Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

[SC] The Yetis is likely a real animal

  • 26-10-2013 11:53pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭


    You guys have probably heard this by now but two hairs attributed two the Yeti, found hundreds of miles apart have yielded incredible DNA results. Both hairs were found to match a species of polar bear that was last seen raoming Norway between 40,000 and 120,000 years ago. The prints associated with these hairs were found at an altitude well above a normal bears range. This is an amazing result that could solve the Yeti mystery once and for all. Article below is from Time magazine.


    The Yeti could be a real animal
    And you thought the Abominable Snowman was just the stuff of myths.
    The rumored Himalayan beast, also known as the Yeti, may in fact have been a real-life relative of the polar bear, according to a British scientist who found a DNA match between alleged Yetis and an ancient polar bear.
    “I think this bear, which nobody has seen alive… may still be there and may have quite a lot of polar bear in it,” Oxford University genetics professor Bryan Sykes told BBC.
    Sykes conducted a DNA test on hairs from two unidentified animals that have contributed to the legend — one from a beast killed by hunters in northern India, and another individual hair found in a bamboo forest in Bhutan — and entered the genetic information into an animal DNA database. He found they had a 100 percent match with an ancient polar bear jawbone found in Norway that dates back to between 40,000 and 120,000 years ago, when the polar bear and the closely-related brown bear were still diverging as species.
    That means Asia’s Big Foot may be a descendant of the ancient polar-brown bear mutt, or a more recent creation of some inter-species mixing, Sykes told BBC.
    But it’s definitely, probably, real.

    This is a classic case of something dismissed for years and now hopefully solved. It should be noted that Professor Sykes had received a lot of opposition from skeptics for even looking into this mystery. It makes me wonder how many skeptics are actually on the side of science and how many are armchair critics.
    Lets sort out the Bigfoot mystery next.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Ha ha I love how quiet the skeptics are on this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Ha ha I love how quiet the skeptics are on this.

    ??? Do you have a problem with someone being skeptical? The evidence for such a creature is tenuous at best. People have claimed all sorts of fantastic things about the Yeti, as yet if what the article implies is true, 99% of the claims made remain nonsense.

    Until more evidence comes out I can't see how anyone reasonable can jump to hasty conclusions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Gumbi wrote: »
    ??? Do you have a problem with someone being skeptical? The evidence for such a creature is tenuous at best. People have claimed all sorts of fantastic things about the Yeti, as yet if what the article implies is true, 99% of the claims made remain nonsense.

    Until more evidence comes out I can't see how anyone reasonable can jump to hasty conclusions.

    Yes indeed I do. Skeptical doesn't mean scientific. It's as simple as that. Many skeptics don't even have scientific backgrounds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Yes indeed I do. Skeptical doesn't mean scientific. It's as simple as that. Many skeptics don't even have scientific backgrounds.

    Again, what are you talking about? Skepticism drives science. Without it, science would not progress. Skepticism incites us to ask why something is the way it is instead of blindly accepting something.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,650 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Again, what are you talking about? Skepticism drives science. Without it, science would not progress. Skepticism incites us to ask why something is the way it is instead of blindly accepting something.

    No offense, but as much as skeptism indeed does drive the quest to research and find out information, I wouldnt class the 'skeptics' on this forum of that nature. Scientists dont sit around waiting for someone to prove something to them. they research.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    maccored wrote: »
    No offense, but as much as skeptism indeed does drive the quest to research and find out information, I wouldnt class the 'skeptics' on this forum of that nature. Scientists dont sit around waiting for someone to prove something to them. they research.

    Why would I take offense?

    One doesn't have to be a scientist to be a skeptic.

    Indeed, scientists research. And no reasonable scientist will propose something as viably true without being well supported by evidence. Science 101.


  • Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    That Yeti reports are really just a species of bear seems, to me, perfectly consistent with a sceptical point of view.

    Indeed, this is what many skeptics have already claimed.
    It would be a moment of triumph for cryptozoology skeptics, who have said all along that Yetis are really bears; and, simultaneously, it could be a moment of triumph for cryptozoologists, who have said for decades that Yetis are an unrecognized new type of large hairy mammal.

    http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/10/17/yeti-dna-headlines-make-me-daydream-a-glorious-day/


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    Like I said, if this claim does end up being verified, then it's much more a skeptics' win than anything else. "People have claimed all sorts of fantastic things about the Yeti, as yet if what the article implies is true, 99% of the claims made remain nonsense."


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,650 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    what a cop out! its all bollocks until science proves it could be a bear and then its 'sure we all knew it was a bear'. Hilarious stuff. Keep it going there 'skeptics'. You'll make a scientist yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,650 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Why would I take offense?

    One doesn't have to be a scientist to be a skeptic.

    Indeed, scientists research. And no reasonable scientist will propose something as viably true without being well supported by evidence. Science 101.

    And how does the scientist get the supporting evidence? By sitting at home posting on a forum about how skeptical he is and therefore how intelligent he is? No - I didnt think so either.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    maccored wrote: »
    what a cop out! its all bollocks until science proves it could be a bear and then its 'sure we all knew it was a bear'. Hilarious stuff. Keep it going there 'skeptics'. You'll make a scientist yet.

    Are you trolling?

    You are utterly misrepresenting the skeptics' position.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    maccored wrote: »
    And how does the scientist get the supporting evidence? By sitting at home posting on a forum about how skeptical he is and therefore how intelligent he is? No - I didnt think so either.

    Another strawman.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    Good read. Your comment about Big Foot, I always thought them to be the same? Thanks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    maccored wrote: »
    And how does the scientist get the supporting evidence? By sitting at home posting on a forum about how skeptical he is and therefore how intelligent he is? No - I didnt think so either.

    You make it sound like everyone has a £200k DNA analysis machine, a devoted laboratory, a team of technicians, a professorship in Genetics, and covered travel & expenses to Nepal & the Himalayas :p

    I've no problem admitting I was 'skeptical' of the Yeti myth, because in the words of Bryan Sykes himself, "there has been up until now, virtually no hard physical evidence to support the claims". Since the findings, I think it has swung the other way now, & it's very possible there is a previously unknown animal/bear out there responsible for the myth. I'm not a scientist, I don't have the means to investigate mythical phenomena, & all I can go on is the available evidence. I think the results are still fantastic :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 513 ✭✭✭leddpipe


    Ha ha I love how quiet the OP is on this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    leddpipe wrote: »
    Ha ha I love how quiet the OP is on this.

    Why?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    Red Nissan wrote: »
    Why?

    I suspect it's tit for tat...
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Ha ha I love how quiet the skeptics are on this.
    leddpipe wrote: »
    Ha ha I love how quiet the OP is on this.

    Personally I don't see why it has to be seen as anything more than a shot in the arm for those who simply seek the truth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Not sure what this thread is about..

    The "Yeti" myth is about a humanoid creature - as of yet there is nothing substantial to support this, and it seems to be little more than stories and fanciful thinking

    As for DNA or hair samples, well this was heralded before, and turned out to be a possum I believe (in the case of N America)

    Whilst we can't rule out the discovery of new mammals (several have been discovered in the last years) - coming across a large mammal in that region would be a ground-breaking discovery - but that has nothing to do with the "Yeti" myth.

    Would be a bit like stumbling upon a weird looking new species of deep-sea fish and saying Eureka the Atlantis aliens do exist ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    As for DNA or hair samples, well this was heralded before, and turned out to be a possum I believe (in the case of N America)

    The Alp's DNA findings would seem to suggest, that there's a brown bear that is out there at pretty high altitudes, that's carrying around some pretty ancient DNA with it. As you said it neither proves nor disproves anything at all, but it does say there's at least signs of something up there...


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Well, a bear isn't very ape-like

    Unfortunately I'm even skeptical of the DNA evidence - call it experience, but in so many of these cases it will most likely turn out to be bumpkin - probable explanation along the lines of an old lab sample or a preserved carcass someone has dug up in the snow and held on to (like Mammoth samples)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Well, a bear isn't very ape-like

    Low oxygen environment, poor visibility, extremely strenuous conditions, who knows what affect they'd have on 'sightings'. Depending on all sorts of things, you can confuse one thing for another very easily.
    Unfortunately I'm even skeptical of the DNA evidence - call it experience, but in so many of these cases it will most likely turn out to be bumpkin - probable explanation along the lines of an old lab sample or a preserved carcass someone has dug up in the snow and held on to (like Mammoth samples)

    The problem is the two samples taken hundreds of miles apart, were a perfect match. This lessens the odds of lab contamination or mistaken identity etc. The samples were also ran through the entire database of DNA which contains the DNA of many many animals, & no match was found. The show has also disproved many of the other claimants in other parts of the world


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    There was a 35 year gap between the last discovery of a carnivorous mammal and the previous one - as a nature documentary enthusiast such news would be earth-shattering, especially a large mammal like a bear

    I'm very skeptical that it isn't anything but DNA from long extinct bears rather than a live species, or some anomaly.

    As for the ape-like hominid, the "Yeti"
    https://www.google.ie/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1680&bih=924&q=yeti&oq=yeti&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1467.1826.0.2028.4.4.0.0.0.0.109.420.1j3.4.0....0...1ac.1.31.img..0.4.404.aATlxJTFJNQ

    much more unlikely


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I'm very skeptical that it isn't anything but DNA from long extinct bears rather than a live species, or some anomaly

    It is normal brown bear DNA, but which also contains DNA which has been matched to an extinct form of polar bear. As for an anomaly, the exact same anomaly from two completely separate samples, as in this case, is much less likely...


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Not sure what this thread is about..

    The "Yeti" myth is about a humanoid creature - as of yet there is nothing substantial to support this, and it seems to be little more than stories and fanciful thinking


    Its the sheer number of storys and reported sightings that far outweigh the likes of sea monsters and lake monsters. There are lots and lots of numerous reports to police stations from civilians and policemen alike.

    If you look at mountain lions in the states. They are not in certain states although have migrated to them. Sightings are being reported but nothing is being done , firstly because there is no protocol and secondly the local governments view is, if they dont prove a threat we are not going to spend money in looking for them. So the best thing to do is deny.

    But the Yeti is still far far off from being a real animal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Are you trolling?

    You are utterly misrepresenting the skeptics' position.


    No he's not because this is exactly what has been happening on other skeptic forums and organizations.

    The mountain gorilla, the panda, the komodo dragon, the saola , the hoan keim turtle. All were dimissed as hoax or myths before their discovery and then the following happens:

    Oh well the gorilla exists but the panda doesnt

    Oh ok the panda exists but the komodo dragon doesnt

    Oh fair enough you were right the komodo exists but not the saola

    ect ect.

    All of those animals were investigated and discovered in the face of tremendous opposition from skeptics.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Ziphius wrote: »
    That Yeti reports are really just a species of bear seems, to me, perfectly consistent with a sceptical point of view.

    Indeed, this is what many skeptics have already claimed.



    http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/10/17/yeti-dna-headlines-make-me-daydream-a-glorious-day/


    Sorry but the skeptic view was that it doesnt exist. They on no occasion supported the yeti being an unknown animal


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Are you trolling?

    You are utterly misrepresenting the skeptics' position.


    All the skeptics seem to do is shout not true not true not true. Often they have attacked scientists for following a line of research they disagree with.


  • Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Sorry but the skeptic view was that it doesnt exist. They on no occasion supported the yeti being an unknown animal

    From the blog post I linked to.

    "If it were to turn out that some Yeti reports really have recorded an otherwise unknown variety of bear, that would be an enormous discovery—and an utterly astonishing moment in the history of monster studies. It would be a moment of triumph for cryptozoology skeptics, who have said all along that Yetis are really bears; and, simultaneously, it could be a moment of triumph for cryptozoologists, who have said for decades that Yetis are an unrecognized new type of large hairy mammal. "


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    All the skeptics seem to do is shout not true not true not true. Often they have attacked scientists for following a line of research they disagree with.

    What are you talking about. Science is science is science. No one should be attacked for doing honest scientific work. You must be talking about pseudoscience, which is an entirely different matter.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    No he's not because this is exactly what has been happening on other skeptic forums and organizations.

    The mountain gorilla, the panda, the komodo dragon, the saola , the hoan keim turtle. All were dimissed as hoax or myths before their discovery and then the following happens:

    Oh well the gorilla exists but the panda doesnt

    Oh ok the panda exists but the komodo dragon doesnt

    Oh fair enough you were right the komodo exists but not the saola

    ect ect.

    All of those animals were investigated and discovered in the face of tremendous opposition from skeptics.

    I think you mean cynics

    The mountain gorilla? there is still debate over the classification. As for the first sightings, we're talking about a hundred years ago here.

    Komodo dragons - first discovered 100 years ago

    Abominable snowmen are still in the same camp as mermaids, ghosts and the Loch Ness monster - no real evidence yet


Advertisement