So, Bigfoot (might) exist.

[Maxios]

I was watching the news about twenty minutes ago when they, much to my shock, suddenly talked about the existence of Bigfoot being proven. I've also found an article discussing it, which also points out numerous flaws in the story. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bigfoot-existence-backed-dna-video-report-article-1.1473883) Ever since I was a little kid, I have believed in the existence of Bigfoot. And now it seems that belief may not be the result of delusional hoping (assuming this isn't a hoax.) Sorry for this being so short. I'm pretty tired at the moment.

[Mx.Silver]

Yeah... I'm going to have to go with 'no' here. I mean, did you actually read that article? Such as the parts about the labs that were supposedly involved in the testing process?
This isn't exactly looking terribly solid, more like a fairly well-funded crank project.

[Maxios]

Yeah... I'm going to have to go with 'no' here. I mean, did you actually read that article? Such as the parts about the labs that were supposedly involved in the testing process?
This isn't exactly looking terribly solid, more like a fairly well-funded crank project.

Oh, I did read it. I'm just trying to be optimistic. It's not too often there's a chance that your outlandish beliefs could be right.

[Palanan]

Here's a relevant quote from the article:


"They're not going to collect welfare and they're not going to be a social burden but they don't need to be hunted or even harassed."

Which brings up the question of why, if hunting pressure is a threat, no one in Kentucky has ever bagged one before?



Sorry, but the whole thing is pretty much a fraud. When reputable researchers describe new species with mtDNA or other genetic techniques, they don't farm out the work piecemeal to a scatter of labs who don't know what they're working on. It's usually done in-house at the PI's or co-PI's institution.

It's stretching the limits to call this a "field," but this is cryptozoology in its least helpful form. It makes it all the more difficult to conduct research on recently extinct megafauna which might, just might, have been observed in near-historical times--because anyone who does go chasing after legends, even if there's genuine fossil or subfossil evidence, is viewed with intense skepticism and often assumed to be one of "those people."

Unfortunately, when "those people" hold news conferences announcing random fur fragments and ridiculous photos, it really doesn't help anyone but themselves. Bottom line, we've been on this continent for a long time, and there aren't many vertebrates we haven't seen before. Certainly not a pseudo-anthropoid which has absolutely no representation in North America's otherwise richly documented fossil history.

[AtlanteanTroll]

The name of the scientist is Ketchum. So perhaps it's just a new Pokemon? :smallwink:

[Ravens_cry]

The name of the scientist is Ketchum. So perhaps it's just a new Pokemon? :smallwink:
Hopefully she doesn't make an Ash out of herself.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Please. If bigfoot exists as he's supposed to (a big creature in the American wilderness), then we would've found him long ago, many times.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Ravens_cry
Hopefully she doesn't make an Ash out of herself.

Too late.



One other major red flag: they self-published their "report" on their own website, rather than sending it out for peer review prior to publication in a major journal.

By contrast, right here on my desk I have the hardcopy issue of Science for 12 April 2013, which features a series of articles on Australopithecus sediba, a recently described hominin from South Africa. No news conferences, no self-serving media hype, just papers on mandibular morphology, limb mechanics and partial vertebral columns. (The full set of articles is available here (http://www.sciencemag.org/site/extra/sediba/), although most of them are behind a paywall.)

Not as superficially exciting, maybe, but 100% more scientific content.

[bluewind95]

While I'm aware it's not likely Bigfoot really exists, I like to think he does. I like to think that there's mysterious things like that which we haven't discovered and which we can't explain yet. Adds a bit of wonder to an already wonderful world.

[Coidzor]

Please. If bigfoot exists as he's supposed to (a big creature in the American wilderness), then we would've found him long ago, many times.

We have, if he can breed with humans and certain stories about grannies shacking up with bears in the middle of winter are to be believed. :smallamused:

[gurgleflep]

We have, if he can breed with humans and certain stories about grannies shacking up with bears in the middle of winter are to be believed. :smallamused:

You talkin' `bout mah momma?

[Castaras]

The name of the scientist is Ketchum. So perhaps it's just a new Pokemon? :smallwink:

They may be doing a hoax like this but they just want to be the very best.

[KacyCrawford]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bigfoot-existence-backed-dna-video-report-article-1.1473883

[FLHerne]

I found this Ars Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/) quite interesting - it pulls the study apart in a slightly less dismissive way than usual.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by bluewind95
I like to think that there's mysterious things like that which we haven't discovered and which we can't explain yet. Adds a bit of wonder to an already wonderful world.

There are incredible things out there. There's much of the world yet to discover.

For instance, the Lavosa lemur (http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Blog/2013/07/29/New-primate-species-Lavasoa-dwarf-lemur-discovered/9101375116068/) (Cheirogaleus lavasoensis) and the Kayan loris (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20704172) (Nycticebus kayan). Not to mention the olinguito (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/cutest-new-animal-discovered-its-olinguito-6C10925572) (Bassaricyon neblina). Real discoveries are being made all the time.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Bigfoot is at least human sized, if not larger. Yes, we find new species all the time, but unless we re-classify something, we do not "discover" new species that size

[Jeff the Green]

Bigfoot is at least human sized, if not larger. Yes, we find new species all the time, but unless we re-classify something, we do not "discover" new species that size

That's not quite true. The colossal squid wasn't even conceived of until the '20s, and there wasn't solid proof until the '80s. If you want to discover a large new species, look in the deep ocean. There are also a few patches of remote jungle where you might find a decent sized creature.

The Pacific Northwest, while beautiful and in some places pristine, is not one of them.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by AtlanteanTroll
Bigfoot is at least human sized, if not larger. Yes, we find new species all the time, but unless we re-classify something, we do not "discover" new species that size[.]

I'm not sure how your two sentences are meant to be understood together.

The chances of finding another extant hominid are extremely small, both because large-bodied species require more space and food--thus making them more likely to be observed long before now--and also because of the well-documented effects our own species has had on megafauna throughout the world. There's a reason that the only lemurs surviving in Madagascar are all substantially smaller in body size than ourselves.

[Rockphed]

Bigfoot is at least human sized, if not larger. Yes, we find new species all the time, but unless we re-classify something, we do not "discover" new species that size

Well, the coelecanth is about 170cm long, which makes it human sized, and we only found those in 1938. Alternatively, Thor Heyerdahl wrote of his encounter with a whale shark in Kon Tiki and published one of the few pictures thereof in the 1940s (it was grainy and in black and white). However, human sized creatures tend to factor highly into any ecosystem they are in. Whether that is a cougar or a deer, large vertebrates have favorite foods and leave behind excrement. Even if we never saw a critter directly, we would have found weird eating patterns and poop in addition to hair. Also, we would probably have found at least one skeleton.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rockphed
Also, we would probably have found at least one skeleton.

This is the real issue for me, although I agree with Rockphed's other points as well. The coelacanth in particular is a good example, because in fact coelacanths had been known for decades beforehand from fairly extensive fossil evidence.

Likewise, in North America we have fossil evidence for an entire large mammal fauna which no longer exists here--including the North American cheetah, the North American cave lion, and of course the "saber-toothed tiger," Smilodon, as well as the giant ground sloths (Megalonyx and kinfolk) among many others.

These are all well-represented in the North American fossil record, and it's hard to believe that a large-bodied hominid could both survive the Pleistocene extinctions and yet, somehow, not leave a single genuine fossil--despite having had ten thousand more years to do so.

All you'd need is a single molar. Half a mandible would make the case. We don't have one.

[noparlpf]

The name of the scientist is Ketchum. So perhaps it's just a new Pokemon? :smallwink:

The gen six release is in a few days.


I found this Ars Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/) quite interesting - it pulls the study apart in a slightly less dismissive way than usual.

So if she's seen and interacted with these critters, why not just take some high-definition photos, and get direct samples using proper sampling techniques rather than accepting donations from random people who say they found these bits of hair in the woods?


That's not quite true. The colossal squid wasn't even conceived of until the '20s, and there wasn't solid proof until the '80s. If you want to discover a large new species, look in the deep ocean. There are also a few patches of remote jungle where you might find a decent sized creature.

The Pacific Northwest, while beautiful and in some places pristine, is not one of them.

Yeah, the bottom of the ocean isn't the North American woods.

[Ravens_cry]

Anyone notice this delightful contradiction? "A never-before-seen genetic structure that is said to be human."
Um, if it's "never-before-seen" how the <expletive redacted/> do we know it's human?

[Coidzor]

That's not quite true. The colossal squid wasn't even conceived of until the '20s, and there wasn't solid proof until the '80s. If you want to discover a large new species, look in the deep ocean. There are also a few patches of remote jungle where you might find a decent sized creature.

The Pacific Northwest, while beautiful and in some places pristine, is not one of them.

Bigfoot is one of Lovecraft's scaly fish men now? Or Cthulhuoid? :smallconfused:

Course they're not found in the Pacific Northwest. The original Bigfeet got absorbed into the human population in Appalachia and New Jersey! Anything you get out west is just a human who is a genetic throwback to Bigfoot ancestry. AKA a hairy lumberjack who got lost in the woods for a few days/weeks.

[Aedilred]

Anyone notice this delightful contradiction? "A never-before-seen genetic structure that is said to be human."
Um, if it's "never-before-seen" how the <expletive redacted/> do we know it's human?
I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a geneticist, but I presume they mean (the facts are a different matter) that enough of the structure is familiar that the genus is identifiable, but they haven't seen anything like it at the species level.

[noparlpf]

Course they're not found in the Pacific Northwest. The original Bigfeet got absorbed into the human population in Appalachia and New Jersey! Anything you get out west is just a human who is a genetic throwback to Bigfoot ancestry. AKA a hairy lumberjack who got lost in the woods for a few days/weeks.

Come to think of it, I did see a particularly hirsute gentleman last time I went shopping...

[AtlanteanTroll]

The gen six release is in a few days.
I am aware. :smallwink:

I should also clarify my prior statement to land species. But still, it generally holds up.

[noparlpf]

I am aware. :smallwink:

I should also clarify my prior statement to land species. But still, it generally holds up.

Man I don't even have a 3DS yet. :smallfrown:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Aedilred
...I presume they mean (the facts are a different matter) that enough of the structure is familiar that the genus is identifiable, but they haven't seen anything like it at the species level.

Ordinarily when a species is described by molecular techniques, it's compared with known similar species and a basic phylogeny is presented, which represents the authors' best guess as to when the new species evolved and what its closest known relatives are. ("New" species meaning newly recognized, rather than newly evolved.) Phylogenies are also presented for species described from fossil material, although the techniques are different.

I haven't read their report, but I'm pretty sure they don't have a phylogeny showing the relationship of Bigfootensis yougottabekiddinus with our own species and the other great apes, with a couple Hylobates to round it out and a rhesus macaque for a comfortable outgroup. If they did, they would need to specify their sources for the other genetic sequences, which I'm also pretty sure they haven't done.

For an example, take a look at this paper on mouse lemurs (http://primates.squarespace.com/storage/PDF/PC23.new.microcebus.V3.pdf), in particular the table on p. 22 and the phylograms on pp. 24-26. (Also, for those inclined to squee, be sure to look at the photos on pp. 32-33.) This is the sort of documentation that's considered standard for a description based on mtDNA.




Originally Posted by noparlpf
Man I don't even have a 3DS yet.

Don't feel too bad, I don't even know what that is.

:smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a geneticist, but I presume they mean (the facts are a different matter) that enough of the structure is familiar that the genus is identifiable, but they haven't seen anything like it at the species level.
Then I would say that, not that we know too much about other Homo species's genetics.

[noparlpf]

Then I would say that, not that we know too much about other Homo species's genetics.

We know a lot about Neandertals and quite a lot about Denisovans. (I believe we actually did a full genome sequencing for the Denisovan teeth found. Not sure if we have a full genome for Neandertals or just large chunks of it.) We also know that some human populations share up to 5% of their genetic material with either group.

[Knaight]

While I'm aware it's not likely Bigfoot really exists, I like to think he does. I like to think that there's mysterious things like that which we haven't discovered and which we can't explain yet. Adds a bit of wonder to an already wonderful world.

There are plenty of mysterious things that we haven't discovered. Even among megafauna, the deep oceans aren't well explored at all, and if you look towards microscopic organisms? We are finding new extremophiles all the time, which can include some very novel adaptations.

[Ravens_cry]

We know a lot about Neandertals and quite a lot about Denisovans. (I believe we actually did a full genome sequencing for the Denisovan teeth found. Not sure if we have a full genome for Neandertals or just large chunks of it.) We also know that some human populations share up to 5% of their genetic material with either group.
It would be neat if we could find a Neanderthal (or earlier!) equivalent to the frozen mammoths or Ötzi. I would love for a chance to meet an Other.

[noparlpf]

It would be neat if we could find a Neanderthal (or earlier!) equivalent to the frozen mammoths or Ötzi. I would love for a chance to meet an Other.

You mean clone one? They'd be basically the same as any other human once we raised them in a modern society.

[Ravens_cry]

You mean clone one? They'd be basically the same as any other human once we raised them in a modern society.
Perhaps or perhaps not. We don't know! And that's what's awesome!

[Mx.Silver]

Perhaps or perhaps not. We don't know! And that's what's awesome!

They were close enough to interbreed (a good chunk of the world's population have some Neanderthal ancestry) so one would imagine that differences wouldn't be that huge.

[Ravens_cry]

They were close enough to interbreed (a good chunk of the world's population have some Neanderthal ancestry) so one would imagine that differences wouldn't be that huge.
The fact we don't know is what's so awesome about the idea, especially if we can clone earlier Homo species.

[Palanan]

Cloning any species of Homo raises huge ethical issues. NSF won't touch that.

I think what Ravens_cry meant* was finding a remnant population of Neanderthals, still surviving in some distant corner of our modern world. Incredibly unlikely, yes, but still a lot of fun to think about.



I've mentioned it in another thread, but I'll post it here too: an excellent program (http://www.pbs.org/program/skeletons-sahara/) that was on Nova last week (at least here in the U.S.) called Skeletons of the Sahara. These people were definitely our own species--two different populations, separated by five thousand years--and fascinating in their own right.


_______
*
Hmm. On a reread...maybe not? Let me know if that's what you meant, or if I completely misunderstood you there.

.

[Ravens_cry]

Cloning any species of Homo raises huge ethical issues. NSF won't touch that.

I think what Ravens_cry meant* was finding a remnant population of Neanderthals, still surviving in some distant corner of our modern world. Incredibly unlikely, yes, but still a lot of fun to think about.

Nah, I meant full on cloning, though, yes, that would be preferable. For SCIENCE!

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Ravens_cry
For SCIENCE!

No! For...

MAD SCIENCE!!!!

:smalltongue:

.

[Rockphed]

Nah, I meant full on cloning, though, yes, that would be preferable. For SCIENCE!

Only if we can also clone mammoth. I think it would be tasty.

[Ravens_cry]

Only if we can also clone mammoth. I think it would be tasty.
Try elephant. Probably similar.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rockphed
Only if we can also clone mammoth. I think it would be tasty.

Tastes like dire chicken.

:smalltongue:

[Aedilred]

Cloning any species of Homo raises huge ethical issues. NSF won't touch that.

I think what Ravens_cry meant* was finding a remnant population of Neanderthals, still surviving in some distant corner of our modern world. Incredibly unlikely, yes, but still a lot of fun to think about.
Well, if Futurama were correct, war would ensue almost immediately, and in recognition of their overwhelming victory, we'd call it a draw.

[Tyndmyr]

No! For...

MAD SCIENCE!!!!

:smalltongue:

.

Really, what's the point of going mad if you don't have either science or power to go mad with? It seems dreadfully boring otherwise. Hell, you don't even need a proper megalomaniacal laugh, otherwise.