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 20th October 2013, 01:18 PM   #201
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Mod WarningEdited to remove breach. Please ensure that your posts address the arguments rather than attacking the arguers, as per Rule 12. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Posted By:LashL

Last edited by LashL; 20th October 2013 at 03:06 PM.
Alan Lowey 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 20th October 2013, 01:23 PM   #202
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,750
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Scenario: scientist identifies odd genetic signature in a tissue sample and makes irresponsible statements to the media about it.

Interpretation 1: There's a whole new species out there that no one knew existed.

Interpretation 2: There's a level of genetic distinctiveness in the sample that it warrants elevation of the individuals that share that signature to full species status......
Either of these scenarios appears to be possible given Sykes' results. However, the clear steer in the programme was towards Interpretation 1.
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 20th October 2013, 01:25 PM   #203
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,750
Edited by LashL:  Edited to remove quote of moderated content and response to same.

Last edited by LashL; 20th October 2013 at 03:09 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 20th October 2013, 01:36 PM   #204
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,750
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
......$5 says the DNA gets retested and the mystery hair turns out to be from a common bear. More than likely, a vintage fraud. Not the first time a Yeti scalp has turned out to be a cobbled together fake.
How exactly do you manufacture DNA? Indeed, how do you make a fake hair? Your answer to this is going to be ........erm.......interesting.
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 20th October 2013, 01:45 PM   #205
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
Interesting in the show that it is clear that the presenter is clearly expecting the result to be "grizzly bear" and makes a pretty convincing case for the brown bear being able to reproduce the famous footprint, roaming in the places where yeti are seen, and old texts from which much of the Yeti myth extends describing the creature as a bear. Even with the DNA evidence there is a distinct feeling that the majority of Yeti encounters are almost certainly mundane bears. Which is refreshingly likely.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent 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 20th October 2013, 01:47 PM   #206
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
<SNIP>
You don't even accept evidence provided by an expert Professor from Oxford University using the latest DNA analysis!
That has yet to be peer reviewed for suitaable scrutiny of the technique and analysis?

That is one reason to remain sceptical of the press release until the full data is available.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

Last edited by LashL; 20th October 2013 at 03:10 PM. Reason: To remove quote of moderated content.
Tomtomkent 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 20th October 2013, 02:00 PM   #207
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
It doesn't matter where it came from. It matches nothing else on the planet. How clear is that for you?
I think you are still missing the point. Charitably, I might suggest you have little experience in the way the criminal mind works or in how someone might create a fraud.

Here are the facts:

1 - There are hairs.

2 - There is zero provenance as to their origin.

3 - Sykes claims their DNA relates them to a prehistoric bear, not a modern bear.

4 - This claim has not been peer reviewed or the tests replicated.

Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
How exactly do you manufacture DNA? Indeed, how do you make a fake hair? Your answer to this is going to be ........erm.......interesting.
You seem to be a bit of a "linear thinker." Children in New York found a mastodon hair. Does this mean mastodons are roaming New York?

I'm sure if you think about it, you can imagine all kinds of materials one might use to craft a fake Yeti. Especially a Nepalese mountain dweller looking to score some serious loot off the gullible European hunter.

__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."

Last edited by Robrob; 20th October 2013 at 02:13 PM.
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 20th October 2013, 02:26 PM   #208
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,750
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
......you can imagine all kinds of materials [/url]one might use to craft a fake Yeti.......
Great. Super..... Now explain how you manufacture fake hair, containing fake DNA.

Particularly, laughably, if you are a Nepalese hunter.

Sykes wasn't testing the story, or looking at a bit of stuffed animal, or assessing the anatomy of a bit of purported yeti. He was looking solely at a hair. You cannot fake a hair, and you can't fake DNA. How many more times are you going to make me say that? That hair, any hair, every single hair, indeed, on the entire planet, is 100% genuine......it grew in the skin of a mammal. So, if you have a hair which says "new species" when you examine its DNA, then you either have a new species, or you have a cock-up by the scientist. The scientist isn't making the first comment about the background story of how he came by the hair, he is simply commenting on what the hair contains.

Please don't accuse me of linear thinking when clarity of thought seems to be in short supply around these parts. If those 3 hairs (interesting coincidence that they all apparently come from the same region, don't you think?) actually originated in the Gobi desert or in the middle of Australia it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the conclusion that there is a an unknown bear species on the planet. Either that, or Sykes has made a balls up.

Last edited by MikeG; 20th October 2013 at 02:31 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 20th October 2013, 02:39 PM   #209
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,500
So the hairs revealed ancient polar bear DNA. Are the hairs white (or at least yellowish)?

{BTW, I once assisted in the necropsy of a polar bear. That is all.}
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 20th October 2013, 02:45 PM   #210
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,629
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
...

I find the suggestion of a unique and heretofore uncollected species of bear ranging from the Himalayan Highlands to the Bhutan bamboo to be highly dubious. Frankly, I think it's absurd.

I find the suggestion that there's some kind of odd ancestry among the brown bears of the Himalayas - including sufficient divergence and the presence of archaic forms that could be argued warrant full species status - to be completely plausible.

...

(Editorial: if this damages scientist's reputation then it's his own fault for issuing public statements about work that hasn't been peer reviewed.)
With all due respect to Dr. Sykes, I'm with you on this. For several reasons, the biggest of which is not only are you a full fledged dues paid peer of his as a credentialed PhD scientist, but there's an argument to be made your particular area of expertise in biology trumps his on this particular matter i.e. declaring new/rediscovered bear species etc.

While my admonitions of late regarding the precise definition of 'expert' may have fallen of deaf ears, I think it's becoming pretty clear the ambiguity of that very term may have fooled even Dr. Sykes himself. He's now ventured into an area of science where he can only pretend to be savvy. One claiming an 'also expertise' in a similar but completely different field simply by saying it may read well as words on a page, but it rarely translates well in actions in the real world. An expert auto mechanic is not naturally an expert in auto paint despite spending literally his entire career in actual contact with it.

That is, all along we've been told Sykes is an expert in human genetics. Now I'm no rocket scientist, but I think I can safely deduce that an expert in human genetics has no legitimate business declaring the existence a new/old species of bear. And if possible, even less than no business when it's presented in a non-peer-reviewed book/TV show produced solely for profit. Is there no shame irony in the fact human DNA has yet to enter into a single thing Sykes has been doing on this?
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 20th October 2013, 03:04 PM   #211
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,634
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
It's great news for cryptozoology overall. There is truth to the legends. A new species has been identified. It's alive and existing as we speak.
How so?
Resume is online now   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 20th October 2013, 03:34 PM   #212
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,138
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
So the hairs revealed ancient polar bear DNA. Are the hairs white (or at least yellowish)?
The hairs are brown.
__________________
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 20th October 2013, 03:51 PM   #213
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 951
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Well, now that we're into the guessing game, I'll predict that he find absolutely nothing to support the existence of BF in North American, but that he confirms that Orang Pendek exists (or existed recently) in Indonesia. I haven't got the first shred of evidence to back any of this up, but the "change our idea of human origins" thing (in terms) is intriguiing, especially as Sykes' speciality is human population genomics. He was given a supposed sample of Orang Pendek to test.
I was thinking along these lines as well. But then I remembered the press release stated that Sykes came across two samples that altered the coarse of his research. So, it appears, it is the yeti/bear connection that seems to be the big reveal after all.
jerrywayne 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 20th October 2013, 03:56 PM   #214
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 951
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Great. Super..... Now explain how you manufacture fake hair, containing fake DNA.

Particularly, laughably, if you are a Nepalese hunter.

Sykes wasn't testing the story, or looking at a bit of stuffed animal, or assessing the anatomy of a bit of purported yeti. He was looking solely at a hair. You cannot fake a hair, and you can't fake DNA. How many more times are you going to make me say that? That hair, any hair, every single hair, indeed, on the entire planet, is 100% genuine......it grew in the skin of a mammal. So, if you have a hair which says "new species" when you examine its DNA, then you either have a new species, or you have a cock-up by the scientist. The scientist isn't making the first comment about the background story of how he came by the hair, he is simply commenting on what the hair contains.

Please don't accuse me of linear thinking when clarity of thought seems to be in short supply around these parts. If those 3 hairs (interesting coincidence that they all apparently come from the same region, don't you think?) actually originated in the Gobi desert or in the middle of Australia it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the conclusion that there is a an unknown bear species on the planet. Either that, or Sykes has made a balls up.
About the "fake" element. Of coarse you're right about the "you cannot fake a hair" element. But the fakeness, if there is fakeness, lies in connecting the hair to the yeti.
jerrywayne 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 20th October 2013, 04:14 PM   #215
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 951
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Scenario: scientist identifies odd genetic signature in a tissue sample and makes irresponsible statements to the media about it.

Interpretation 1: There's a whole new species out there that no one knew existed.

Interpretation 2: There's a level of genetic distinctiveness in the sample that it warrants elevation of the individuals that share that signature to full species status.

I find the suggestion of a unique and heretofore uncollected species of bear ranging from the Himalayan Highlands to the Bhutan bamboo to be highly dubious. Frankly, I think it's absurd.

I find the suggestion that there's some kind of odd ancestry among the brown bears of the Himalayas - including sufficient divergence and the presence of archaic forms that could be argued warrant full species status - to be completely plausible.

There are all sorts of cryptic "species within species" with fluid taxonomic status. For example, there appear to be as many as 10 different "types" among Red Crossbill in North America, and a case could be made for them to be 10 different species. Morphologically, though, they are just a handful of ill-defined subspecies. This is what it sounds like to me from the information we have at hand: Sykes found an odd genetic signature within brown bear samples that he thinks is distinct enough to be considered its own full species.


(Editorial: if this damages scientist's reputation then it's his own fault for issuing public statements about work that hasn't been peer reviewed.)
Help me out Shrike. What is the difference between something designated a "whole new species" and something elevated to "full species status?"

Also, wouldn't it be possible for an "unknown" bear to exist in the Himalayas if its physical attributes were so similar to a known species that it was always mistook for that species and never collected for science?

Last edited by jerrywayne; 20th October 2013 at 04:17 PM.
jerrywayne 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 20th October 2013, 04:34 PM   #216
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,634
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
Also, wouldn't it be possible for an "unknown" bear to exist in the Himalayas if its physical attributes were so similar to a known species that it was always mistook for that species and never collected for science?
If this bear looks enough like a bear, I don't think it would cause much fuss when encountered by those expecting to encounter bears.
Resume is online now   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 20th October 2013, 04:40 PM   #217
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,997
I've heard of mythical dogmen, but never bear men. I can hear it now. The bigfoot myth had to evolve in some other direction other than human as a result of DNA testing so bear was the most likely candidate I suppose. Bipedal bears, oh well.
__________________
"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
Old 20th October 2013, 04:42 PM   #218
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Great. Super..... Now explain how you manufacture fake hair, containing fake DNA.
You don't. That's why the scam works. It preys on the gullible.

Quote:
Particularly, laughably, if you are a Nepalese hunter.
Because of course, no native local has ever been able to scam the Great White Hunter...

Quote:
Sykes wasn't testing the story, or looking at a bit of stuffed animal, or assessing the anatomy of a bit of purported yeti. He was looking solely at a hair. You cannot fake a hair, and you can't fake DNA. How many more times are you going to make me say that? That hair, any hair, every single hair, indeed, on the entire planet, is 100% genuine......it grew in the skin of a mammal. So, if you have a hair which says "new species" when you examine its DNA, then you either have a new species, or you have a cock-up by the scientist. The scientist isn't making the first comment about the background story of how he came by the hair, he is simply commenting on what the hair contains.
A hair for which he has no provenance. He has no idea where it really came from or how old it may really be. I had hoped you would figure it out on your own. Do you really need me to spell it out for you?

Quote:
Please don't accuse me of linear thinking when clarity of thought seems to be in short supply around these parts. If those 3 hairs (interesting coincidence that they all apparently come from the same region, don't you think?) actually originated in the Gobi desert or in the middle of Australia it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the conclusion that there is a an unknown bear species on the planet. Either that, or Sykes has made a balls up.
Over the generations there has arisen a veritable cottage industry of fakes and frauds to sell GWH.

Can you imagine how much you'd get for some strange ancient carcass dug out of a snowbank?

And 40 years later, it's DNA tells the gullible there are mammoths in the Himalayas?

And how about a frozen bear? Let me know when Sykes carbon dates his sample.
__________________
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 20th October 2013, 04:45 PM   #219
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,634
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I've heard of mythical dogmen, but never bear men. I can hear it now. The bigfoot myth had to evolve in some other direction other than human as a result of DNA testing so bear was the most likely candidate I suppose. Bipedal bears, oh well.
According to Sykes, this is a . . . Bipolar bear.

Sorry.
Resume is online now   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 20th October 2013, 05:03 PM   #220
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,997
LOLOLOL.....walked right into that one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU
__________________
"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

Last edited by Jodie; 20th October 2013 at 05:06 PM.
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
Old 20th October 2013, 05:27 PM   #221
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I've heard of mythical dogmen, but never bear men. I can hear it now. The bigfoot myth had to evolve in some other direction other than human as a result of DNA testing so bear was the most likely candidate I suppose. Bipedal bears, oh well.

What's the likelihood now of a new species behind the mythical dogmen do you think? Prof Sykes results will open up the door for more DNA testing of mythical creatures.

My money is on hyrax for the dogmen. You know where you heard it first. The Orang Pendek of Sumatra is another likely candidate for Prof Sykes professional scrutiny. Hair samples have been collected which don't match any known animals on the island. Magnification of the hair medulla matched that of the rock hyrax which I tested for myself.

Strange but true.
Alan Lowey 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 20th October 2013, 05:32 PM   #222
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,138
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
My money is on hyrax for the dogmen.
Hai Karate.
__________________
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 20th October 2013, 06:01 PM   #223
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Prof Sykes has opened the door to DNA testing for more mythical creatures. I doff my hat and pay my respects. Fantastic result.

..............
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Prof Sykes yeti mystery.jpg (21.1 KB, 1 views)
Alan Lowey 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 20th October 2013, 06:37 PM   #224
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 951
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
If this bear looks enough like a bear, I don't think it would cause much fuss when encountered by those expecting to encounter bears.
That's where things are a bit sticky. While the Western press always interpreted the yeti as primate, there is ambiguity as to what the locals meant by yeti. In his SOMETHING HIDDEN BEHIND THE RANGES: A Himalayan Quest, Daniel Taylor-Ide makes this observation:

Speaking to Tibetan reporters:

"Further inquiry from these reporters fills in details that start to point to a known animal, once again a bear but in Tibet not the black bear. Some of these Tibetan reporters I've talked to, unlike the reporters in India and Nepal, have actually seen Dremu and are not passing along someone else's story. They describe a large head compared to the body, long canine teeth, yellow hair around the face, a long snout in which the nose and mouth seem one, a mother that does not keep her young more than two seasons. If all these features were put together in one animal it would indeed be an abominable beast. The fact that the descriptions were so consistent, unlike the descriptions from Nepal, started me to think that maybe something was there. But then one day at the Lhasa zoo I looked through the bars of a cage and saw two of these animals in front of me. The Dremu is the super-rare, and never-studied, Himalayan blue bear, Ursus arctos pruinosis." (p. 263)

https://www.google.com/search?q=hima...48%3B650%3B432
jerrywayne 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 20th October 2013, 06:42 PM   #225
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,339
The provenance of the hairs is a huge problem, imo.

Just a reminder:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/b...ti-documentary
__________________
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 20th October 2013, 06:52 PM   #226
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,500
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
Help me out Shrike. What is the difference between something designated a "whole new species" and something elevated to "full species status?"

Also, wouldn't it be possible for an "unknown" bear to exist in the Himalayas if its physical attributes were so similar to a known species that it was always mistook for that species and never collected for science?
Sorry that I was ambiguous. By a "whole new species" I meant something obviously distinct morphologically from known species. I guess for analogy we can consider the two species of bears in the Lower 48 States, black bear and grizzly bear. Now imagine it was discovered that there is a third species of bear in some isolated backwater that is neither a black bear or a grizzly. Just for argument's sake, let's say it looks really different, like a panda in patterning only brown and white instead of black and white.

Now that would be an exceedingly cool, shout-from-the-parapets kind of discovery! If there were rumors of hunters seeing such bears from time to time, we might even consider this to be a cryptozoological win, because a large mammal had escaped scientific discovery until the modern day.

By "elevated to species status", I was referring to new information on the genetic make-up of species. This happens all the time. I'd venture to say that the great majority of "new species being discovered every day" are the result of genetic analyses of populations within a well known and described species. If a certain population is regarded as being different enough from other populations, then the case can be made that the genetically-odd population is actually not a population of species A, but an entirely different species B.

The latter stuff is cool, though I'm more a "lumper" than a "splitter" when it comes to taxonomy. In other words, I maintain a high threshold of difference before I'm comfortable recognizing an odd population as a different species.

In my U.S. bear analogy, this would be like finding that some of the black bears in isolated valleys in Idaho had some unique genetic signature that was different enough from the rest of the black bears that someone proposed the Idaho Valley Bear as a new species. So, a third species of bear in the Lower 48 would have been split from black bear. Again, this would be cool, but a far cry from a morphologically distinct 3rd species of bear, and this scenario would certainly not be a win for cryptozoology.

WP's confirmation that the hairs Sykes analyzed were brown suggests strongly to me that his finding is that there is some genetically distinct form of Himalayan brown bear that Sykes thinks warrants full species status. He's splitting a new species from the morphologically indistinguishable Himalayan brown bear. In other words, this finding has zero to do with cryptozoology. The only "crypto" part of the story is that we had a species hidden within a species.
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 20th October 2013, 07:04 PM   #227
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,339
I predict that these hairs are either:

A. Not what they were represented to be.

B. Ordinary Himalayan bear hairs, but we do not know enough about the genetic history of these bears.
__________________
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 20th October 2013, 07:06 PM   #228
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,339
Maybe Smeja imported a Himalayan bear and shot it?
__________________
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 20th October 2013, 07:37 PM   #229
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,997
Well, I think at one point his boots showed Panda DNA. Maybe I have the wrong sample. Someone's specimen was supposedly Panda because we got a good laugh out of it at the time. Here it is and the explanation given at the time:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...10#post9038810
__________________
"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

Last edited by Jodie; 20th October 2013 at 08:01 PM.
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
Old 20th October 2013, 11:23 PM   #230
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
Reminder: The Yeti finnger was DNA tested a year or so ago. It was human. The mundane test results will be ignored. Any DNA results that tie bigfoot to mundane species, goatsuckers to stray dogs, etc will be forgotten because the myth is just more appealing.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent 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 20th October 2013, 11:28 PM   #231
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,750
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
....Because of course, no native local has ever been able to scam the Great White Hunter...
It doesn't matter how many hunters are scammed. It is impossible to scam a geneticist with fake/ fraudulent genetic material.
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 21st October 2013, 12:00 AM   #232
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
It doesn't matter how many hunters are scammed. It is impossible to scam a geneticist with fake/ fraudulent genetic material.
That isn't what is being suggested.
It is simply being suggested tha the hairs were not obtained from a source other than a Yeti leaving them behind. There is no way to prove the hairs were found where claimed.

As an illustration I mentioned above the Yeti Finger, a relic from a Tibettan monestary that had been around for some time. The debate during the DNA testing was not if the DNA was real, it was if the relic was what it claimed to be.

As a side note I am not opposed to the idea of the Yeti being a rare kind of bear. A new species is an exciting idea. But the evidence suggests this if the peer review article withstands scrutiny when it emerges. But the evidence is of course not there yet.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent 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 21st October 2013, 12:02 AM   #233
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
Of course, the BBC found even more convincing evidence for the nature of the Yeti last week...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPm6zcy_6j0
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent 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 21st October 2013, 12:40 AM   #234
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
It doesn't matter how many hunters are scammed. It is impossible to scam a geneticist with fake/ fraudulent genetic material.

Are there any other people on this thread who agree with MikeG or can I assume the rest of you smell a rat?
Alan Lowey 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 21st October 2013, 03:22 AM   #235
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,500
I'm not sure that anyone disagrees with Mike on the notion that a geneticist has claimed to have discovered a new species of bear from two hairs that he analyzed.
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 21st October 2013, 03:32 AM   #236
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
Magnification of the hair medulla matched that of the rock hyrax which I tested for myself.

Strange but true.
It's certainly strange. Not sure about the true bit.
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 21st October 2013, 03:48 AM   #237
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
It's certainly strange. Not sure about the true bit.

It really was an exact match. The other ones considered weren't even close. The rock hyrax medulla was a more complete rope-like structure. The others were more 'broken', singular and fragmented looking. I'll try and find the report. I've tried but it's not easy to find for some reason. The rock hyrax hair medulla magnification only took me about 20 seconds to find and compare with the photographs in the report when it first came out. I started a thread about it and soon after the link to the rock hyrax hair magnification pictures was broken.

I'll update this in a week or two if I can.
Alan Lowey 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 21st October 2013, 03:57 AM   #238
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
It really was an exact match. The other ones considered weren't even close. The rock hyrax medulla was a more complete rope-like structure. The others were more 'broken', singular and fragmented looking. I'll try and find the report. I've tried but it's not easy to find for some reason. The rock hyrax hair medulla magnification only took me about 20 seconds to find and compare with the photographs in the report when it first came out. I started a thread about it and soon after the link to the rock hyrax hair magnification pictures was broken.

I'll update this in a week or two if I can.
So Google is your research tool. Tested for yourself, now that is funny.
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 21st October 2013, 04:38 AM   #239
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
So Google is your research tool. Tested for yourself, now that is funny.

It was a simple comparison of photographs, yes. Simplicity is often the key to success.

Btw I got the idea from comparing the photograph of the Dartmoor beast photo with that of a rock hyrax. I then discovered that hyrax are highly intelligent social creatures and the only ones other than humans which communicate using syntax. There elusive fossil record is also persuasive. It only takes 2000 years for an islandised species to evolve gigantism or dwarfism. They are also the only animal which has three rear toes and four front toes, which fit the tracks. Incredible as it may sound, all the pieces fit.



..............
Attached Images
File Type: jpg fortean_times-dartmoor beast.jpg (14.5 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpg Rock-hyrax-basking.jpg (54.0 KB, 0 views)
Alan Lowey 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 21st October 2013, 05:13 AM   #240
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
It was a simple comparison of photographs, yes. Simplicity is often the key to success.

Btw I got the idea from comparing the photograph of the Dartmoor beast photo with that of a rock hyrax. I then discovered that hyrax are highly intelligent social creatures and the only ones other than humans which communicate using syntax. There elusive fossil record is also persuasive. It only takes 2000 years for an islandised species to evolve gigantism or dwarfism. They are also the only animal which has three rear toes and four front toes, which fit the tracks. Incredible as it may sound, all the pieces fit.



..............
Therefore Yetis and Megatootsies? Troll away.
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
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 09:39 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.