Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
keninsc

Dr. Melba Ketchum on the radio this morning.

145 posts in this topic

I can not see how you can do this by not knowing the where the DNA that been sequenced without doing a cladistics and applying this to phylogenetics? The fossil record is imcomplete let alone we don't know if bigfoot is repersented in the fossil rercord. What if bigfoot is Meganthropus (Homo erectus paleojavenicus? we do need a body for morphometrics to best determine if bigfoot is in the fossil record). Science is consently taking in new idea and changing old way of thinking. If this was in the 1970's (if I rember right) we would be having this same confersation on how animals relay on photosynthesis for energy to live, and how it would be impossible by information know at the time.

Hey, thanks Jeff, for bringing up Meganthropus. However, I find the part I bolded below in the article goes against what has never found in searching for bigfoot, yet were found for Meganthropus: remains and overly large tools and proof of intelligence that would, imo, make advancement/progress of its descendents living among us today noticeable, obvious, found by now.

Meganthropus

(Redirected from Homo erectus palaeojavanicus)

Meganthropus is a subspecies of the extinct hominid species, Homo erectus. Its full name in binomial nomenclature is Homo erectus palaeojavanicus although it was once called Meganthropus palaeojavanicus. Meganthropus was given a subspecies classification to distinguish it from other fossilized representatives of Homo erectus on account of its enormous size. Based on scant, but adequate, existing fossilized remains, H. e. palaeojavanicus has been estimated to have stood roughly 9 feet tall (= 2.75 m) and weighed roughly 750 to 1000 pounds (= 340-450 kg). Remains of this subspecies, including remnants of its cranium, lower jaw, and femur, have been estimated to be roughly 1 million years old.

Meganthropus is a good example of the great variation that existed in the Homo erectus line that is only equalled among representatives of the Homo genus by the similar variations found in modern humans. Its remains were discovered in Indonesia and in Australia where another subspecies of Homo erectus, Homo erectus soloensis, has also been discovered. Although once not considered to be of the Homo genus due to its seemingly improbable size for a hominid, Meganthropus remains were found along with tools normally associated with the Acheulean era, but of great size, making it difficult to refute the intelligence of the titanic hominid.

http://biosphere.bio...palaeojavanicus

Edited by QuiteContrary
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there ever been a animal said to exist from DNA results alone, and no other evidence at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there ever been a animal said to exist from DNA results alone, and no other evidence at all?

No.

It should also be pointed out that the concensus view of Science does not claim that Meganthropus is a subspecies of Homo erectus. Its actual placement is a matter of much debate as well as the claims of its gigantic size. Neither debate of which has been satisfactorily settled.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

cormac

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is full of claims that where considered imposable, I see no promblem with this, as long as the science backs up the claim by a peer revied paper and the science is sound.

i truly hope you've stocked up on provisions for the big wait on this

Edited by JGirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, thanks Jeff, for bringing up Meganthropus. However, I find the part I bolded below in the article goes against what has never found in searching for bigfoot, yet were found for Meganthropus: remains and overly large tools and proof of intelligence that would, imo, make advancement/progress of its descendents living among us today noticeable, obvious, found by now.

Meganthropus

(Redirected from Homo erectus palaeojavanicus)

Meganthropus is a subspecies of the extinct hominid species, Homo erectus. Its full name in binomial nomenclature is Homo erectus palaeojavanicus although it was once called Meganthropus palaeojavanicus. Meganthropus was given a subspecies classification to distinguish it from other fossilized representatives of Homo erectus on account of its enormous size. Based on scant, but adequate, existing fossilized remains, H. e. palaeojavanicus has been estimated to have stood roughly 9 feet tall (= 2.75 m) and weighed roughly 750 to 1000 pounds (= 340-450 kg). Remains of this subspecies, including remnants of its cranium, lower jaw, and femur, have been estimated to be roughly 1 million years old.

Meganthropus is a good example of the great variation that existed in the Homo erectus line that is only equalled among representatives of the Homo genus by the similar variations found in modern humans. Its remains were discovered in Indonesia and in Australia where another subspecies of Homo erectus, Homo erectus soloensis, has also been discovered. Although once not considered to be of the Homo genus due to its seemingly improbable size for a hominid, Meganthropus remains were found along with tools normally associated with the Acheulean era, but of great size, making it difficult to refute the intelligence of the titanic hominid.

http://biosphere.bio...palaeojavanicus

The thing is we have no evidence for or aganist if bi****ot use tools assuming bigfoot is real.Intresting what is said about Megatrupus do you have any journal refernces for the height by any chance I don't keep up with antropology or have taking any class on it yet.It would be intresting to see a journal on the phylogentics to. It hard to determine what is real in cyperspace. I personal do not think that it is Megathrupus (if bigfoot is real) but resarcher have suggested in based on anadotal evidence of the patty film the sagitily creasted compared to the skull reconstructed by Dr. Grover Krantz the most notable person saying this is Mike from the Bigfoot Discovery Museum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I just googled from your post and that article came up. Which as usual, came from physical evidence, something we can't find for bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I just googled from your post and that article came up. Which as usual, came from physical evidence, something we can't find for bigfoot.

I agree there is no Emperical evidence for bigfoot I keep a open mind on the subject though. But I am not sure on the arctuace of the claims such as in height, and phlyogene is peer revied or just cyberspace claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i truly hope you've stocked up on provisions for the big wait on this

You need to read the rest of my post to understand that I am not closed minded on the subject, but willing to look at evidence presented. I don't need any provisions as it does not effect my views on bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to read the rest of my post to understand that I am not closed minded on the subject, but willing to look at evidence presented. I don't need any provisions as it does not effect my views on bigfoot.

Just make sure you do not open your mind so much that your brains fall out. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make sure you do not open your mind so much that your brains fall out. :tu:

Exactly well said also I do beleive we can't shot are self off to new ideas science will not move forward with true beleivers and closed minded skeptics.We ned to follow and apply the scientific method with academic freedom . Like I said in early post if the paper is published we still have to make sure the science is sound. I just am waitning to judge on the peer revied paper science before I make up my mind. I am starting to have my doubts if the paper is real this is all in early post.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make sure you do not open your mind so much that your brains fall out. :tu:

Or like a steel trap that's rusted shut. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make sure you do not open your mind so much that your brains fall out. :tu:

The mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it's open. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it's open. :tu:

A parachute with holes is of no use to a jumper.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A parachute with holes is of no use to a jumper.

cormac

What holes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parachutes do have holes in the center, or along one side, it is what stabilizes them from oscillating about or turning violently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What holes?

Figuratively speaking of course, the ones caused by believing everything one reads/hears. The parachute analogy works both ways.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Figuratively speaking of course, the ones caused by believing everything one reads/hears. The parachute analogy works both ways.

cormac

The only way its working (open), or not working for that matter (closed). There ain't no holes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way its working (open), or not working for that matter (closed). There ain't no holes..

The initial reason for using the parachute analogy (open mindedness) IMO, is just an attempt to claim all opinions/perspectives are equally valid. At least that's quite often how I've seen it used. They're not.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The initial reason for using the parachute analogy (open mindedness) IMO, is just an attempt to claim all opinions/perspectives are equally valid. At least that's quite often how I've seen it used. They're not.

cormac

And using the analogy about a open mind risking the brains falling out is not just dumb but is also not possible.

Having an open mind is not automatically believing everything you see or hear, but being open to the possibilities that there is a lot of things out there that we don not fully understand yet, and be humble about that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And using the analogy about a open mind risking the brains falling out is not just dumb but is also not possible.

Having an open mind is not automatically believing everything you see or hear, but being open to the possibilities that there is a lot of things out there that we don not fully understand yet, and be humble about that.

True but have you actually paid attention to many of the people who've used the "open mindedness" excuse for validating, somehow, their level of ignorance. That's mind-numbing in itself, without the attempt of using one platitude to counter another.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but have you actually paid attention to many of the people who've used the "open mindedness" excuse for validating, somehow, their level of ignorance. That's mind-numbing in itself, without the attempt of using one platitude to counter another.

cormac

I usually just "skate by" the obvious loons. Too time and energy consuming to interact wit them. The same goes for totally shut off cynical skeptics. It just ain't worth it. Look at interesting cases and converse with reasonable people, that's the way.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually just "skate by" the obvious loons. Too time and energy consuming to interact wit them. The same goes for totally shut off cynical skeptics. It just ain't worth it. Look at interesting cases and converse with reasonable people, that's the way.

At times I have to wonder what "reasonable" is anymore. Especially when discussing people such as Melba Ketchum, who apparently can't be bothered with presenting even the most basic of verifiable facts. Nor apparently follow proper scientific protocol instead of "leaking" information.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At times I have to wonder what "reasonable" is anymore. Especially when discussing people such as Melba Ketchum, who apparently can't be bothered with presenting even the most basic of verifiable facts. Nor apparently follow proper scientific protocol instead of "leaking" information.

cormac

Well just have to wait for the paper to be published. It will be scrutinized, and hopefully fairly.

There are many scientists who hint of their discoveries before their study is published, just to bring some attention to it, it is just when the subject is so controversial like this one is, that the attention gets so widespread. She seems confident in her work, we'll just have to wait to see what her critics thinks of it when it's out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of times papers due to come out are talked about so it can get immediate peer review, otherwise it might sit at the bottom of the proverbial pile of other new papers.

Will it be given a fair review? I have no clue, however I'd say that if the paper gets published then the publisher must have done some checking themselves. After all, it's their reputation as well. I can say that the scientific community as a whole has been less than accepting of any research done where Bigfoot is concerned and even if a scientific type had an interest they kept it to themselves. Hey, the scientific community is just as biased, bigoted and asinine as any other group in the world. Some how people think these guys are all on a higher plane and above all that when they simply aren't.

Edited by keninsc
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.