Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[tsig]

I agree. When we go after woo-mongers here, its more for the benefit of the (fence-sitting) lurkers than it is for any hope of converting the closed-minded.

I do it for the lulz.

 

[Resume]

I understand there's good money in spreading bigfoot disinfo.

 

[Jodie]

multi quote malfunction correction

 

[Jodie]

^Don't give me too much credit, Harry. I haven't posted there in I think a couple of months. I've been breaking away precisely because the place has been overrun by nutcases who I find to be a bit too unglued to benefit from anything I might have to offer.

Exactly, not worth the effort.

 

[Resume]

Dinwar, you keep laboring that point when I'm not in disagreement with you about that. There are few fossils available compared to the population through out time, I'm sure there will be gaps somewhere in that fossil record whether it has anything to do with a bigfoot, or not. I don't think all 6000+ fossils is representative of every hominid that ever lived.

What I saw was the continued parsing of every verb and noun while missing his entire point, whether or not it was correct, which again is a fallacist's fallacy the prevents discussion of any kind. As far as snowflakes are concerned, or snow in general, I would imagine a plant paleontologist like yourself would be more familiar than I am with that kind of weather condition.

??

You quoted Slowvehicle but addressed Dinwar.

 

[Jodie]

I have no idea what I did, I tried the multiquote function and something went awry. I think I'll stick to italics or bolding, but was answering Dinwar, I think. Since they edited, the thread has lost it's flow.

 

[Jodie]

Okay a few points here.

1. This is a discussion board. We should not be kowtowing to people that want to use it as a soapbox or not participate in discussions. Coming into this place with an attitude of "I don't walk to talk about this and don't have to explain myself to you" is not something anyone should be jumping to defend.

If it gets to that point, that's why it isn't worth responding to, at that point there is no discussion.

2. A discussion is not a debate. We're not in a high school debate club here where we "win" by accruing points. You don't have to be right to win a debate. A debate is not about the truth. Science is not a debate. Reality is not a debate.

The forum members here in the past have used this tactic before to deflect discussion. No, you don't have to be right, wrong , or sideways, but calling people names or liars isn't exactly conducive to any kind of discussion.

3. The idea that when a person doesn't respond to errors, falsehoods, misinformation, or outright fabrications being point out in arguments they have presented that the "proper" thing to do is to drop it and "stop engaging" else you're "dogpiling" or "picking on" or "steamrolling" or whatever asanine hyperbolic term we're using to describing it this week is just massively unreasonable. Let me make this very clear. There is no level of wrong that another person can achieve that the reasonable response for sane people is for them to stop engaging them. You don't get to win by being so wrong you're wronger then wrong.

You lost me on this one. Someone coming over here and stating someone like Dyer is about to prove bigfoot is real, for example.....well I have nothing to say about something that stupid. It just reinforces the nonsense IMO.

 

[LTC8K6]

Often, if we dismiss a footer out of hand, such as dragoN, we get about as much flack as if we engage...

We are scoftics who won't even consider what someone has to say...

Not that I give a darn about flack from footers...

 

[Resume]

You lost me on this one. Someone coming over here and stating someone like Dyer is about to prove bigfoot is real, for example.....well I have nothing to say about something that stupid. It just reinforces the nonsense IMO.

Until maybe nine months ago, I had no idea who this Dyer person was. Or most of the players in bigfootery. Reading the threads and links here educated me on many things bigfoot including the anti-science rhetoric emanating from that camp. That in itself oftimes demands response.

 

[Vortigern99]

Regarding the supposed paucity of hominid fossils, Dr. Leslea Hlusko, a professor at UC Berkeley, has said this:

"We always talk about the paucity of the fossil record for hominids — and there are some gaps, and there are just a handful of fossils from some time periods. But when you compare it to another family, the hominid record is a really good record. I mean we actually have a pretty good understanding of what happened in human evolution if you compare it to chimps — or to many other mammalian families...We have a lot better understanding than what gets portrayed in the popular literature...We actually do have the fossil data to figure out how our ancestors evolved."​

Source.

This page discusses the rarity of fossils in general:

It is important to address the rarity of fossils in the context that for any particular organism that once existed, the probability that it today is part of the fossil record is infinitesimally small. Such profound rarity is a consequence of three factors: 1) fossil formation is a rare event; 2) fossil survival is a rare event; and 3) an exceedingly tiny fraction of surviving fossils will ever be accessible to be found, though the crust of the earth is filled with them.
​

(The page goes on to examine these factors in sequence: "The likelihood of an organism becoming fossilized is poor....")

And so on. There are hundreds of websites that discuss why fossilization is a rare event. The topic is also discussed in actual books on paleontology, which you can find in actual libraries and book stores, the text of which is not available on the internet. Here is a list of some of those books.

It may behoove someone not familiar with the science to read up before making judgmental pronouncements.

 

[Jodie]

Have you ever seen a Rick Dyer you tube video? He gets teary eyed in this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maLFhvngiOY

 

[Jodie]

Regarding the supposed paucity of hominid fossils, Dr. Leslea Hlusko, a professor at UC Berkeley, has said this:

"We always talk about the paucity of the fossil record for hominids — and there are some gaps, and there are just a handful of fossils from some time periods. But when you compare it to another family, the hominid record is a really good record. I mean we actually have a pretty good understanding of what happened in human evolution if you compare it to chimps — or to many other mammalian families...We have a lot better understanding than what gets portrayed in the popular literature...We actually do have the fossil data to figure out how our ancestors evolved."​

Source.

This page discusses the rarity of fossils in general:

It is important to address the rarity of fossils in the context that for any particular organism that once existed, the probability that it today is part of the fossil record is infinitesimally small. Such profound rarity is a consequence of three factors: 1) fossil formation is a rare event; 2) fossil survival is a rare event; and 3) an exceedingly tiny fraction of surviving fossils will ever be accessible to be found, though the crust of the earth is filled with them.
​

(The page goes on to examine these factors in sequence: "The likelihood of an organism becoming fossilized is poor....")

And so on. There are hundreds of websites that discuss why fossilization is a rare event. The topic is also discussed in actual books on paleontology, which you can find in actual libraries and book stores, the text of which is not available on the internet. Here is a list of some of those books.

It may behoove someone not familiar with the science to read up before making judgmental pronouncements.

Until you find another one or two hominids to add to the collection, then it becomes an even better record.

And where is the fossil example that donated this man's Y chromosome that predates modern man?

http://www.newscientist.com/article...all-men-is-340000-years-old.html#.UkD7I388Of8

This is an oversimplification for what I see as a flaw in the science of paleontology and highlights the point I was making. Despite the fact that Dinwar will probably spew beer out of his nose when he reads this, I'm posting it anyway:

Process for Cladistics- if groups B and C have more similarities to each other than either has to group A, then B and C are more closely related to each other than either is to A.

Association fallacy-
Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs

The fallacy in the argument can be illustrated through the use of an Euler diagram: "A" satisfies the requirement that it is part of both sets "B" and "C", but if one represents this as an Euler diagram, it can clearly be seen that it is possible that a part of set "B" is not part of set "C", refuting the conclusion that "all Bs are Cs".

It seems like all of that could be pretty subjective.

 

[Akri]

Until you find another one or two hominids to add to the collection, then it becomes an even better record.

That is how such things work, yes.

And where is the fossil example that donated this man's Y chromosome that predates modern man?

This question doesn't make sense. He didn't get the chromosome from a fossil, and I don't think they determined the age of the chromosome by comparing it to a fossil (though I do admit that I only skimmed your link, so I may have missed something important).

This is an oversimplification for what I see as a flaw in the science of paleontology and highlights the point I was making.

Do you actually know enough to judge if there are flaws in paleontology or not? From what I've read of your exchange with Dinwar, it certainly doesn't seem like it.

Process for Cladistics- if groups B and C have more similarities to each other than either has to group A, then B and C are more closely related to each other than either is to A.

Association fallacy-
Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs

The fallacy in the argument can be illustrated through the use of an Euler diagram: "A" satisfies the requirement that it is part of both sets "B" and "C", but if one represents this as an Euler diagram, it can clearly be seen that it is possible that a part of set "B" is not part of set "C", refuting the conclusion that "all Bs are Cs".

It seems like all of that could be pretty subjective.

(Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, and most of what I know of cladistics come from listening to Dinwar ramble while slaying demons in Dialbo II. I'm sure he'll pop in here at some point to give a more in-depth response, and to point out any grievous errors I make.)

First, scientists know that cladistics has limitations. They understand those limitations far better than you do. In fact, they've tested them, using statistical models, to work out just how well cladisitics stacks up against other methods for determining how closely related different species are.

Second, comparing features to see which creatures are most similar isn't nearly as subjective as you're probably thinking. They get down to very, very minute details, using precise measurements. They're not just taking a glance and saying "eh, seems similar". They're measuring everything--number and size of teeth, length of limbs, size of head, size of body, ratios of various body parts, lengths between various points (between the eyes, nose to forehead, between joints, etc). There is some subjectivity involved, but they do as much as possible to minimize that.

 

[The Shrike]

Cladistics is not unique to paleontology, it is a method of reconstructing phylogenetic relationships that has revolutionized all biosystematics. Why is it so popular? The reason is that cladistics places great emphasis on synapomorphies (shared, derived characters) in establishing relationships. Synapomorphies are extremely unlikely to be misinterpreted as a false indicator of relatedness because of the whole "derived" thing. It doesn't render cladists immune to mistaken placement of analogous features, but it gives greater protection from those errors than any other taxonomic method. Obviously, the more information we have, the more confident we can be.

The other cool (and challenging) thing about cladistics is that it only recognizes monophyletic groups. This means that the A, B, and C in Jodie's question can be assigned to their specific positions in the clade with high confidence.

 

[Drewbot]

And where is the fossil example that donated this man's Y chromosome that predates modern man?

Did you not read your own article?

In 2011, researchers examined human fossils from a Nigerian site called Iwo Eleru. The fossils showed a strange mix of ancient and modern features, which also suggested interbreeding between modern and archaic humans. "The Cameroon village with an unusual genetic signature is right on the border with Nigeria, and Iwo Eleru is not too far away," says Hammer.

Jodie you almost have this thing down, if you could just stop getting so bent about stuff.

The forum members here in the past have used this tactic before to deflect discussion. No, you don't have to be right, wrong , or sideways, but calling people names or liars isn't exactly conducive to any kind of discussion.

Calling someone who claims to see an imaginary beast, and then lies about the remoteness of the location, is by nature 'a liar'. It is not personal, it is just a fact that should come straight out in a debate. Why kerfiffle about semantics? Just state the position "He/she is a liar" and then support your claim with the numerous lies. Simple really.

 

[Resume]

Calling someone who claims to see an imaginary beast, and then lies about the remoteness of the location, is by nature 'a liar'. It is not personal, it is just a fact that should come straight out in a debate. Why kerfiffle about semantics? Just state the position "He/she is a liar" and then support your claim with the numerous lies. Simple really.

Jodie:

Do you think Rick Dyer is lying?

 

[carlitos]

Okay, that was funny. I'll give you that one.

(He could use some media training, though.)

Media Training 101 - If you have "platinum members," don't film yourself in your car?

"...the third shot ended Bigfoot's life ... I just wanted to put him out of his misery..."

Who could possibly believe this nonsense?

 

[Resume]

Media Training 101 - If you have "platinum members," don't film yourself in your car?

"...the third shot ended Bigfoot's life ... I just wanted to put him out of his misery..."

Who could possibly believe this nonsense?

Ahem, two threads south of here.

Maybe a believer, maybe Mr. Dyer himself.

 

[Dinwar]

First, scientists know that cladistics has limitations. They understand those limitations far better than you do. In fact, they've tested them, using statistical models, to work out just how well cladisitics stacks up against other methods for determining how closely related different species are.

Jodie, before criticizing my science any more and making yourself look even more foolish, please research this. Many of the cladists I know are working on flaws you are entirely unaware of, but whic are FAR more significant than this nonsense about subjectivity (an accusation you have yet to offer even a shred of evidence for I might add). Believe it or not, we're not bungling children groping blinding in the darkness waiting for you to bring light to our ignorance. We've tested these methods rigorously, using multiple techniques. Here's a very good example of how we do so. Valentine's fantastic "On the Origin of Phyla" is another reference demonstrating the rigorous nature of taxonomy in paleontology.

YOU ARE WRONG about paleontology. Demonstrably and irrefutably. I dont' get why you're so worked up about this; it's trivially obvious where the error is--you don't know the field. There's no shame in that, if you accept the truth of the statement. However, you now are criticizing something you don't understand and demanding that experts bow to your lack of understanding. There's a word for people who do that.

Don't get me wrong; taxonomy isn't easy, and it's often not as clear-cut as we'd like. But it's also not subjective. Taxonomy is an experimental science.

Secondly, your entire argument is built upon the way the science "seems" to you. This is patently absurd. I'll take a hit for any error I commit, but I refuse to be attacked for an error you think I commit without any evidence! There are precisely two places for subjectivity to enter into taxonomy using the morphospecies concept: the selection of traits (which is mitigated by rigorously testing which traits are useful, as I'll discuss below, as well as more formal testing via the construction of artificial critters with known phylogenies), and the weight given to each trait (not usually done at all, but sometimes it's useful if two traits are highly correlated). Each area is open to criticism by any researcher, and believe me, taxonomists LOVE to argue this sort of thing. If there's an error it gets pointed out quite quickly.

The other cool (and challenging) thing about cladistics is that it only recognizes monophyletic groups. This means that the A, B, and C in Jodie's question can be assigned to their specific positions in the clade with high confidence.

The other aspect Jodie is ignoring is that cladistics tells you whch traits are most significant to each clade. The process helps refine our understanding of significant traits. Over time we can focus more and more on the traits that are significant when we do field identification (the term for such traits is field markers). If its' got a pinched middle metatarsle, banana-shaped teeth, and itty-bitty little arms it's a Tyrannosaurid--those are field markers for the taxa, ones that have withstood tremendous amounts of testing.

As far as my discussion with Chris goes, Jodie, your argument boils down to "You're getting too detailed, therefore you're wrong." Chris and I both knew perfectly well what the other's point was. Chris was saying that the fossil record isn't complete enough for absence to be a useful datum. I was saying that it was complete enough that absence IS useful. You'll find a huge volume of literature over the past 200 years or so on this. Thing is, there are methods by which we can test for completeness, so we cannot simply assume that the fossil record is incomplete anymore. There are far more fossils than you or Chris are aware of, detailing extremely fine aspects of evolutionary history in many, if not most, taxa. If he wanted to get into the details of that debate, I'd be more than willing to do so--it's an area I've got more than a passing interest in. The thing is, Chris didn't. He lached onto a Creationist claim and held onto it like a bear trap. Kinda like you're doing with the whole "Paleontology is subjective" thing.

It is not personal, it is just a fact that should come straight out in a debate. Why kerfiffle about semantics?

It's easier than admitting error.

 

[Jodie]

That is how such things work, yes.


This question doesn't make sense. He didn't get the chromosome from a fossil, and I don't think they determined the age of the chromosome by comparing it to a fossil (though I do admit that I only skimmed your link, so I may have missed something important).

The chromosome predates the age of modern man. I assume that means either we are older than we think and the fossil record just hasn't been established that far back, or another more ancient hominid line closely related to modern homo sapiens was responsible for the origin of the Y chromosome.

Do you actually know enough to judge if there are flaws in paleontology or not? From what I've read of your exchange with Dinwar, it certainly doesn't seem like it.

I believe I do, I think everyone else over estimates their understanding of the topic. I might be oversimplifying it, but I think I have a valid point that people tend to want to ignore when discussing anything related to our origins.

(Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, and most of what I know of cladistics come from listening to Dinwar ramble while slaying demons in Dialbo II. I'm sure he'll pop in here at some point to give a more in-depth response, and to point out any grievous errors I make.)

I thought the name sounded familiar, that's where I have heard it before.
First, scientists know that cladistics has limitations. They understand those limitations far better than you do. In fact, they've tested them, using statistical models, to work out just how well cladisitics stacks up against other methods for determining how closely related different species are.

And if pieces of the puzzle are missing then how accurate can the statistics really be? Complicated data makes it more prone to error, especially if you are dealing with incomplete data.

Second, comparing features to see which creatures are most similar isn't nearly as subjective as you're probably thinking. They get down to very, very minute details, using precise measurements. They're not just taking a glance and saying "eh, seems similar". They're measuring everything--number and size of teeth, length of limbs, size of head, size of body, ratios of various body parts, lengths between various points (between the eyes, nose to forehead, between joints, etc). There is some subjectivity involved, but they do as much as possible to minimize that.

There is a lot of subjectivity involved. Coming from a medical background I see the tremendous amount of variation on a day to day basis in modern man. You can measure all you want but it's still a guess without a living specimen for comparison. Forensics is able to distinguish a race of a person based on bone structure within the homo sapiens species. If you applied those same differences to ancient fossils you might conclude that they were different species without DNA for comparison, when in fact, they aren't.