ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "Bigfoot Files" , bigfoot , Brian Sykes , yeti

Reply
Old 18th October 2013, 11:43 AM   #121
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,727
Well, fine. But see my post #114.

You can't fake hairs, and you can't fake DNA. So, what are we left with?
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 11:44 AM   #122
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,298
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Careful JSP......we're closing in on complete agreement. Can't have that........
Well, I'm confused about what Sykes has found or not found.

The media reports are confusing. Sykes has said confusing things.

We have no report yet, but we have press releases and a TV show.

We have 100% match claims, but we don't have the complete genome of the sample it's supposed to match, so what does that mean?

100% match tends to mean it's the same animal, but apparently it's not.

If I say this hair in my hand is a 100% match to a grizzly bear, it's a grizzly bear hair, isn't it? It's not some hybrid hair, right?

We have samples that have apparently passed through lots of hands and whose origin is very murky.

A bear shot 40 years ago? Who shot it? Is the hunter still around? Who told the story of the bear being shot? Where was the "100% match to a polar bear" when it was shot? Where has the carcass been? What hunter in the 1970's was unfamiliar with a polar bear? Etc.

A hair from a bamboo forest? What was a "100% match to a polar bear" doing in a bamboo forest?

I could go on, but I won't.

No one is to blame for this except Brian Sykes.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 11:51 AM   #123
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,106
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Well, fine. But see my post #114.

You can't fake hairs, and you can't fake DNA. So, what are we left with?
We could be left with Sykes making mistake(s).
We could be left with a New Bear but because it was originally a Yeti hoax there are intentional mistruths in the sample history and therefore we don't know where in the world it actually came from.

For example, maybe the hair came from a bear in Siberia but was slipped into a Yeti hoax with the hopes of fooling somebody. The local hunter story may be a total lie and the hair sample instead came from far away or even a museum or private collection.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:02 PM   #124
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 7,561
But at least we now know where Polar Bears go for their holidays, don't we?

Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:02 PM   #125
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,106
When you get biological samples from unbiased or unvested parties there can be somewhat less caution and skepticism applied. But when the parties are Yetifooters then you have to worry right away.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:04 PM   #126
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,727
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Well, I'm confused about what Sykes has found or not found.

The media reports are confusing. Sykes has said confusing things.
The media reports have been less than clear. True. The world is short of good science reporting. Sykes, however, has been very clear in my view......but you haven't seen his interview (Have you? Nobody on here has yet confirmed that they have been able to see it)

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
We have no report yet, but we have press releases and a TV show.
No, the TV programme isn't on until Sunday here in the UK.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
We have 100% match claims, but we don't have the complete genome of the sample it's supposed to match, so what does that mean?
I believe that they sample at various important points on the mitochondrial DNA, and those points presumably were exactly the same on the hairs as on the polar bear ancestor from Norway. You'll have to wait for a DNA expert to confirm this.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
100% match tends to mean it's the same animal, but apparently it's not.
100% mitchondrial DNA match, don't forget.......so female line only.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
If I say this hair in my hand is a 100% match to a grizzly bear, it's a grizzly bear hair, isn't it? It's not some hybrid hair, right?
Again, mitochondrial DNA, so it could be a hybrid, so long as the mothers are from the same species. In other words mtDNA from a hybrid of horse and zebra would show "horse" if the mother was a horse, and vice versa for zebra. And so on down the generations, of course. In a hundred generations of interbreeding between horse and zebra, and between their hybrid off-spring, DNA exclusively from the female line would still show "horse".

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
We have samples that have apparently passed through lots of hands and whose origin is very murky.
So? As I've said, you can't fake hair. You can't fake DNA. It doesn't matter how murky the origin is, if you have the DNA of an new-to-science animal, you have a new-to-science animal.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
A bear shot 40 years ago? Who shot it? Is the hunter still around? Who told the story of the bear being shot? Where was the "100% match to a polar bear" when it was shot? Where has the carcass been? What hunter in the 1970's was unfamiliar with a polar bear? Etc.
Again, interesting questions, and I am sure that more will be revealed during the TV programme, but as I said above, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the story of what has been found in the lab. I assume, incidentally, that most of the original carcass was eaten.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
A hair from a bamboo forest? What was a "100% match to a polar bear" doing in a bamboo forest?
Exactly. But remember, of course, it isn't from a polar bear. It is from an animal that descended from an ancestor of a polar bear.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I could go on, but I won't.


Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
No one is to blame for this except Brian Sykes.
No, Sykes has been very clear, (I wish you guys could see the interview) and no doubt he will fill in some of the gaps on Sunday night.......and say more than we can ever understand when his paper is published. The blame for any confusion lies with poor newspaper reporting, and with over-interpreting of said press reports. In my opinion, of course.

Mike

Last edited by MikeG; 18th October 2013 at 12:30 PM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:07 PM   #127
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,500
I'm not convinced that it has been demonstrated that there is a new bear species, Mike. That's why I'm not thrilling in its "discovery". For one thing, any scientist who claims "100%" match for something that isn't an identical twin makes me suspicious. Even if there is a very close match to a genetic signature that indicates a common ancestor to the brown/polar bear complex, the vastly more likely reason would be that a known and described species (Himalayan brown bear) has retained important features of that ancestral genetic make-up (bottleneck perhaps?) than that there is an additional, unknown bear species wandering around the craggy peaks of the Himalayas and the bamboo forests of Bhutan.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:09 PM   #128
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,727
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
We could be left with Sykes making mistake(s).
We could.


Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
We could be left with a New Bear but because it was originally a Yeti hoax there are intentional mistruths in the sample history and therefore we don't know where in the world it actually came from.
Again, all that would give us is a new bear some other place. We would still have a new bear. That's what I find exciting.

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
For example, maybe the hair came from a bear in Siberia but was slipped into a Yeti hoax with the hopes of fooling somebody. The local hunter story may be a total lie and the hair sample instead came from far away or even a museum or private collection.
No. You can't fake hair. You can't fake DNA. Presuming of course that Sykes hasn't cocked up, then there is a new bear, even if the entire story behind the source of the sample is 100% BS.

Oh, and don't forget, there are 2 hairs, supposedly from different location 800 miles apart. But even if they are from the same animal......you can't fake hair. You can't fake DNA.

Do you think if I say "you can't fake hair, you can't fake DNA" often enough it will become a meme?

Mike
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:15 PM   #129
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,298
Would any modern bears also be a 100% mtDNA match to that ancient bear?

I can certainly give a bear hair to Brian Sykes and tell him a story about it's origins...

What makes the bear new? The mtDNA match, or the location?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:17 PM   #130
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,727
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
I'm not convinced that it has been demonstrated that there is a new bear species, Mike. ........
I'm 100% positive that it hasn't been demonstrated that there is a new bear species. I completely agree with you, indeed, would say you could have put that more strongly. However, no-one has claimed that it has been demonstrated. At the moment, we are only discussing Sykes' claims made in the run-up to a TV programme. After the programme as aired, we'll be able to discuss his claims more fully, but we still won't be discussing anything that has been demonstrated.......only that which has been asserted.

Once his paper is released, of course, we'll be able to start talking about his demonstration of the existence of a new bear species, but it isn't until other scientists have evaluated and attempted to falsify his work that we'll finally be able to come to any conclusions about the existence or otherwise of a new bear.

In the meantime, in the reverse of an ad hom, I'm assuming that a guy with his stellar reputation knows what he is talking about when he says he has found something interesting. That's all.

Last edited by MikeG; 18th October 2013 at 12:32 PM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:18 PM   #131
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,727
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
What makes the bear new? The mtDNA match, or the location?
The DNA
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:24 PM   #132
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,298
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
The DNA
How? It matches a known bear.

Surely other bears are also descended from that line and also match?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul...bears-20110708
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:27 PM   #133
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,727
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
How? It matches a known bear.

Surely other bears are also descended from that line and also match?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul...bears-20110708
It doesn't match a known bear. It matches (down the female line) a long-ago ancestor of a known bear. And yes, of course there would have to be other bears from that line. You need a breeding population (unless we have a single methusela bear on our hands )

Your link doesn't work for me.

Last edited by MikeG; 18th October 2013 at 12:28 PM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:30 PM   #134
Castro
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 676
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
.but you haven't seen his interview (Have you? Nobody on here has yet confirmed that they have been able to see it)
I have and I posted what I think about it here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=107
Quote:
...they (the two samples) are genetically identical to a polar bear(the ancient jawbone owner)...
There's no way for Sykes to prove that because we DON'T have the complete genome of that "polar bear". We only have its mitochondrial genome.
Did you see the link posted by LTC8K6?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2841953/ "Complete mitochondrial genome of a Pleistocene jawbone unveils the origin of polar bear"

I think Sykes is exaggerating his results for the medias.

PS: A new bear would be cool btw.

Last edited by Castro; 18th October 2013 at 12:36 PM.
Castro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:32 PM   #135
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,298
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
It doesn't match a known bear. It matches (down the female line) a long-ago ancestor of a known bear. And yes, of course there would have to be other bears from that line. You need a breeding population (unless we have a single methusela bear on our hands )

Your link doesn't work for me.
Link works for me.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:36 PM   #136
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,298
Would any modern bears also be a 100% mtDNA match to that Norway bear?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:37 PM   #137
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,727
Originally Posted by Castro View Post
I have and I posted what I think about it here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=107

There's no way for Sykes to prove that because we DON'T have the complete genome of that "polar bear". We only have its mitochondrial genome.
Did you see the link posted by LTC8K6?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2841953/ "Complete mitochondrial genome of a Pleistocene jawbone unveils the origin of polar bear"

I think Sykes is exaggerating his results for the medias.
Nobody has ever suggested that this was ever anything other than a mtDNA match, so I don't quite get your point.

"Only mitchondrial DNA".........What are you implying? This is not some second best version of DNA.... You guys execute people using mtDNA evidence, for instance.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:38 PM   #138
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,298
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Nobody has ever suggested that this was ever anything other than a mtDNA match, so I don't quite get your point.

"Only mitchondrial DNA".........What are you implying? This is not some second best version of DNA.... You guys execute people using mtDNA evidence, for instance.
I think the term "match" and mtDNA maybe shouldn't go together at all?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:41 PM   #139
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,727
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I think the term "match" and mtDNA maybe shouldn't go together at all?
Couldn't someone give Calwaterbear or maybe Dinwar a shout to come and join in this stuff? I have a reasonable layman's understanding of DNA, but can't speak authoratatively on this. However, you most certainly CAN match mtDNA. It is done all the time. As I've just said, it is the basis of all DNA evidence in criminal trials, for instance.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:46 PM   #140
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,298
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Couldn't someone give Calwaterbear or maybe Dinwar a shout to come and join in this stuff? I have a reasonable layman's understanding of DNA, but can't speak authoratatively on this. However, you most certainly CAN match mtDNA. It is done all the time. As I've just said, it is the basis of all DNA evidence in criminal trials, for instance.
It's more of a relationship, than a match?

It means A is descended from B, not that A matches B?

I think that Sykes thinks it may be a new bear, or a hybrid, because there should not be a bear related to that ancient bear, living in the himalayas.

But if the hairs aren't actually from the Himalayas...?

Or, I'm completely wrong.

Sykes could have waited for peer review before going on TV, though.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:51 PM   #141
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,727
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
.........I think that Sykes thinks it may be a new bear, or a hybrid, because there should not be a bear related to that ancient bear, living in the himalayas.......
No, this isn't the case at all. There is no match to any known living bear species. The only match was to an ancient one. This is most certainly NOT an out-of-place existing animal, if Sykes hasn't made a cock-up. This descendant of the ancient bear would be a new species if it had been found anywhere in the world.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:51 PM   #142
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,298
http://www.australiangeographic.com....ne-grizzly.htm

All polar bears can be traced back to a single ancestor - a grizzly bear that once lived in Ireland.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:54 PM   #143
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,915
There's an article about the making of the documentary by its producer on the channel 4 website:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/b...ti-documentary
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:55 PM   #144
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,298
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
No, this isn't the case at all. There is no match to any known living bear species. The only match was to an ancient one. This is most certainly NOT an out-of-place existing animal, if Sykes hasn't made a cock-up. This descendant of the ancient bear would be a new species if it had been found anywhere in the world.
It would have been a lot easier to understand if Sykes had said it matched only the mtDNA of that one ancient bear, and not any other bear.

But that makes no sense to me...

It would have to also match some other bears, I would think.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:57 PM   #145
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,298
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
There's an article about the making of the documentary by its producer on the channel 4 website:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/b...ti-documentary
So, one of the hairs is the very same hair we already heard about?

Interesting.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:58 PM   #146
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,634
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
http://www.australiangeographic.com....ne-grizzly.htm

All polar bears can be traced back to a single ancestor - a grizzly bear that once lived in Ireland.
Not that cut and dried:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no...an-we-thought/
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 12:59 PM   #147
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,298
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Yes, but the point remains, I think.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 01:01 PM   #148
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,634
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Yes, but the point remains, I think.
I dunno. This is getting more and more confusing.

If I were a squatch person I'd just go with "if there be polar bears in the Himalayas, there be bigfoot behind the Circle K."

But I'm not.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 01:05 PM   #149
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
http://www.australiangeographic.com....ne-grizzly.htm

All polar bears can be traced back to a single ancestor - a grizzly bear that once lived in Ireland.
A slutty grizzly bear, at that.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 01:06 PM   #150
Castro
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 676
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Nobody has ever suggested that this was ever anything other than a mtDNA match, so I don't quite get your point.

"Only mitchondrial DNA".........What are you implying? This is not some second best version of DNA.... You guys execute people using mtDNA evidence, for instance.
My point is that saying that "they are genetically identical to a polar bear" in that interview was an exaggeration that led to this "100% DNA match" thing (he could have said "genetically related to"). The medias like that kind of statement and Sykes played with it to create a buzz and promote his documentary.

Last edited by Castro; 18th October 2013 at 01:18 PM.
Castro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 01:10 PM   #151
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,915
There are also some clips here:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/bigfoot-files

and a description of the episodes here:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/b.../episode-guide

According to the Radio Times there will be three episodes, but only two are listed. The first is about the yeti and the second about bigfoot.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 01:14 PM   #152
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,727
Originally Posted by Castro View Post
My point is that saying that "they are genetically identical to a polar bear" in that interview was an exaggeration that led to this "100% DNA match" thing. The medias like that kind of statement and Sykes played with it to create a buzz and promote his documentary.
It's standard shorthand, though. Richard Dawkins, Sykes, Jerry Coyne, Steve Jones and others say this all the time, without having to explain each time that it means that the various (multi-hundred) key sampling points on the mtDNA chain are the same, and that variants only occur in certain places, and that this is from the female line only, and so on. 100% match is a perfectly legitimate thing to say, so long as one is at least semi-versed in DNA. Obviously, to get a 100% nuDNA match you would need to be a clone or an identical twin...........that is not what we are talking about here.

Right....gotta go. My mate has turned up with some stones from his rock collection. Seriously......

Last edited by MikeG; 18th October 2013 at 01:16 PM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 01:32 PM   #153
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Well, fine. But see my post #114.

You can't fake hairs, and you can't fake DNA. So, what are we left with?
But you can fake provenance.

Quote:
...samples said to come from the Yeti
Quote:
The sample from Ladakh came from the mummified remains of a creature shot by a hunter around 40 years ago. He considered the animal so unusual, and so alarming, he kept some of its remains. A sample of the hair was passed to Professor Sykes by a French mountaineer who was given it by the hunter around a decade ago.
Third hand source, separated by decades?

Quote:
The second sample was in the form of a single hair, found in a bamboo forest by an expedition of filmmakers, also around ten years ago.
Random hair found in a forest. They assumed it was a Yeti because....?
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 03:07 PM   #154
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,727
You haven't read the rest of the thread, have you?

You're the only one talking about yeti. The rest of us are talking about a bear.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 03:15 PM   #155
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Well, I'm confused about what Sykes has found or not found.

The media reports are confusing. Sykes has said confusing things.

We have no report yet, but we have press releases and a TV show.

We have 100% match claims, but we don't have the complete genome of the sample it's supposed to match, so what does that mean?

100% match tends to mean it's the same animal, but apparently it's not.

If I say this hair in my hand is a 100% match to a grizzly bear, it's a grizzly bear hair, isn't it? It's not some hybrid hair, right?

We have samples that have apparently passed through lots of hands and whose origin is very murky.

A bear shot 40 years ago? Who shot it? Is the hunter still around? Who told the story of the bear being shot? Where was the "100% match to a polar bear" when it was shot? Where has the carcass been? What hunter in the 1970's was unfamiliar with a polar bear? Etc.

A hair from a bamboo forest? What was a "100% match to a polar bear" doing in a bamboo forest?

I could go on, but I won't.

No one is to blame for this except Brian Sykes.
It's a shaggy bear story.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 03:16 PM   #156
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Then they are polar bear hairs...?
In the world of bigfoot identical doesn't mean the same as.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 03:17 PM   #157
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
http://www.australiangeographic.com....ne-grizzly.htm

All polar bears can be traced back to a single ancestor - a grizzly bear that once lived in Ireland.
One of the O'Bruins.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2013, 03:55 PM   #158
Castro
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 676
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
It's standard shorthand, though. Richard Dawkins, Sykes, Jerry Coyne, Steve Jones and others say this all the time, without having to explain each time that it means that the various (multi-hundred) key sampling points on the mtDNA chain are the same, and that variants only occur in certain places, and that this is from the female line only, and so on. 100% match is a perfectly legitimate thing to say, so long as one is at least semi-versed in DNA. Obviously, to get a 100% nuDNA match you would need to be a clone or an identical twin...........that is not what we are talking about here...
Well, I confess that I'm not fond of that sort of half-truth statements, specially when made for commercial purposes. It sounds like pseudo-science to me, like this: http://www.today.com/video/today/53312890#53312890
Castro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2013, 07:26 PM   #159
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,628
It appears Sykes has succumbed to the allure of the almighty dollar. Where half truths finally become OK for scientists as long as they're promoting something. Where it gets murkier is quarter and eighth truths. I wonder if he's attended any classes at the prestigious Meldrum Institute Of Advanced Not Getting It For Fun & Profit. I also wonder if he realizes how big that target on his back is getting? Being he's submitting his research to the peer review proce...wait what?
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2013, 08:58 PM   #160
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,996
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Couldn't someone give Calwaterbear or maybe Dinwar a shout to come and join in this stuff? I have a reasonable layman's understanding of DNA, but can't speak authoratatively on this. However, you most certainly CAN match mtDNA. It is done all the time. As I've just said, it is the basis of all DNA evidence in criminal trials, for instance.
I spoke with CWB the other night, he shares Shrike's opinion on the origin of the bear. It is a Himalayan bear with ancient polar bear ancestors.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.