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 21st October 2013, 05:29 AM   #241
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
........rock hyrax.......................
This has got sod all to do with the topic. Could you start a new thread on this theory of yours. I will happily join in, but don't wreck this thread by dragging into a whirlpool of woo.
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, 05:51 AM   #242
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,883
Is he saying that a certain amount of time-ago, a grizzly bear and a polar bear mated, and it's offspring migrated to Nepal/Tibet, where it decided to travel Across the Gobi dessert, 4000 miles, to a place 15,000 Feet above sea level, and live out the remainder of it's life? It died in a cave, alone, at high altitude, and it's carcass was preserved?
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot 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, 06:09 AM   #243
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
This has got sod all to do with the topic. Could you start a new thread on this theory of yours. I will happily join in, but don't wreck this thread by dragging into a whirlpool of woo.
He appears to be labouring under the delusion that we are taking him seriously. Either that or a troll. I lean toward troll.
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, 06:29 AM   #244
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,500
^Either way he's on unofficial ignore, except for the comic relief I've enjoyed.
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, 07:14 AM   #245
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,136
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
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...
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Is he saying that a certain amount of time-ago, a grizzly bear and a polar bear mated, and it's offspring migrated to Nepal/Tibet...
The common name "grizzly bear" is used for (some of) the North American subspecies of brown bear. It's confusing to use that name when you are talking about brown bears in Europe or Asia.
__________________
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 21st October 2013, 07:35 AM   #246
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,883
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The common name "grizzly bear" is used for (some of) the North American subspecies of brown bear. It's confusing to use that name when you are talking about brown bears in Europe or Asia.
Grizzly bear is simply a subspecies common name.

I was not in science mode when illustrating the absurdity of the idea.

However, the Pizzly Bear, and the Grolar Bear, use the name I referred to.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

Last edited by Drewbot; 21st October 2013 at 07:41 AM.
Drewbot 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, 07:57 AM   #247
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Is he saying that a certain amount of time-ago, a grizzly bear and a polar bear mated, and it's offspring migrated to Nepal/Tibet, where it decided to travel Across the Gobi dessert, 4000 miles, to a place 15,000 Feet above sea level, and live out the remainder of it's life? It died in a cave, alone, at high altitude, and it's carcass was preserved?
No.
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, 07:58 AM   #248
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,136
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Grizzly bear is simply a subspecies common name.
...which would suggest that it's appropriate to use for any brown bear anywhere in the world. But it isn't because "Grizzly" is a regional common name.
__________________
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 21st October 2013, 08:01 AM   #249
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,883
Are there any other verified Polar Bear/'Brown Bear' hybrids, other than the Grizzly Bear and Polar Bear?
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot 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, 08:21 AM   #250
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,136
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Are there any other verified Polar Bear/'Brown Bear' hybrids, other than the Grizzly Bear and Polar Bear?
It looks like no for in the wild - and yes for in captivity.

http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-bears.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grolar_bear
__________________
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 21st October 2013, 10:09 AM   #251
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,339
Meldrum chimes in...

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-r...nickels-worth/
__________________
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 21st October 2013, 10:11 AM   #252
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,339
http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-r...les-episode-2/

Episode 2

Mark Evans visits America’s Pacific Northwest in search of ‘Sasquatch’. In 1958 a digger driver called Jerry Crew found a series of huge footprints in Willow Creek, Northern California and the Bigfoot legend took off.

Since then the region has had over 1000 Bigfoot encounters. But for decades science has scorned the idea of Bigfoot, and anyone who studies it.

Mark meets some of the Bigfootologists who believe they’ve come face to face with these creatures: Justin Smeja, who claims to have shot two Sasquatch; Vietnam vet Dan Shirley, who claims he can communicate with Bigfoot by ‘wood knocking’; Derek Randles, who’s been a Sasquatch obsessive since a close encounter in 1985; and Native American Marcel Cagey, who says a Sasquatch changed his life.

And Professor Sykes reveals the results of his DNA tests on the hair samples he’s collected. Will the results confirm the Bigfootologists’ stories or will it be bad news?
__________________
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 21st October 2013, 10:25 AM   #253
Northern Lights
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 745
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-r...les-episode-2/

Episode 2

Mark Evans visits America’s Pacific Northwest in search of ‘Sasquatch’. In 1958 a digger driver called Jerry Crew found a series of huge footprints in Willow Creek, Northern California and the Bigfoot legend took off.

Since then the region has had over 1000 Bigfoot encounters. But for decades science has scorned the idea of Bigfoot, and anyone who studies it.

Mark meets some of the Bigfootologists who believe they’ve come face to face with these creatures: Justin Smeja, who claims to have shot two Sasquatch; Vietnam vet Dan Shirley, who claims he can communicate with Bigfoot by ‘wood knocking’; Derek Randles, who’s been a Sasquatch obsessive since a close encounter in 1985; and Native American Marcel Cagey, who says a Sasquatch changed his life.

And Professor Sykes reveals the results of his DNA tests on the hair samples he’s collected. Will the results confirm the Bigfootologists’ stories or will it be bad news?
I would be just fine with either of two different outcomes. Known or unknown. What would be really disappointing would be inconclusive.
Northern Lights 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, 10:55 AM   #254
learner
Graduate Poster
 
learner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,680
As usual I am confused. How did Sykes think to compare the DNA of the mysterious beastie to that of a 40k year old polar Bear from up north?
__________________
"I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave
" How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again
learner 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, 11:09 AM   #255
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by learner View Post
As usual I am confused. How did Sykes think to compare the DNA of the mysterious beastie to that of a 40k year old polar Bear from up north?

Good question. This is what makes him an expert and professional. He would have started with this as a possible hypothesis in the first place. That's how great scientific discoveries start. It was his personal interest and wanting to know the answer which has given the research such a conclusive result.

Incidentally, I remember a TV program on the 'yeti' et al years ago, the one where the army guys had a scary as hell encounter in Bhutan. The one where the shadow of a huge humanoid was recorded on the trail cam set-up with the meat inside. Anyone remember? The trip to the sacred monastery which had the conical skull etc?

Anyway, I remember quite vividly that the local mountain guides knew of two types of yeti-like cryptids. I propose that some of the more humanoid/magical bipedal aspects of the more intelligent and other-worldy creature have been attributed to the pleistocene polar bear hybrid species.
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, 12:34 PM   #256
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
The trip to the sacred monastery which had the conical skull etc?
Fake. In 1960, Sir Edmund Hillary mounted an expedition to collect and evaluate evidence for the yeti and sent a yeti scalp from the Khumjung monastery to the West for testing. The results indicated that the scalp had been manufactured from the skin of the serow, a goat-like Himalayan antelope
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, 12:36 PM   #257
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Fake. In 1960, Sir Edmund Hillary mounted an expedition to collect and evaluate evidence for the yeti and sent a yeti scalp from the Khumjung monastery to the West for testing. The results indicated that the scalp had been manufactured from the skin of the serow, a goat-like Himalayan antelope

What about the rest of my post? Any opinions on the point that I was making? Did you see the TV program? Did you see the shadow on the trail cam trap?
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, 12:50 PM   #258
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,787
Never mind
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS 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, 01:32 PM   #259
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
What about the rest of my post? Any opinions on the point that I was making? Did you see the TV program? Did you see the shadow on the trail cam trap?
I'm not so big on infotainment. I prefer facts.
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, 01:33 PM   #260
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,500
Shadows of huge humanoids in Ladakh.
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, 01:34 PM   #261
aboman
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by learner View Post
As usual I am confused. How did Sykes think to compare the DNA of the mysterious beastie to that of a 40k year old polar Bear from up north?
I'm guessing he ran some sequences through genbank and since the 40K yr old bear's sequences are in there they showed as a match.
aboman 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, 01:52 PM   #262
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,339
Originally Posted by learner View Post
As usual I am confused. How did Sykes think to compare the DNA of the mysterious beastie to that of a 40k year old polar Bear from up north?
The one hair had already been tested a couple of times. First it was unknown. Then it was bear.

So, Sykes already knew they were bear hairs. He had the one that he had already narrowed down to bear. And the other one physically matched it.

So I think it was a no brainer to compare it to bears in the bank.
__________________
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?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 21st October 2013 at 01:54 PM.
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 21st October 2013, 02:02 PM   #263
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,339
In 2001 they got the hair from the mystery skin and ID'd it as an unusual bear.

So, in 2001 Sykes knew there might be an unusual bear in that area.

A little later they got the hair from the bamboo forest and Sykes couldn't ID it.

These are the two hairs they are talking about.

They had them for years and had tested them a few times and they already knew one was from an odd 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 21st October 2013, 02:14 PM   #264
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,339
We know that they tested the bamboo forest hair initially in 2001 and couldn't ID it, and that some time later they did ID it as an unusual bear.

We don't know exactly when Sykes was able to ID it as a bear, but I think most of us remember it was not recently. It was a while ago.

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/u...ests-yeti-real

These reports are confusing as to which hair is which and when ID's were made, but I think it's safe to say that Sykes had these hairs for a while and had tested them a few times already, and already knew that one of them was from a different kind of bear. Or Sykes thought it was.
__________________
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?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 21st October 2013 at 02:16 PM.
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 21st October 2013, 02:51 PM   #265
Northern Lights
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 745
I just was able to watch the first episode here: http://youtu.be/oc9uwhn2bdE

Don't see that anyone else has posted this yet. If so, apologies for the dupe.

I thought it was really interesting. Looking forward to the 2nd.
Northern Lights 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, 03:01 PM   #266
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
I just was able to watch the first episode here: http://youtu.be/oc9uwhn2bdE

Don't see that anyone else has posted this yet. If so, apologies for the dupe.

I thought it was really interesting. Looking forward to the 2nd.

I have to agree. What do you think the outcome will be? Something as definitive as the pleistocene polar bear hybrid DNA match or an inconclusive result? Wouldn't the findings get leaked to the press beforehand if the analysis had something definite to reveal to the world? Will Prof Sykes be saying the words "hyrax" at the end of the program to an astonished Mark Evans?
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, 03:15 PM   #267
Castro
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 676
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
In 2001 they got the hair from the mystery skin and ID'd it as an unusual bear.

So, in 2001 Sykes knew there might be an unusual bear in that area.

A little later they got the hair from the bamboo forest and Sykes couldn't ID it.

These are the two hairs they are talking about.

They had them for years and had tested them a few times and they already knew one was from an odd bear.
So actually, the two samples were found and given to Brian Sykes by the same guy, Harry Marshall, Executive producer of the documentary?
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/b...ti-documentary

Quote:
"...I took a small hair sample from the skin and when I got back to England I sent it to the Professor of Molecular Biology at Oxford, Bryan Sykes, whose book on DNA analysis I’d read. It was a bear declared Sykes, but an unusual bear....

...The expedition that followed took us up into the North Eastern regions of Bhutan finished in a terrifyingly dense bamboo forest that was full of bears and tigers. It culminated in our on screen biologist collecting a few more samples of hair from a huge hollow tree where we had been led by a man ... who said he was the King’s Royal Migyur Hunter. Bryan tested this hair too and declared he had no idea what it was. A mystery..."
A mystery that was already no more a mystery in May 2012, at the very beginning of the study, when Sykes met Meldrum?
http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Oxford%20PR.pdf

Quote:
...Sykes also analyzed hair samples from Bhutan attributed to the Yeti, which seemed to defy DNA identification. Interestingly, during our conversation I learned that further efforts were subsequently successful in determining that the hair originated from bear...

PS: btw from where comes the story of the french mountaineer and the alleged Yeti mummy? it looks like complete BS to me.

Last edited by Castro; 21st October 2013 at 03:42 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 21st October 2013, 03:23 PM   #268
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,628
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Those too are just bears.

"C'mon guys...maybe you need a refresher course, it's all ball bearings nowadays."
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 21st October 2013, 03:24 PM   #269
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by Castro View Post
Harry Marshall, Executive producer of the documentary?

The Making of the Yeti Documentary

Thanks for the link. This was the documentary that I remember. I wish they'd re-shown the yeti-shadow, which seemed much smarter and thoughtful than a bear imv.


Quote:
The expedition that followed took us up into the North Eastern regions of Bhutan finished in a terrifyingly dense bamboo forest that was full of bears and tigers. It culminated in our on screen biologist collecting a few more samples of hair from a huge hollow tree where we had been led by a man in a traditional kho (the kilt the locals wear) and red wellington boots - who said he was the King’s Royal Migyur Hunter. Bryan tested this hair too and declared he had no idea what it was. A mystery.

ETA: It still exists: Bhutan : the last Shangri-la / written and produced by Harry Marshall

Last edited by Alan Lowey; 21st October 2013 at 03:30 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 21st October 2013, 03:58 PM   #270
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
The date of 40,000 years ago is also very interesting. This is a date that I'd identified as a time of dramatic upheaval on planet Earth. It is marked in the Earth's geomagnetic rock data with a signature geomagnetic excursion, Laschamp event.

Quote:
The Laschamp event was a short reversal of the Earth's magnetic field. It occurred 41,000 years ago during the last ice age. The period of reversed magnetic field was 440 years, with the transition from the normal field lasting 250 years. The reversed field was 75% weaker whereas the strength dropped to only 5% of the current strength during the transition. This resulted in greater radiation reaching the Earth, causing greater production of beryllium 10. The magnetic excursion has been demonstrated in sediment cores from the Black Sea, and in a lava flow at Laschamp in the Clermont-Ferrand district. Higher levels of carbon 14 would also have been produced during the low field times.

The cause of this mega-event is likely the reason that an Arctic polar bear/brown bear hybrid ended up in the Himalayas.
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, 05:53 PM   #271
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,500
That's cool. I conducted a similar analysis recently, and concluded that 6:30 this evening was a period of minor upheaval (sort of a rumbling) in my tummy. This was followed soon thereafter by something I have termed the Dinner event, which marked an end to the rumbling and desire to take a nap.

This is probably the reason that gibbons have long arms.
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, 07:31 PM   #272
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,055
The beast made its first public appearance earlier today and had this to say:

Quote:
Cocaine is one hell of a drug!
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY
River 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, 07:40 PM   #273
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Did you know "gullible" isn't in the dictionary...?
__________________
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 22nd October 2013, 12:36 AM   #274
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
The date of 40,000 years ago is also very interesting. .......
Yes, but it isn't the date they gave for the Svalbard jaw.

The date given was 40,000 to 120,000 years before present. You cherry-picking one of those dates and aligning it to another bit of your unsubstantiated nonsensical-theories-of-everything is just disingenuous mis-representation of other people's work.

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 22nd October 2013, 01:33 AM   #275
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Yes, but it isn't the date they gave for the Svalbard jaw.

The date given was 40,000 to 120,000 years before present. You cherry-picking one of those dates and aligning it to another bit of your unsubstantiated nonsensical-theories-of-everything is just disingenuous mis-representation of other people's work.

Mike

You're wrong. Prof Sykes himself gives this date as the time that the pleistocene polar bear is believed to have lived until. They then became extinct. I've researched the events, extinctions and dramatic climate changes at this particular time in history. There's extensive circumstantial evidence to support the hypothesis. I could write thread after thread on the subject, so don't get me started.
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 22nd October 2013, 01:43 AM   #276
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
You're wrong...........
Unlike you, I don't make assertions that I can't support:

Telegraph:
Quote:
That specimen dates back at least 40,000 years ago, and probably as far back as 120,000 years – a time when the polar bear and the closely related brown bear were separating as different species.
Independant:
Quote:
Professor Sykes found that he had a 100% match with a sample from an ancient polar bear jawbone found in Svalbard, Norway, that dates back at least 40,000 years - and probably around 120,000 years - a time when the polar bear and closely related brown bear were separating as different species.
Express:
Quote:
Professor Sykes found that he had a 100% match with a sample from an ancient polar bear jawbone found in Svalbard, Norway, that dates back at least 40,000 years - and probably around 120,000 years - a time when the polar bear and closely related brown bear were separating as different species
And if you want a peer-reviewed science paper on the subject:

Quote:
Fossil remains of the polar bear are very rare (4, 11–13), because the animals mostly live and die over vast areas of sea ice, and when they die their remains are likely to be scavenged by other animals and disappear into the ocean. In light of this paucity of fossil finds, every new specimen is of interest. Recently, a lower jawbone (left mandible) was excavated in situ at Poolepynten on Prins Karls Forland, a narrow strip of land on the far western edge of the Svalbard Archipelago, Norway (11). Diagnostic polar bear traits and morphometric measurements of this well-preserved mandible, comparing it to brown bear and other available subfossil polar bear remains as well as a large collection of extant polar bears from Svalbard, proved that it falls within the range of modern polar bears and suggested that it belonged to an adult male (11). Accelerator mass spectrometry 14C age determination from a canine tooth attached to the jawbone dated it to older than 45 thousand years (ky) old (11). Based on long-term studies of the stratigraphy and depositional history of the Poolepynten area and infrared-stimulated luminescence of the sediments (14), the specimen was estimated to be 130–110 ky old, which is significantly older than any other known polar bear subfossils (i.e., partly fossilized specimens), none of which are older than possibly ∼70 ky (and most younger than 10 ky) (11). The discovery of this jawbone confirms that the polar bear was already a distinct species at least 110 kya, and as such any findings from genetic research based on this specimen could contribute to answering key questions on the evolutionary history of this species.
Let me help you with the start of your response. It goes like this:

"Sorry Mike........."

Last edited by MikeG; 22nd October 2013 at 01:50 AM.
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 22nd October 2013, 01:49 AM   #277
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,916
Next week's Radio Times is, like this week's, indicating that there are three episodes in total, but the episode guide on the channel 4 site is still only listing two.
__________________
"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 22nd October 2013, 02:04 AM   #278
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Unlike you, I don't make assertions that I can't support:

"Sorry Mike........."

No, you simply don't understand the bigger picture, which Prof Sykes and I do alike. That single specimen might be dated between 130 and 40kya but that isn't the same thing as all the data available to determine when the species went extinct itself. It's similar to the demise of the woolly mammoth, which has an abundance of finds around this date.

I really have researched the subject to extreme lengths. There's evidence in the ice core data that abrupt global climate change occurred at the time of the Lachamps excursion.

Do you not think that the uber-dramatic changes to the radiation reaching the Earth's surface would have dramatically affected megafauna behaviour and habitat at 41kya? Just based on this data alone, the hypothesis has merit.


Quote:
The reversed field was 75% weaker whereas the strength dropped to only 5% of the current strength during the transition. This resulted in greater radiation reaching the Earth

Last edited by Alan Lowey; 22nd October 2013 at 02:10 AM.
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 22nd October 2013, 03:04 AM   #279
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,847
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
I then discovered that hyrax are highly intelligent social creatures and the only ones other than humans which communicate using syntax...
False. Other mammals that use syntax include whales, dolphins, marmots, bats, prairie dogs and some primates.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde 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 22nd October 2013, 03:05 AM   #280
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 951
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
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.
Thanks for the elaboration. I understand your point much better.

BTW, here is a grizzly/polar hybrid in the wild: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...rid-photo.html

Here is the Himalayan blue bear, which does look kinda funky: http://www.bearsoftheworld.net/tibetan_blue_bear.asp

The blue bear is the yeti candidate of Taylor-Ide and Messner.
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
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 05:31 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.