Jump to content

When to claim extinction...


King, North TX
 Share

Recommended Posts

!

Moderator Note


Moontanman, Ringer,
If you ask for some references, just ask for a "reference". I know it is a lot funnier when you ask for something that comes from somewhere where the sun does shine. But it is not more productive.
Quoting swansont always gets you some credits here, but it may still be more productive to just ask what you want, which is a "reference".

King, North TX
If you are the one being asked for a reference, you must provide it.
We are a science forum, not a court of law. What is good enough for a court of law is not good enough for us. Either use the scientific method, of give up the discussion.
Also, laws change from country to country. Science is international.

It is not allowed to make some wild speculations, and then to withdraw these as soon as someone asks for a reference. This behavior can be called "trolling", and is against the rules.

Do not reply to this mod note. If you disagree with it, please use the report button at the bottom of the post, and another staff member will have a look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

But anecdotes don't count as empirically collected data (nor would eyewitness testimony alone prove someone's guilt in most cases). Maybe having a solid recording of the species or a body, but certainly not people's stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intelligence isn’t really a beneficial trait.

Evolutionarily speaking, its better to be stronger, faster, or better adapted, then it is to be "smart" because unless you pass a minimum threshold for intelligence, you will not achieve much.


simply put, the whole human species is a fluke of nature that happened by accident

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

. But I am sure you'll say these videos could be faked, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

. But I am sure you'll say these videos could be faked, right?

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

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

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

. But I am sure you'll say these videos could be faked, right?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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. smile.png

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

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.

 

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...

 

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.

Edited by Ringer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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 youngest Neanderthals include the Vindija Cave fossils in Croatia, which are between 33,000 and 32,000 years old. No definite specimens younger than 30,000 years ago have been found, but evidence of fire by Neanderthals in Gibraltar indicate they may have survived there until 24,000 years ago. Cro-Magnon or early modern human skeletal remains with "Neanderthal traits" were found in Lagar Velho (Portugal), dated to 24,500 years ago and interpreted as indications of extensively admixed populations.[4]

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Gigantopithecus blacki

Gigantopithecus blacki is only known through fossil teeth and mandibles found in cave sites inSoutheast Asia. As the name suggests, these are appreciably larger than those of living gorillas, but the exact size and structure of the rest of the body can only be estimated in the absence of additional findings. Dating methods have shown that G. blacki existed for about a million years, going extinct about 100,000 years ago after having been contemporary with (anatomically) modernhumans (Homo sapiens) for tens of thousands of years, and co-existing with H. erectus before the appearance of H. sapiens.[2]

 

300px-Gigantopithecus_v_human_v1.svg.png

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

300px-Gigantopithecus_v_human_v1.svg.png

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

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

Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer. Following the previous example, observer A might truthfully report that a room is warm, while observer B might truthfully report that the same room is cool, though both observe the same reading on the thermometer. The use of empirical evidence negates this effect of personal (i.e., subjective) experience.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King... the main problem with eye witness accounts is that people simply lie, they often have an agenda and seeing something like a bear can result in misidentification. The main reason i suggested that lack of road kills is significant is because if bigfoot is as common as eye witnesses imply then there would have to be a population of many thousands at least in relatively well populated locations where people drive cars that eventually kill everything that lives in a certain area. Even people end up as accidental road kills, why would bigfoot be too smart to be hit?

 

And then there are hunters, hunters spend a lot of time in the woods, they come across everything eventually and a hunter would have almost certainly killed a bigfoot by now but all we get are hoaxes. people lie King, not always and not all the time but so far no real evidence of bigfoot has come to light. No remains of naturally killed individuals, no fossils, nothing but claims of something seen in the dark... No clear photos that weren't shown to be fakes, no films that cannot be shown to be fake, foot prints are no better because they can and have been shown to be fake.

 

No extant or extinct animal is similar to bigfoot, it is anomalous, no connection with life on earth what so ever and the idea that bigfoot is a half human half ape is just silly... I could support UFOs easier than bigfoot with better evidence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.