: Thinking about it now, I realize that journals do charge for individuals articles, however, if you emailed the author asking for a copy of their article they usually comply because they want to spread their work and have people read it. That's the weird part about this paper. She's charging money for people to read her work. As you pointed out, she owns the journal, so it's not some big business stepping on the little guy, it's directly her. Just seems fishy to me. I'm not trying to shoot down your beliefs, I'm just very skeptical. Carl Sagan said it best, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Until results are reproduced, this study will be taken with a grain of salt because of the faulty methodology and trainwreck of results I want to believe, but I also believe in science. | |
The journal was purchased after the peer review was passed, precisely because she didn't want to lose the review. She'd been through too many already, and didn't want to wait another 5 years to publish.
You can get free access to the paper and supplemental files if you can present a press pass. This isn't the only DNA study being conducted. Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes is currently conducting DNA analysis of hair samples. I don't know what qualifies as 'overwhelming' to you, but it seems like thousands of years of repeated reports with common descriptions and details, numerous footprints showing consistent and expected physical features, hair samples of unknown origin, compelling video, audio, photographs and 3 whole genomes should suffice. So, let me get this straight. Dr. Melba Ketchum spent the last 5 years ruining her career studying something that doesn't exist, somehow creates fabricated DNA sequences which she then sent to the best labs and universities to have analyzed at her own expense and buys a scientific journal out of pocket just so she could sell a few articles for $30 a pop? | |
Xooxer wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Dr. Melba Ketchum spent the last 5 years ruining her career studying something that doesn't exist, somehow creates fabricated DNA sequences which she then sent to the best labs and universities to have analyzed at her own expense and buys a scientific journal out of pocket just so she could sell a few articles for $30 a pop? I'm not saying that she doesn't believe it's true, I'm saying the scientific world will not take it seriously because there are too many confounds and holes in the methodology and results thus destroying any credibility and validity. | |
I hate to be the one to point this out, but the number of land-dwelling mammalian megafauna discovered in the last twenty five years is somewhere in the handful of dozens. The majority of these megafauna were only discovered because they were so strikingly similar to another species that without new scientific techniques (comparative genetics), we were not able to distinguish them.
Very few new mammals were discovered, just the desciption of the species become more clear to exclude similar mammals. For instance, African elephants have now been split into two species, the savannah dwelling variety, and the forest-dwellers. Island inhabiting sloths and island-inhabiting lemurs as well have been very prolifically studied and thus redescribed as well. The vast majority of "crypto-zoologists" do very little actual scientific research, and it is in their benefit that they do not, because the majority of claims of evidence for "sasquatch", "skunk apes", and "bigfoot" claims exposed to scientific scrutiny have been deemed either deliberate hoaxes, or lacking sufficient evidence to either be validated or specifically denied. Look at it this way, if there were any real evidence of a lost race of bipedal hominids still surviving today, do you think there would be any shortage of funding for an effort to investigate it? Do you think that there would be any zoologist (not crypto) not clamoring to make the single largest discovery in the entire history of modern science? I don't just doubt that it's valid. I think the evidence shows quite clearly that either 1) The phenomena known as "bigfoot" is demonstrably a hoax that has entered the mainstream fancy, as demonstrated by this map of a small number of the more "credible" bigfoot sightings in North America: http://penn.freeservers.com/bigfootmaps/ In addition, the application of Occam's Razor leads us to ask: "What's the simplest explanation"? If this creature is so wide-ranging as we are led to believe, and it has a population large enough to cover that amount of land, with human technology, why do we not have a shred of credible peer reviewed evidence, and why is there such a ubiquity of deliberately manufactured false evidence instead? Obviously, we must accept that the vast majority of the above mapped claims are most likely either deliberately invented, or invented by the fancies of the human imagination. However, can we say that any of the above claims are true? If the majority of the claims are false, how then, can we begin to distinguish even the slightest basis for claiming that we have any proof at all, when we cannot even do more than just say: "Well, you either believe, or you don't." There may yet be quite a large number of species left in the world to discover, but I doubt very much that we will find another living bipedal Hominid --especially in North America, as there has never been any credible evidence for apes or hominids other than homo sapiens in North or South America. So, to try to explain "Sasquatch" by stating that they are a mutant offshoot diverging after 13,000 years (This happening would completely unscrew our understanding of evolutionary biology), or by stating that they interbred with another species of hominid, we actually increase the burden of proof of the bigfoot mythos. By pinpointing the emergence of this species to 13,000 years ago, this paper almost certainly falls flat on its face as a self-misrepresenting hoax with no credible scientific evidence whatsoever, because if they were a different species of hominid living in North America, how can we explain the astounding lack of fossil evidence ANYWHERE, given their apparently vast ranging of territory, and the unusual propensity for bipedal hominids contemporary to those periods to leave nearly-intact fossil evidence due to burial practices? Xoox, I love ya buddy, but I can't go with you on this one. | |
Kalzar wrote:
I'm not saying that she doesn't believe it's true, I'm saying the scientific world will not take it seriously because there are too many confounds and holes in the methodology and results thus destroying any credibility and validity. You mean, the scientific community will never take it seriously, period. You keep claiming the methodology is faulty, but you also claim not to have read the paper. You do realize that Dr. Ketchum didn't do any of the DNA analysis herself, right? She went out of her way to send the samples to numerous labs and universities and waited for their results, which she gathered and compiled. If you're questioning the methodology of every lab and university she hired for DNA sequencing, you're basically claiming that the entire U.S. scientific world is incapable of doing real science. You probably aren't aware that one lab refused to let her have their results once they discovered her study's topic. They even went so far as to refuse payment from her, so they wouldn't be bound to release their data to her. How is that unbiased? How is it that anonymous reviewers can shut down a study based solely on it's premise? You have no idea the trouble Melba had to go through to get that one unbiased review. I suggest listening to her radio interviews. | |
Ter13 wrote:
I hate to be the one to point this out You can lie to yourself, but you can't lie to me. , but the number of land-dwelling mammalian megafauna discovered in the last twenty five years is somewhere in the handful of dozens. What you are referring to are, and I'd hate to even use the term, lesser creatures. The apes we've recently discovered weren't intelligent enough to avoid detection, nor even seemed to care. Bigfoot is characterized by it's mysterious ability to hide and avoid contact with humans. The majority of these megafauna were only discovered because they were so strikingly similar to another species that without new scientific techniques (comparative genetics), we were not able to distinguish them. Ah, so when it applies to discovering new non hominid species, it's "new scientific techniques", but when applied to DNA that is claimed to have derived from Bigfoot, it's "messy", "faulty methodology", and "bad science." Double standard much? Very few new mammals were discovered, So that seals the deal on discovering anything new, right? Oh, how logical. "Well Bob, we've been looking for months and haven't found a single undiscovered species, I guess evolution stopped making new things. Let's go home and watch T.V. instead." The vast majority of "crypto-zoologists" do very little actual scientific research Now hold on. Before you toss this Straw Man up and get down to beating him, you should be aware that Dr. Ketchum is not a cryptozoologist. She's a forensic geneticist specializing in animal DNA analysis. , and it is in their benefit that they do not, because the majority of claims of evidence for "sasquatch", "skunk apes", and "bigfoot" claims exposed to scientific scrutiny have been deemed either deliberate hoaxes, or lacking sufficient evidence to either be validated or specifically denied. Um, could you point out this majority, because I don't see it. Actually, I don't see any real scientific inquiry, aside from the occasional hair sample tests, which have always come back as human. Look at it this way, Honestly, why should I? Why is it me that has to alter his perceptions? Why can't you people, and I use that int he most derogatory way I can, look at it this way instead? Oh, right. I forget, you can't. Some skeptics. if there were any real evidence of a lost race of bipedal hominids still surviving today, do you think there would be any shortage of funding for an effort to investigate it? Emphatically YES. I not only believe it, I know it to be true. There IS real evidence, right here. Dr. Ketchum just published it. Is there lack of funding for further research? Of course, because very few people in the scientific community have the cajones to put their careers and reputations on the line. Do you think that there would be any zoologist (not crypto) not clamoring to make the single largest discovery in the entire history of modern science? Yes. Look at how you all react to me when I brought the subject up. I'm crazy. Nobody believes anything I say now because I'm crazy and say crazy things. Don't bother with the petty details that what I'm saying is backed by data and facts, or that the majority of the time I'm curiously questioning and not preaching babel. Even questioning whether it might be possible is crazy. Now, I'm just some shmoe with nothing to lose. I don't have a family to feed, or a mortgage to keep up with. My life won't be ruined if some kids call me crazy on a forum. It's not the same for people who make their careers studying the natural world. If they lose credibility because their interested in, just interested, not even believing in, some fringe claims, their careers are ruined and they could end up flipping patties at Mickey D's instead of pursuing their passion. It's happened time and time again. I don't just doubt that it's valid. I think the evidence shows quite clearly that either 1) The phenomena known as "bigfoot" is demonstrably a hoax that has entered the mainstream fancy, as demonstrated by this map of a small number of the more "credible" bigfoot sightings in North America: Huh? Explain yourself, because I don't get what you mean by this. How is a map of reports evidence of a hoax? In addition, the application of Occam's Razor leads us to ask: "What's the simplest explanation"? Evolution. If this creature is so wide-ranging as we are led to believe, and it has a population large enough to cover that amount of land, with human technology, why do we not have a shred of credible peer reviewed evidence, and why is there such a ubiquity of deliberately manufactured false evidence instead? WE DO HAVE PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE. OMFG. Oh, wait, Dr. Melba is crazy. I forgot, her evidence isn't valid because she's crazy because she is studying Bigfoot which can't exist so therefore anyone who claims to be studying Bigfoot is crazy so we can't trust their work. Obviously, we must accept that the vast majority of the above mapped claims are most likely either deliberately invented, or invented by the fancies of the human imagination. However, can we say that any of the above claims are true? Obviously? Obviously we must interview each claimee and determine the facts first, then reserve judgement until those facts are in. I thought you people were skeptical? Clearly you're not. You have very strong belief systems that you aren't even aware you're defending. Just drop the pretentious biggotry and open you damn eyes. If the majority of the claims are false, See, you set up that Straw Man again... how then, can we begin to distinguish even the slightest basis for claiming that we have any proof at all, when we cannot even do more than just say: "Well, you either believe, or you don't." ...then you knock it down. I don't believe. I ask questions. You believe. You believe science is the answer, but only if that science is applied to your approved topics. Any outside application is not science, according to you, no matter what methodology is applied. There may yet be quite a large number of species left in the world to discover, but I doubt very much that we will find another living bipedal Hominid --especially in North America, as there has never been any credible evidence for apes or hominids other than homo sapiens in North or South America. There is overwhelming evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it as such. "It's not evidence. The person presenting it claims it's Bigfoot prints, so clearly it's a hoax and can be ignored." So, to try to explain "Sasquatch" by stating that they are a mutant offshoot diverging after 13,000 years (This happening would completely unscrew our understanding of evolutionary biology), So, our understanding is perfect? or by stating that they interbred with another species of hominid, we actually increase the burden of proof of the bigfoot mythos. Well, if you started actually LOOKING at the evidence, we might get somewhere. By pinpointing the emergence of this species to 13,000 years ago, this paper almost certainly falls flat on its face as a self-misrepresenting hoax with no credible scientific evidence whatsoever, A hoax? Really? Do you REALLY believe Dr. Melba Ketchum's 5 year study is a hoax? REALLY?!?! I've just lost all respect for you. Go read what this poor woman had to go through, you ignorant little man. Then you tell me she hoaxed it. And for what? To sell a $30 report? Now THATS's frelling crazy talk, man. because if they were a different species of hominid living in North America, how can we explain the astounding lack of fossil evidence ANYWHERE, *cough* Clovis Man *cough* given their apparently vast ranging of territory, and the unusual propensity for bipedal hominids contemporary to those periods to leave nearly-intact fossil evidence due to burial practices? Glaciers. Think about it. Wooly humans. Xoox, I love ya buddy, but I can't go with you on this one. Thank god. I have enough trouble without having to dodge Straw Men all day. | |
The difference here is that a fairly reputable and credentialed scientist is putting their career on the line to bring this DNA evidence to the scientific community in a way that they will accept. It's not just some redneck with a camcorder anymore.
As for sending a teen army out with iPhones, I doubt they'd find anything substantial. Sasquatch doesn't seem to want to be found. Most people only encounter them at rock-throwing distance. A mob of people would probably scare it away.
Sasquatch doesn't seem to want anything to do with humans. Aside from the occasional footprints, hair samples, and videos, most people's encounters end with 'something' throwing big rocks at them. Big rocks.