All I need is one hair follicle with intact DNA that shows a) this thing is an ape and b) is not any known living ape, and I’m on board. One piece of DNA evidence. We know enough now about human and ape DNA that we could tell exaclty how closely related this thing is to us or any living ape.
Hi there.
I’m not much help with the names of the doctors, but I was home sick as a dog that day and caught the same special on Discovery channel. I remember they had:
A surveying team to analyze another, lesser-known video of a “bigfoot” running across a mountainside to determine the size and speed of the creature and whether is was possibly a human
A DNA analysist to try and extract DNA from hairs and droppings
The afore-mentioned sound analysist (and as I recall, he determined that it was likely primate, which could also include human)
A podiatrist who studied some casts of footprints to determine if the dimensions were realistic in relation to a human or primate foot (as opposed to someone just making a model of what they think a bigfoot foot should look like)
There was also study of that famous film done which talked about what xtisme already mentioned, with the movement and bulge in the thigh and so forth.
Hmm. There were a couple more but I’m forgetting. An entertaining show. I don’t think I’ll be out looking for bigfeet anytime soon, but it was nice to hear from some people who didn’t sound like loonies.
On the show the DNA evidence (they had samples of hair and feces) were inconclusive unfortunately. The guy who was doing the sequencing said he thought the samples had been contaminated (they had a lot of human markers)…though he said there were some interesting things. He thought that there was enough to warrent further investigation (which probably means he thought he could perhaps get a grant out of it 
).
-XT
One thing about these types of shows is that you have to pay extra close attention to the last few minutes (or sometimes only the last minute). That’s usually where the disclaimers come in. Remember the show about Oliver, the supposed Humanzee? If you watched the first 55 minutes only, you’d walk away thinking he might just be a Humanzee, or at the very least that the jury was still out. It was only at the very, very end that they told us that his DNA was shown to be 100% chimp.
As for the thousands of sightings… well, there are millions of sightings of ghosts, but we still don’t teach about ghosts in science class. (No Kansas jokes, please! 
)
I’ve done a lot of camping in remote areas, and your senses play tricks on you all the time. I remember one time, trying to sleep in my tent when I heard footsteps outside. If you asked me then, I would have sworn on a stack of bibles that the footsteps were from a person. But when I peeked out of the tent, it was a deer. :smack:
To be fair, “monkey” isn’t a very taxonomically rigorous term. It’s used pretty sloppily.
I’m usuall a stickler about these things, but in this case I think “monkey suit” is just the thing to call it. The guys creating this hoax probably don’t know the difference.
I’m not asking you to get on board. Hell, I’m not on board. What I’m asking is, why do we embrace a man’s claim without proof? Did I read the article? Yes. I read a lot of claims. But saw no evidence. A few relatives saw a suit; several people claim to have seen bigfoot.
Nonsense. I expect the same rigorous skepticism to be applied to any claim made, even the ones we want to embrace. His confession does not prove that there was a hoax. If he could provide us with proof beyound some rather thin eye witness accounts, that would be proof. The fur suit would certainly be proof. We have eye witness accounts that bigfoot exists, and yet we are saying that there are no hairs, no feces, no bones. We are asking for proof. I am asking for the same regarding his confession. Occams razor is just another way of saying in the absence of proof, we’ll go with our best guess. It is not a law and is thrown around here as if it provides an undisputable arguement. It is mere words.
The Wiki article that you asked if I read says:
In other words, the article that you asked if I read also raises questions about the veracity of the confession.
Keep in mind that even if his confession is false, I am not saying that we have proof that bigfoot exists. But I am reluctant to accept his claim as proof that the film was a hoax.
Although I was rather cavelier about using the term *monkey *suit, it really does not apply to the argument. Fur suit, monkey suit (the article actually said ape suit) that matters not at all. Certainly far less than whether the suit can be proven to exist. Everyone knew what I was talking about and the term in no way lessened the point that some kind of suit - call it what you wish - has not been produced.
I love the Discovery Channel’s (and the like) pseudo science shows. They are very entertaining, but they haven’t convinced me that big foot, nessie or ET exist.
I would still love to read a transcript from Jane Goodall’s interview.
LOL. I have been a slug about clearing my front lawn of leaves. The other night just as I was falling asleep I heard “someone” walking through my yard. It was a cat.
These types of problematic taxonomic descriptions are very common. If we adhered to them in everyday speech, we wouldn’t be able to distinguish between birds and crocodiles or even humans and lobe finned fish. We’d have to invent entirely new categories that don’t make sense in everyday discourse.
The distinction is between clades and grades*. A clade is a group of animals that includes a common ancestor and all its descendants. “Ape” is a good clade, but “monkey” is not, since New World monkeys split off the common line before Apes and Old World monkeys splity. The term “monkey” represents a grade-- a group of animals that we recognize to be at a similar stage of evolutionary development. Similarly, “fish” is a grade, not a clade. Lobe finned fish are more closely related to tetrapods, like humans horses and frogs, than they are to trout (ray finned fish).
*jump down to the last sentence in paragraph 4 in the link
Indeed. The smallest taxonomic category which encompasses all the things that we would call “fish” (excluding goofy names like starfish) is vertebrata: i.e. anything with a spinal cord.
I’d probably say chordate (or chordata), since I think most people would call something like a lancelet a fish. And then if we get talking about sea squirts and include the larval form… well, let’s not make this more confusing than it has to be. After all, we could start dredging up extinct forms, too, that would make classification even more difficult.
And how would you classify, oh, say a bigfoot?
-XT
I’d say that’s pretty debatable, but hey, who’s counting?
Now, here is fish eating another fish:
http://www.youtube.com/w/Needlefish-eating-fish-twice-its-size?v=IkKDZshQLks&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b
Except that hagfish are definitely things that we would call fish, and not just as a goofy name, and hagfish (and possibly lampreys) are not vertebrates. So the smallest taxonomic category which encompasses all the things that we would call “fish” would be craniata, i.e. anything with a skull.
I doubt that most people would call a lancet a fish.
I don’t think there is common agreement that hagfish aren’t vertibrates. Dawkins certainly lists them as vertibrates.
Lancelet. I bet they would.
vertebrates…
Meh. My impression from the literature is that his is very much the minority opinion. The real argument is whether the lampreys are vertebrates or not.
Assuming you are referring to Amphioxus either lancelet or lancet is acceptable. Lancet is more common outside US publications.
Meh is probably the right response. Saying “they are vertebrates” or “they are not vertebrates” is a human construct which tells us nothing about the natural world. I just took exception to your categorical statement that they aren’t. We could argue all day about what should be called a vertebrate and what shouldn’t, but all that really matters is what is more closely related to what, not which categories we put certain things in. Which was what started this little side discussion in the first place.
Over fifty years ago is recent?
Indeed. You say potato, I say craniate.
Oddly the side discussion has proven more interesting and enlightening (and contentious) than the original topic.