It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The first scientific study into evidence of yetis has been published

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Hey all,

I thought this would make an interesting read for those around this forum, so i decided to share.

The first scientific study into the evidence of yetis has been published, and while no sample turned up anything pointing to an unknown or mythological creature, scientists did note that one sample belonged to a bear whose DNA matched that of an ancient polar bear, which is believed to have been extinct for thousands of years. Scientists believe the sample to come from a possible descendant of the ancient bear.

Also:


“Seven samples failed to yield any DNA sequences despite multiple attempts,” the researchers argue.

Using different techniques, most of these were still linked to animals native to the Himalays. But there remains two “anomalies” where DNA and other techniques failed to provide even a hint.

“With the exception of these two samples, none of the submitted and analysed hairs samples returned a sequence that could not be matched with an extant mammalian species,” the researchers write.


Sources:

goo.gl...
www.theguardian.com...

edit on 1-7-2014 by daaskapital because: link fix up




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

The same researchers should come do a study on bigfoot next

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: kevinp2300
a reply to: daaskapital

The same researchers should come do a study on bigfoot next

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"


You could use that same argument on any made up thing you want.

"Don't discount pixies! They could still be out there, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

I think the most interesting bit is still the ancient polar bear DNA match. It was reported on late last year and from the OP's link to The Guardian:


Although one is reddish brown and the other golden brown, the bear's closest relative turned out to be a precise match for DNA extracted from fossil remains of a polar bear that lived 40,000 years ago. The samples were quite unlike modern polar bears. This raises the intriguing possibility that descendents of a prehistoric polar bear are at large in the Himalayas.


Assuming that the polar bear hair didn't come from a hoaxer or some other disreputable source and there isn't any issue with contamination, there's the possibility that some ancient polar bear species has survived in the Himalayas. The polar bears we're all familiar with (Ursus maritimus) have a reputation for being one of the only animals that will hunt human beings.

EDIT:



From Wikipedia

The human-like posture of bears when standing and sitting, and the resemblance of a skinned bear carcass to the human body, have probably contributed to the belief that the spirits of humans and bears were interchangeable.[107] Eskimo legends tell of humans learning to hunt from the polar bear.

edit on 2014-7-1 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: kevinp2300
a reply to: daaskapital

The same researchers should come do a study on bigfoot next

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"


You could use that same argument on any made up thing you want.

"Don't discount pixies! They could still be out there, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"


I agree that you could use that same argument on any made up thing you want. I just think a more comprehensive study is needed from all regions of the world. There are a lot of people who have claimed to see creatures similar to the yeti, and their stories deserve a study to see if there is any evidence to support their claims.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: kevinp2300

Logic requires that if something lacks evidence that the claim is false until proven to be true. Otherwise one would go through life believing in any number of ridiculous claims and fairy tales.

What you have to ask yourself with big foot and yeti "proof" is do you believe it and if not why? That is logic. It may be true or false but it is all we have to sift through information.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

Well not necessarily false, just "not accepted as true".

Let's deal with whats really real, and can be demonstrated to be real and not with every damned specter or imagined thing which may or may not (and probably does not) exist...



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Well in logic(as a subject) false is defined as:


In logic, false is a truth value or a nullary logical connective. In a truth-functional system of propositional logic it is one of two postulated truth values, along with its negation, truth.


But yes, I agree with you about dealing with what's real. But what is real is also based on those people that came before that decided to pursue proving those things that at the time were false as being true. It's a double edged sword.

Without pursuing ridiculous claims we wouldn't have many of the "truths" that currently exist. Also, in the future many of the current "truths" will be proved false. Oooh man it gives me a headache.

With that being said, I think it's great some people are out to prove yetis exist. More power to them and I will await more topics.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: kevinp2300

Logic requires that if something lacks evidence that the claim is false until proven to be true. Otherwise one would go through life believing in any number of ridiculous claims and fairy tales.

What you have to ask yourself with big foot and yeti "proof" is do you believe it and if not why? That is logic. It may be true or false but it is all we have to sift through information.




The proof we all seek relating to the yetti or bigfoot is a dead body on MSM or a thorough skeptical scientific study on all of the evidence concerning this subject. I do not know enough to claim bigfoot is real, but I do leave that open as a possiblity based on numerous claims from different regions of the world that sometimes correlate with each other. These claims warrant a more comprehensive study rather than looking at 9 hairs.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

I'm not sure why everyone is so upset.

I mean, this could mean bipedal humanoid prehistoric polar bears, and thats pretty cool, right?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

The logical opposite of "True" is not "false" it is "not true".



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I thought the German elite hunted those bears to extinction in the early nineteen hundreds. Those bears that walked on two legs were verified before, after being thought to be long extinct. There are supposed to be some stuffed ones still in Europe. These researchers should have gone to examine those stuffed bears.
I guess they were scarce back then, making them a trophy.

I read a research article on this a while back, they have DNA from these bears matched to ones that were said to be extinct. Probably the same bears as this article is about.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


False and "not true" are one and the same. I'm not understanding this argument.

In logic there are two possible ends of the spectrum. One being "true" and the other "false" with the various in betweens that make arguments so much fun.

Here is a table:

www.millersville.edu...



edit on 1-7-2014 by OrphanApology because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

But wouldn't a humanoid prehistoric bear be more closely related to apes anyway?

I guess it's all conjecture until they actually compare the genomes of such a thing.

It'd be interesting to find out.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

What I am saying, is that in terms of belief, "True" / "False" is a flase dichotomy.

Something can be demonstrated to be true to us, so it is considered "True", and something that is demonstated to be false to us is considered "False".

However, when a claim does not meet the burden of proof, it is not considered to be either.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Yeah but logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

So for something like deductive reasoning, it is defined as:


Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions.


So it is very possible from using top-down logic to reach a logically certain conclusion(i.e. there is no tooth fairy, it is probably mom and dad...the tooth fairy's existence is false based on my deductive logic because I found dad placing tooth under pillow so therefore the existence is false based on that premise).

Logic isn't absolutes. It is simply making a decision on something being true or false based on the current premise. If your logical solution turns out to be wrong...check your premise.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

But wouldn't a humanoid prehistoric bear be more closely related to apes anyway?


No, the common ancestor of most carnivores( canines, felines, lions, tigers, bears oh my!) split off about 55-60 MYA going their seperate way from primates as the first prosimians appeared in the fossil record approx. 50 MYA

anthro.palomar.edu...

www.wired.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

But wouldn't a humanoid prehistoric bear be more closely related to apes anyway?


No, the common ancestor of most carnivores( canines, felines, lions, tigers, bears oh my!) split off about 55-60 MYA going their seperate way from primates as the first prosimians appeared in the fossil record approx. 50 MYA

anthro.palomar.edu...

www.wired.co.uk...


is their an advantage to being bipedal in the himalayas? im thinking down the evolutionary adaptation road. ive always heard if running from a bear, run downhill because they cant run as fast. maybe becoming bipedal countered this?(think chasing prey)
edit on 2-7-2014 by kevinp2300 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: kevinp2300

I'm only speculating but it's possible that the bipedalism was an adaptation related to traversing steep inclines/declines. They would have stood on their hind legs to reach possibly to make the climb easier. Like I said, pure speculation on my part as I don't know much about these guys. The human family tree is more my purview.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   
I think the Trickster gods did it again. "Want proof of bigfoot? Here, have a hair sample of a prehistoric bear, haha"

It'll be like when someone finds a solid chunk of a flying saucer, will have printed on it in perfectly legible English, "Made with Pride on Mars!"



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join