"It is easy to talk about the errors, theological and others, of Communism. It is dangerously easy to succumb to triumphalism as we peer into the casket at its wake. But one must ask how much of Western culture is generating new barbarisms as we, along different axes and with different forms of government, adopt not dissimilar and equally unbiblical perspectives in our own societies: that human beings are not individually all that important, and, above all, that we are not wicked, and not accountable to ourselves, scarcely to the state, and certainly not to God."
- D.A. Carson
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Via Cryptomundo:
Richard Gibbs, one of the key scientists behind the Human Genome Project and director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at Baylor College of Medicine:“As a scientist I would consider anything.The currency of scientific advance is keeping your skepticism at bay. You have to approach these things incredibly agnostically. As I read the paper I asked, is the evidence here compelling? I don’t know. Is there clear evidence of fraud? That’s not apparent. It’s an intriguing hypothesis. One would need to view more sequencing information before supporting the conclusions.”Specifically, Gibbs said, it’s standard protocol to upload the raw sequencing data which can then be analyzed to determine whether this is a new species, or simply an amalgam of existing species. Only a text file, which is unhelpful, accompanies the paper.
Next is the view from Leonid Kruglyak, a Princeton University geneticist:“To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid. Instead, analyses either come back as 100% human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts. They make the bizarre claim that the failures might be caused by novel, nonstandard structure of the DNA (“Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR.”) which would mean this DNA was different from DNA in all other known species. There’s also the strange statement they couldn’t deposit sequences in GenBank because it’s a new/unknown taxon — GenBank does that no problem.”Here’s the view from Todd Disotell, a human origins expert at New York University who has previously tested dozens of DNA samples from people claiming to have Bigfoot DNA.“It’s clearly a fake Vanity Journal with lots of ShutterStock pictures, misspellings and it was only created on 2/4/13. I’ve only read the abstract and conclusion and neither makes any sense.”
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/6780.
Comments on "Proof of Bigfoot Coming Someday . . .":
2. Karl
- 02/16/2013 9:36 am CST
Texas? Pretty different terrain and habitat than the Pacific Northwest. Not to mention Ohio, New England, the Appalachians and Florida. That would have to be one adaptable and surprisingly wide spread elusive ape! Looking at that again I think the number of reported sightings across pretty much the entirety of the US (minus Hawaii) kind of undercuts the premise that the supposed species is ultra-rare, with a total extant US population along the lines of the grizzly.
I could accept in theory, for the sake of argument, a population *density* within its range along the lines of the grizzly. But grizzlies are confined to a very small part of the continental US and there are estimated to be what, about 1,200 of them in the continental US? Take a similar density and apply it across the range in which BF's have been reported, and you get tens of thousands of the creatures. Which makes it all the less credible to me, that such an animal would remain unrecognized by mainstream biologists in the continental US in this day and age.
Geographic database of BF sightings and reports, including most recent for each state:
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/default.asp
3. Shrode
- 02/16/2013 12:18 pm CST
Karl,
I think that even a "Bigfoot wannabeliever" like Bird would admit that not all of those sightings are legit.
4. Karl
- 02/16/2013 1:02 pm CST
Shrode, even if a bunch of the supposed sitings are cases of mistaken identity I think the geographic spread of the sitings is as problematic for BF believers as the large number of sitings, for the reasons stated above. If they are really that widely distributed such that they are in Texas (Bird seems to at least allow for the possibility in his comment #1) as well as the Pacific Northwest, Ohio and New England (FL along with NC are among the states with the largest number of reported sitings and in a previous thread Bird seems to credit my friend's story of having encountered what he believes was a BF in the mountains of Tennessee) then that pretty well covers any remote woodsy area in the continental US corner to corner, excepting Southern California. If that's the case then if the population density of BF's was similar to that of grizzlies within their range, there would be a pretty large population of BF's in the US seeing that there are 1200 or so grizzlies in the lower 48 and grizzlies' range is restricted to a much smaller portion of the land mass.
5. Flyaway
- 02/16/2013 2:24 pm CST
Somebody should write a TV reality show about hunting for BF. Even better somebody like Pat McManus should write a screen play for a TV show or a movie.
6. Bird
- 02/17/2013 8:39 am CST
I think the number of reported sightings across pretty much the entirety of the US (minus Hawaii) kind of undercuts the premise that the supposed species is ultra-rare
I'd say the vast majority of sightings are misidentifications or hoaxes.
Again, if BFs are real, then they're arguably the most elusive animal in the world so comparing them to the relatively non-elusive grizzly is dubious, I think.
About BFs seen in different regions. Almost invariably the sightings from different regions describe different adaptations. For example the "skunk ape" of Florida supposedly stands slightly shorter on average than the classic Pacific NW BF, and the hue of fur is more reddish. Not only that the foot anatomy (gathered from casts) shows a creature with different foot anatomy than that of the PC NW creature.
I just finished reading Paul Johnson's "A History of the American People." In the closing pages he states that America is still a country that exists in huge, densely populated cities surrounded by vast wildernesses. I think we forget that fact.
7. Karl
- 02/17/2013 10:56 am CST
But for BF's to exist in Texas, the PNW, Ohio, NC, VA, TN, Florida, Wyoming, Montana, New England . . . elusive or not, there would have to be significantly more of them than the 1,200 we were talking about before. I don't think elusiveness has much to do with population density and the numbers needed to sustain a breeding population of large mammals. In the lower 48, Grizzlies are limited to parts of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Washington. There are estimated to be 1200 of them within that range. Wikipedia on grizzly population density:
"Grizzly bears have one of the lowest reproductive rates of all terrestrial mammals in North America.[12] This is due to numerous ecological factors . . . On average, females produce two cubs in a litter[13] and the mother cares for the cubs for up to two years, during which the mother will not mate.[7] Once the young leave or are killed, females may not produce another litter for three or more years, depending on environmental conditions.[15] Male grizzly bears have large territories, up to 4,000 km2 (1,500 sq mi),[12] making finding a female scent difficult in such low population densities."
Yet with that low population density there are 1200 or so grizzlies in the 4 aforementioned states. If BF's have a similarly low population density and exist from FL to New England to the PNW with the Midwest, Appalachia and the great western states in between, there should be tens of thousands of them. Yet none discovered by science? Even if they are more shy and secretive than grizzlies, the appeal to vast wilderness just doesn't get me over that hump to explain how that many mammals of that size could remain unrecognized by science.
8. Bird
- 02/18/2013 12:04 pm CST
Karl,
Say there are 10,000 BFs in the USA, I don't see a problem with understanding that 10,000 can hide effectively in the 109 million acres of American wilderness. That's just not a problem in my mind.
The bottom line is the "vast wilderness" solution doesn't offer a good explanation in your mind, but in my mind it does. Couple the vast wilderness with the most elusive animal on the planet (theoretically), and that really solidifies it for me.
Leave a Comment:
To me it almost feels wrong, but definitive proof will likely only come when a sasquatch is killed by "Bigfoot hunters." The world needs a body.
Texasbigfoot.com stirred some controversy a few months ago when one of their members sited a "wood ape" on a TB.com expedition and took a few shots at it with his shot gun. He hit the target but not with a lethal blow.
Hopefully we'll at least get some real high def video soon.