King, North TX

That this thread is 'here', and not where originally posted is a form of "censorship", and I will be inactive until it is replaced.

That is all.

And again you make a ridiculous false equivalence. Me seeing a bus directly in front of me, large close thing, and someone seeing a 'bigfoot' in the distance, pretty small far thing, are two totally different scenarios. Not to mention I don't live my entire life on the basis of scientific merit. If I did how would I ever choose which cereal I should eat, because I've never had a double blind study showing which cereal I like best.

 

From a purely philosophical view seeing something could be considered empirical evidence, though if recalling something it would still be indirect evidence. But when doing science you need validity, and therefore objectivity. Eyewitness testimony has been objectively shown as unreliable on so many levels it is not used as scientifically valid evidence. Here's a quote from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research#Scientific_research

 

Since memories don't have the ability to be analyzed objectively they cannot be used as evidence, and every video or body 'found' has been shown as fraud so far.

YOU say it is a false equivalence, but I am arguing it is 'silly' not to trust eye witness accounts, especially when patterns and trends begin to emerge. Given your propensity for accuracy, I'd argue that you are likely NOT eating the best cereal you possibly could...or maybe you are?

Again, if eye witness-empirically collected evidence is so poor, then why don't we run into things more? Clearly our vision serves us on a daily basis to successfully navigate yet you dismiss it without regard.

 

That's not what was claimed - this is one of the more blatant strawmen I've ever come across on SFN.

 

A scientifically correct postion is to agree with the data. If there are no recordings of an organism outside of the fossil record, it is not a scientifically tenable postition to accept that the organism is extant. Taken to its logical extension, the claim that "science" can't accept the likelihood of an organism's extinction until it has searched everywhere is not a sensible place to be and leads, as this thread clearly shows to spurious claims.

 

I've moved the thread to speculations pending evidence of contemporary neatherthal populations. It's clear the thread is about cryptozoology rather than mainstream biology

First...I had no idea there was a cryptozoology section, but that said, "I think moving this thread is both uncalled for and a manner of dismissal." This isn't about "Neanderthals", bigfoot, or the any other specific entity, but rather when it is acceptable to claim something extinct.

To say the least, I do not fully appreciate this thread's removal.

Could you stop making ridiculous analogies? I am not a field general and I don't have to make quick decisions to save peoples lives. So we can be more strict than what a field general could.

 

Yes and no. Yes an uncontaminated sample is needed, but no I would not need to do it myself. Those 'narrow' goalposts are expected to be held when you're in a biology class, let alone when you're actually doing field study.

 

Look, what I don't get is why science disqualifies empirical evidence, sometimes. "People can misperceive." Indeed, we CAN...but DO we, so much so that "we" should not be trusted? How do you operate from day to day, then? If you were in the street and saw a bus headed toward you, would you not MOVE, so that it missed you? I personally find great folly in dismissing eye witness accounts, and my OWN eyes, but that's just me...

Well, all that I can do is trust reputable journalists to cover this as they can...I haven't been in a field in decades.

As long as humans are reproducing with variation evolution goes on...

Agreed...but the degree to which that variation occurs and 'changes' would have everything to do with varying environmental demands, right?

Being in a different environment certainly changes the selection pressures operating on a population, ... examples of human progress, but human progress and human evolution aren't the same thing and don't require one another to exist.

Agreed, and I would argue that progress IS evolution.

That doesn't really have anything to do with biological evolution, though.

You don't think living on another planet would have anything to do with our biological evolution???

EVERYTHING in a given environment, including the people in it drive one's evolution.

No...

Human evolution continues. Olympic records continue to fall, our frontiers pushed further outward, colonization of Mars is but a generation away.

 

You are obviously unaware of just how much is known about the past...

Are you claiming that we know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING...?

Really?

There are no mysteries, or unexplained periods or time utterly lost to history?

I find that well beyond funny.

 

 

But "neanderthal" is not the simplest answer, in fact it is a very complicated, first of all neanderthals are extinct... There are no extant individuals of Homo neanderthalensis

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

 

 

 

 

The last traces of neanderthals was found in southern Spain, they never migrated to north america..

 

Bigfoot, or at least the descriptions of bigfoot do not in anyway resemble neanderthals, you are barking up the wrong tree. This tree makes more sense but is still highly improbable...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

 

 

 

 

 

Have you not heard that 'we' have Neanderthal DNA in us...?

Reversion to a more wild form, and selective breeding 'could' bring back Neanderthals...looking around I am not so sure this isn't a commonality.

I think it further folly to pretend to know everything about Neanderthal behavior and nomadic capabilities...

 

 

King, you are not being reasonable, while there is a non zero possibility that someplace some lone neanderthal, the last of his kind is sitting in some remote cave it is highly improbable, while humans have not officially explored every square inch of the planet officially humans do indeed cover the entire planet and no trace of neanderthals have been found for 28,000 years. Trying to equate bigfoot and neanderthals is just silly...

I like to try to keep things simple. Instead of inventing bigfoot, it is far more simple to look to a KNOWN entity that has both ability and knowledge to hide their dead...

I usually find that the simplest answer is the right one, herein maybe something we thought was extinct, isn't.

Why no bodies King? Why no road kills? Why no hunters killing one and bringing it in? What do they eat in the winter? Why can't infra red cameras pick them up? Why???

Ages ago, their very survival depended on NOT being seen, detected, or they WOULD be hunted.

I guess, all of the answers lay in who and what they are. Maybe they've learned to preserve food, scavenge off of other kills, or eat grubs and the like. I have no idea.

I think hunter's game cameras, infrared, and night vision WILL be how we catch them...some believe we already have.

No, eye witnesses are anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence due to a ridiculous amount of data on the fallibility of perception and memory.

 

Contamination by the large amounts of organisms in the place they found the hair, by the people taking the sample, by contaminates exposure during transportation, by the lab running the samples, etc. DNA is everywhere, unless proper procedures are followed contamination is virtually guaranteed.

 

 

 

No, the probability it will land on heads half the time are exactly the same as it landing on heads 100 times, each flip is independent from the last.

 

Anyway, the world is very large, but bigfoot sightings are not everywhere in the world. They tend to be in a specific place that is very unlikely for a wild hominid of its description to live with a sustainable population. There is a difference between 'there are organisms we haven't discovered that exist' and 'this specific organism we haven't discovered exists.' Much like the coin flips a specific event is very unlikely (50H:50T) while a non-specific event is more likely to happen (50H +/- 15: 50T +/-15). With the first you look for only one possible outcome, 50:50 distribution. The second any distribution between 35:65 to 65:35 will be accepted.

Eye witness testimony is not "invaluable"... If you were a field general, and a scout just returned with "visually collected" data on the approaching forces numbers and capability, what are you gonna do with that "empirically collected evidence" or "anecdote"...? Ignore it? Trust it? Would you ask questions about the reliability of the scout's previous reports? Would you drug test him, before trusting the data?

So, you want a "pure" untainted by soil, sweat, rain, or other living organisms DNA sample of an unknown primate to be presented for review by you personally...sans that you stand in disbelief? Do you think you could make those goalposts any more narrow?

I never took statistics, so my terminology may be off, but I know probabilities and reality often differ.

Sightings happen in the same kind(s) of places, the world over.

 

No, eye witnesses are not empirical evidence... No neanderthals exist....

 

 

It is rare but occasionally things do pop up, mostly small creatures, but no trace of neanderthals have been found for 28,000 years, I don't expect to see one show up in the pacific northwest any time soon...

 

King, yes i will admit that a few neanderthals could hide someplace like the pacific northwest... but not a breeding population. A breeding population would have to consist of thousands of individuals, just a few would not be able to maintain their numbers over time...

Eye witnesses are not equal to one another, and should not be generalized.

"No, Neanderthals exist."

You said it yourself, it is "rare" but things do pop up...and "bigfoot" has been seen by all men throughout the ages, the world over... They spurred legend, cult followings, and have had an effect on our world...even spawning this exchange. We know black holes exist, not because we can see them, but because they have an affect on the things around them...

Without FULLY exploring a known habitat, it would be folly to say you were "certain" about what exists and what doesn't.

"The climate is changing."

"We've got a possibility of a snow tornado." ...Yup, that's what some weather person just said there is a possibility of...

So that's not new, right? We've always had "snow tornados!?"

When I was a kid, I lived almost dead center tornado alley, north central Texas. We had tornados drills aplenty and severe thunderstorms were commonplace. Now, according to the data, more actual tornados are occurring further east and north. I blogged about it once.

But now there's talk of a snow tornado? That's a new one for me...

I recently saw 'Stephen Hawking special- Did God create the universe? ' , a program in the Discovery channel. The great mind concluded that he believes there's no god, and before the big bang, there was no space or time to begin any creation. And that everything was made from "nothing".

So i was thinking, okay, there may not be a God, but what was this "nothing"? If the Big Bang started from an atom sized thing, how did it appear in the first place? If space is not "nothing", then what is it?

For those who want to watch the program, search the title in youtube.

Thanks in advance

I've always thought of "God" AS the ever-expanding universe that is a set of unbreakable rules that guide all the moving bodies therein.

We are just a drop of water in that every expanding sea of expanse... God isn't one thing, but rather everything, and how it works within itself.

 

 

Actually you are the one making the positive assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

My assertion here is that so many eye witnesses ARE "empirically collected data", that this data shows "patterns & trends" leaning TOWARD, not away from a "KNOWN" reality that science mistakenly snuffed out, without fully exploring a known habitat.

Science FAILED to prove many things "extinct"...well a few anyway.

My position of contamination still stands until it is ruled out by evidence.

 

Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if the probability of existence is low. One would expect to see outliers in some cases, but for every one exception there are millions that are true to form.

"Contamination" by what...? I asked before, hoping you could explain "unknown DNA", as a 'contamination'?

The problem with "probabilities" is that they don't always apply to reality. You MIGHT flip a coin 100 times, and it land on heads half the time, but it might not. This world is large enough for LOTS of stuff to hide...

Sorry, I got wrapped up in school work. 4-A's one B. SOB!

In any case, you asked for a reference, because this is a science board and all: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/bigfoot-dna-proves-creature-exists-genetic_n_2199984.html

But I suppose that really doesn't count.

My point here is NOT that 'I' should have to prove anything, but that Science itself FAILED when it declared the Neanderthals extinct to begin with. Unless 100% of known habitat for said entity is eliminated, it is folly to say something is for sure extinct. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The giant red-headed woodpecker is but another recent example of science's failure is this regard. The DO have recent

 

To steal from swansont, 'the plural of anecdote is not evidence, it's anecdotes'.

 

 

Unless it is in a court of law...

Therein empirically collected data IS evidence enough for us to justify killing our fellow man.

Just say'n.

Care to support that with something you haven't pulled from where the sun don't shine?

 

 

 

Just what does Puma Punku have to do with either bigfoot, UFOs, or neanderthals?

Nah, it was just a rabbit I chased.

UFO's 'could' be just earthly terrestrials, who ascended into the heavens ages ago...

There is no evidence that Neanderthals ever lived in North America, absolutely none...

 

...

 

There is more and better evidence for UFOs being alien space craft than bigfoot evidence.

Except these hundreds and thousands of sightings.

Don't get me started on those... It took 'us', a mere 100 years to go from the Wright Brothers to Neil Armstrong. 100 years is a blink of the eye in the time Humanity has been on this planet. Are you suggesting that ONLY We, present day man, has been the ONLY 'thing' to have evolved here and ascended into the heavens??? That's pretty egotistical, buddy.

Don't you know that the Earth has beget MANY civilizations, some crumbled into the seas ages ago, some 'up and left', while other simply perished to the winds of time. Those 'things', the unidentified images caught on so many radar towers, witnessed by thousands of pilots and police alike, ARE those 'Earthly ancestors' of ours who escaped and now live 'up there'...maybe. That to me seemed the simplest answer, 'that We are not all that special after all'... Have you ever seen the ruins of Puma Punku. Awesome Peoples have existed here, before we got here.

There are a large number of problems with getting samples from untrained people. Namely the samples were probably contaminated, but if not that would be cool. I would be making any bets though.

*Contaminated by "unknown DNA"...?

You think it is more likely that hundreds of thousands of people throughout time were 'just imagining things'...?

OR...that something has 'possibly' escaped the scientific record...?

Habitats can be both known and unexplored...the ocean for example. It is a pretty big entity, hiding stuff is pretty easy. Take a look at a nighttime map of North America, and a map of al the sightings that have occurred, and tell me you don't see a correlation. Neanderthal habitat never disappeared.

 

Us having neanderthal DNA is meaningless, except that there could also be 'pure' neanderthals still roaming about, as the genesis of the wild man and bigfoot tales...

 

IF they do indeed exist, they likely developed some sort of language and the ability to capture history, or at the very least they've collectively been able to avoid detection and capture, which 'demands' communication at high levels.

Any thoughts on this story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/bigfoot-dna-proves-creature-exists-genetic_n_2199984.html

If it's unexplored then we don't know if it will provide for that animal. Hence, every animal that has ever existed still exists. But if we follow that logic there would not be enough resources in unexplored areas to support everything that has ever lived, so we would have to pick and choose what we 'assume' is still alive. How would we do that? We don't, we say they're extinct until more are found

 

 

 

Yes, we have neanderthal DNA, so what? What does that have to do with anything, and the wild man myth is moving the goalposts. Why would Bigfoot be a wild man myth, he would be too big and distinct to be considered a man. Why would our knowledge of them mean death, it hasn't been that way for many decades. If they are that intelligent they would probably know that.

Habitats can be both known and unexplored...the ocean for example. It is a pretty big entity, hiding stuff is pretty easy. Take a look at a nighttime map of North America, and a map of al the sightings that have occurred, and tell me you don't see a correlation. Neanderthal habitat never disappeared.

Us having neanderthal DNA is meaningless, except that there could also be 'pure' neanderthals still roaming about, as the genesis of the wild man and bigfoot tales...

IF they do indeed exist, they likely developed some sort of language and the ability to capture history, or at the very least they've collectively been able to avoid detection and capture, which 'demands' communication at high levels.

Gives a whole new meaning to anal doesn't it?

 

...

 

You are again assuming them to be real, videos can and have been faked, foot prints are often faked, sightings are open to interpretation.

 

 

 

There in lies the rub, until you do have bones and bodies bigfoot is just a myth. Give some thought to the road kill idea, eventually all animals end up as road kill, even grizzly bears, why do we not see bigfoot road kills? They have been seen in populated areas, beside interstate highways, the forests are full of hunters every year yet no bigfoot has been shot.

I wish I could breath water through my ass.

A suit made of animal skin including a hood, would make something appear 'bigger' than it actually was...

I KNOW that the plural of anecdote is not evidence. However, I again see folly is dismissing "empirical evidence" especially when sources are both accredited, reliable, AND report 'similar' details. If a police officer's testimony can convict you of murder, who can't they verify the existence of a bi-pedal hominid?

Road kill? These thing would have had to survive us HUNTING them. They would identify human colonies as instant death, road ways especially. On the highway I travel most, I see armadillos, skunks, and the occasional deer. In 37 years I have never seen a mountain lion, dead on the highway...we've got them around here, but you don't usually 'see' them. I've never seen a dead bobcat on the road either. I almost never see dead snakes either. The ONLY way Neanderthal man could have survived was by being 'better' at staying hidden and on the run than Cro-Magnon was at hunting. It's the difference between Enkidu and Gilgamesh. There's plenty of room for wild men.

Look at a nighttime map of North America, then overlay the sightings map...

[/size]

 

So everything that has ever existed should be assumed to still exist?<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252);">

[/size]

 

So you believe the simplest answer is that a separate group of hominids has lived with humans without ever making true contact with us throughout recorded history? Not only that, but they have successfully hidden all evidence of life or society and are able to live comfortably in an area filled with other major predators.

 

<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252);">

 

 

So why have we found so many Neanderthal remains?

 

 

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/28/nation/la-na-nn-bigfoot-sasquatch-hoax-20120828

If there is unexplored habitat known to provide for all of that animal's needs, then indeed I think it is folly to assume "complete extinction".

First, I believe that 'some' of neanderthals were assimilated, most were likely killed or were out competed for food and supplies, but that some could have escaped. The 'wild man' myth is global, timeless, and replete with eye witnesses, and because they know that our knowledge of them means death, they keep their dead very hidden.

I can see a "WILL brake for ACTUAL Bigfoot" bumper sticker explosion...

...

 

 

That is not even good enough to be called speculation, no matter how smart they are a hunter would have killed one by now. We can find and trap even extremely rare animals natural populations of neanderthals would not be able to hide from people completely. maybe neanderthals wear costumes? Now you are just trolling...

 

...

Butt-breathing turtles...awesome.

Neanderthals wore animal skins...you don't think tailored clothes would be a common adaptation?

They AREN'T hiding from us completely...take a look at the sightings maps, the plaster casts of prints, the videos.

We've got everything but bones and bodies.

So you mean that something can't be proven to be gone or not. That sounds a lot like (read:exactly) what a wise man once said in post #2. We have to go with what the evidence says. If every known population of a species is gone, we can comfortably say that species is probably extinct. If a new population is found we will then say that species is not extinct. Your absence of evidence is not evidence can not be taken at face value. If something has been thoroughly studied and no evidence has been found there is evidence of absence. Take your Bigfoot example, gigantolopithicus is not believed to be bipedal nor is it probable that it would have many of the strictly hominid traits Bigfoot is said to have. Now if it was a neanderthal that would explain the hominid traits. The problem is that remains of those hominids have not been found in the America, nor any species that could be Bigfoot. There have been scientific inquiries to try to find Bigfoot but none have been successful. Many species may be difficult to find, but seeing the intensity those who search for Bigfoot in the siting areas, and taking into account the population size needed to sustain a large biped, it would be extremely difficult for them to remain hidden. As for LNM BBC does a better job than I would http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3096839.stm .

 

You can't prove something doesn't exist, but when there is no evidence of it there is no reason to assume it exists.

All that we can study are 'known' populations...'known' habitats. It is pretty easy to appreciate extinct habitats, and thus extinct dinosaurs. I do however find folly in deciding something is extinct, when you have not fully explored known habitats.

While I think that the likelihood of a population of plesiosaurs roaming the globe is slim, I think that a self-aware evolved humanoid living where they are not supposed to be is the most likely explanation for bigfoot sightings. Most of the time the simplest answer is the correct one.

So, Neanderthals were the first to bury their dead...which explains why we find no bodies... What 'evidence' is there that Neanderthals no longer exist, anywhere?

Do you have any idea of how long the Plesiosaur has been extinct? A small population in a small lake is not supportable for many reasons not the least of which is that the lake hasn't existed for 65,000,000 years, yes, that's how long plesiosaurs have been extinct, no trace of them in the fossil record for 65,000,000 million years and suddenly they turn up in a lake in Scotland? . Giganthropithicus has little if any resemblance to big foot and no traces of them have been found for many millions of years. A population of giganthropithicus large enough to be self sustaning would not be able to hide. If nothing else we would see them as the occasional road kill. Neanderthals are shorter on average than regular humans so 8 foot tall hairy beast they cannot be.

 

You can't prove I don't have an invisible unicorn in my basement either, do you think that you not being able to prove it is evidence I have one? ?

First, I've seen the biological count of the fish in Loch Ness. It is not possible to support a large predator or a population of them in that lake. If it is connected by an underwater cave to the ocean, all bets are off. If they live in the deep, and have developed gills, there is no way to know if they are or aren't still around. The fossil record is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT an accurate representation of all the species and density populations, period. To create a fossil that will last the ages and beyond, everything has to happen perfectly, and all of the right elements have to be present.

Neanderthals WERE short, as were we once, but with diet and selective breeding, humans have too grown over the decades...or maybe neanderthals also wear costumes to alter their size? I mean if we killed off all the short stupid ones, wouldn't that leave the REALLY smart fast ones? In order to survive would they have chosen ONLY the smartest and most adept to breed? If you overlay the map of reported sightings, atop topographical maps, networks that utilize untouched forests and largely unoccupied areas appear...

I don't fully appreciate your "invisible unicorns" argument. Unless, of course you have fossil evidence of such a thing?

My argument here isn't for the fanciful, it is that claiming extinction, without complete habitat loss is likely a misstep.

...

 

For your non-extinction question, you can't really prove if a species is gone or not. You have to give it a best guess, but if something is considered extinct there isn't really a strong argument for it being extant.

Here's my problem with 'science' claiming something truly extinct..."absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." If you haven't been everywhere, at the same time, you should NOT conclude that something doesn't exist. If something HAS existed, as the plesiosaur has and as giagantolopithicus or neanderthal man has that 'might' be mistaken for the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot. SAYING these things are extinct, and proving it, are two very different things. In fact, I don't think you really CAN prove something doesn't exist.

So, I think the requirement for "proof" is ill-placed.

Our Earth is still 'not yet fully explored and occupied', so declaring something extinction is almost always a probability thing, right?

Coelacanth were thought to be extinct, until one popped up in a fisherman's net, but this is an isolated incident, except that people are both hearing and seeing the giant red headed woodpecker.

So with these and other examples readily available, why is cryptozoology so ill-respected respected in general?

The question I'd really like an answer to is how would a layman prepare an argument for the non-extinction of anything, sans a body?