Slashdot Mirror


Alleged 'Bigfoot' DNA Samples Sequenced, Turn Out To Be Horses, Dogs, and Bears

sciencehabit writes: In North America, they're called Bigfoot or Sasquatch. In the Himalayan foothills, they're known as yeti or abominable snowmen. And Russians call them Almasty. But in the scientific laboratory, these elusive, hairy, humanoid creatures are nothing more than bears, horses, and dogs. That's the conclusion of a new study—the first peer-reviewed, genetic survey of biological samples claimed to be from the shadowy beasts. To identify the evolutionary source of each sample, the team determined the sequence of a gene—found inside the mitochondria of cells—that encodes the 12S RNA, which is often used for species identification. Unlike standard DNA, mitochondrial genes are passed only from mother to offspring.

Seven of the samples didn’t yield enough DNA for identification. Of the 30 that were sequenced, all matched the exact 12S RNA sequences for known species, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Ten hairs belonged to various bear species; four were from horses; four were from wolves or dogs; one was a perfect match to a human hair; and the others came from cows, raccoons, deer, and even a porcupine. Two samples, from India and Bhutan, matched polar bear 12S RNA—a surprising finding that Sykes is following up on to determine whether some Himalayan bears are hybrid species with polar bears.

198 comments

  1. Clever! by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That is what Sasquatch wants you to believe by placing DNA from other sources!!!!
    Now excuse me, I see I need to go out and spay those nasty chemtrails again. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... )

    1. Re:Clever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am not up on my conspiracy lore, but it seems unlikely to me that chemtrails have genitals.

    2. Re:Clever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they want you to believe!

    3. Re:Clever! by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Two samples, from India and Bhutan, matched polar bear 12S RNA"

      Obviously there was a Dharma Initiative station there at some time.

    4. Re:Clever! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Actually, it's just racist scientists badmouthing BearHorseDog for nothing else than being BearHorseDog in the first place. Horrible. You would have thought we left things like this in the 19th century, but no...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Clever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You completely miss the point. Bigfoot did not plant false DNA to throw us off his trail. He clearly represents a new frankenstein branch in the tree of life simultaneously related to all bears, dogs, and horses.

    6. Re:Clever! by robbyb20 · · Score: 1

      Its time ManBearPig entered society as well.

    7. Re:Clever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Then how do they F*ck with your mind? Magic? Or do they only form a phallus, when triggered by HAARP?

    8. Re:Clever! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      If the chemtrails didn't have genitals, how would they be able to impregnate a horse, a woman and a polar bear with bigfoot sperm?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    9. Re:Clever! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      Laugh all you like, but the result will just be that half the cryptozoologists take up the belief that yeti-alikes are hybrids caused by drunken idiots sh*gging horses and polar bears. (How any man would get that close to a polar bear is beyond me, though.)

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  2. But this won't stop the History Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From making more BS shows about something that doesn't exist, and people selling books on fabricated facts.

    1. Re:But this won't stop the History Channel by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the siffy channel, theyre into ghosts and other crap too

    2. Re:But this won't stop the History Channel by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      Yeah as they repeat the upright guy with the Yeti suit walking through the forrest up in Washington for the 5000 th time.

    3. Re:But this won't stop the History Channel by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute, I *know* Bigfoot is real! I remember seeing Colonel Steve Austin fighting him back in the 70's!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:But this won't stop the History Channel by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can excuse syfy. It's the history channel and the learning channel I can't excuse.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:But this won't stop the History Channel by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Two samples, from India and Bhutan, matched polar bear 12S RNA—a surprising finding...

      Are you suggesting that people selling books would stoop to planting white hair from a polar bear and claiming they saw a Yeti nearby???

    6. Re:But this won't stop the History Channel by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that people selling books would stoop to planting white hair from a polar bear and claiming they saw a Yeti nearby?

      I wouldn't put it past some of the "participants" (to be excessively polite) in cryptozoology to do just that.

      The neat trick would be finding polar bear hair that matches the DNA from a polar bear mandible of some 100,000 years age, found in permafrost in Svalbard. Which is what the actual DNA match was.

      (Caveats : the polar bear mandible was estimated at greater than 45kyr on basis of radiometric dating ; the 100,000 years is a coarser estimate from local landforms. There are probably some honest people in cryptozoology, but identifying them through the charlatans is tricky.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. Myths are socially hilarious by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 5, Insightful

    UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts!

    You would think the modern age of cameras in everyone's phones would produce evidence-a-plenty of these kinds of things.

    But reality is far less interesting than we want it to be ...

    No magic, no supernatural stuff --- and sadly no bigfoots or aliens that bother to come here and snatch cows.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by narcc · · Score: 0

      You would think the modern age of cameras in everyone's phones would produce evidence-a-plenty of these kinds of things.

      Think about that for a bit. Do you see the problem? If you're having trouble, check out a website called youtube.

    2. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Thanshin · · Score: 0

      UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts!

      You would think the modern age of cameras in everyone's phones would produce evidence-a-plenty of these kinds of things.

      But reality is far less interesting than we want it to be ...

      No magic, no supernatural stuff --- and sadly no bigfoots or aliens that bother to come here and snatch cows.

      Can I add divinities to your list? Or being invisible protects them from being proven just as fake.

    3. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I add divinities to your list? Or being invisible protects them from being proven just as fake.

      To be honest, when humanity builds whole civilisations on arbitrarily chosen premises, I prefer it when they just declare an imaginary sky fairy than vigorously handwave bullshit. Catholicism, communism or capitalism - it's all the same ideological bullshit driven by powerlust.

    4. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Relevant XKCD

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by peragrin · · Score: 1

      ah that is because those are digital camera's. ghosts, big foots and ufo's only show up in analog photos.

      digital stuff just can't reproduce all the details.

      Haven't you ever listened to an audiophile talk about vinyl?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Megol · · Score: 1

      There are no evidence on youtube so... WTF do you mean exactly?

      BTW: http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopu...

    7. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But reality is far less interesting than we want it to be ...

      For some reason I end up talking to a lot of people that believe in this nonsense... especially ghosts. My main argument is usally that their view of the world is just too mundane. Ghosts? No... the universe is far stranger, far wackier then that. Then I go on to explain Relativity and Quantum mechanics. They freak out, refuse to believe it. They'll believe in a 7' tall ape man living in the pacific northwest that no ones ever found a corpse for... but a sub atomic particle being in 2 places at once? I'm just crazy!

    8. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      My favorite is when they shut off the breaker to the "Haunted house" and them use some $3 EM sensor they got off ebay to show all the "energy" in the air. Apparently the local power company invented EM radiation and the rest of the universe must abide by our circuit breakers.

    9. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Even if there was any sort of "magical or supernatural event", it would end being just some regular but unknown physics property or some smart use of the existing laws.

    10. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by narcc · · Score: 1

      Seriously? This isn't complicated.

      If you visit any video sharing site, you'll find countless amateur videos purporting to be evidence of those 'kinds of things'. Now ask yourself: "Why don't these videos constitute evidence?"

      Got it? Great, let's take that and apply it to the statement in question:

      You would think the modern age of cameras in everyone's phones would produce evidence-a-plenty of these kinds of things.

      Do you see the problem with that statement now?

      This is what happens when people trust Randall Munroe to do their thinking for them. (See: xkcd 1235 for the origin of the parent's nonsense.)

    11. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Ask yourself. "is any of what I said an argument or am I trying to let the reader do my work?"

      Now we're in agreement on that, do you see how wrong you are?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    12. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by narcc · · Score: 1

      "is any of what I said an argument or am I trying to let the reader do my work?"

      Neither. Teach a man to fish, you know?

      I could provide an argument, but it's pointless. They'll just spout more nonsense in defense of the nonsense they're repeating. If you're ability to reason and understanding of logic is that poor, you're not equipped to handle it. Better to let them work out the details themselves. Thinking is skilled work, after all.

    13. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you see the problem with that statement now?

      Nope. The mere fact that it's possible to fake some evidence does not mean that all or even most amateur video is useless. Non sequitur.

    14. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you visit any video sharing site, you'll find countless amateur videos purporting to be evidence of those 'kinds of things'. Now ask yourself: "Why don't these videos constitute evidence?"

      Because those videos are not of what people claim they are. Most are manipulated and faked. Those would only constitute evidence to gullible idiots.

    15. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be fair, in the domain of common experience a 7' tall ape man living in the pacific northwest *is* far less crazy than the idea of a subatomic particle being in two places at once.

      Many scientists of yesteryear were hardly willing to accept such preposterousness, though I imagine they would not have batted an eye at an undiscovered hominid of unusual cleverness. (In fact, sometimes they seemed to be far too trusting when evidence of new hominids was presented to them.) People can go to the zoo and encounter all sorts of species they never anticipated. Where can they experience quantum mechanics?

      It's only through substantial and careful methodological treatment of the evidence that we're able to develop the capacity to distinguish truth which contradicts intuition, accepting the fantastic but real and dismissing the common but false.

      My wild and probably quite unpopular thinking on this is as such: the people you describe are perfectly reasonable people. They are drawing reasonable(ish) conclusions. They just lack access to the expanded toolset and and supply of evidence modern science has provided. What if instead of calling their theories a bunch of hocus pocus, we simply sent them on the right trail? Used the Socratic method, as it were. They are clearly already interested in the subject of undiscovered species, so "You think there is a wild ape man? Interesting. I wonder how we could prove its existence. What about DNA evidence? There's this great book called 'Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters.' Maybe we could read it to learn a bit more about genetics and see if it helps us come up with any ideas."

    16. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      What really shocks me about our modern life full of cameras is how often a guy getting hit in the balls gets recorded. Then I wonder what percentage get captured on video and I just feel sick.

      Then again, maybe "Ow my Balls!" will soon become a real show, probably on Fox.

    17. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Thinking is hard. Let's go shopping!

    18. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      You just said yourself that most are manipulated and faked. That means a percentage, even if very low, is proof of whatever is recorded.

      Just because we can't yet understand or measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Isn't the first rule of science to begin with "I don't know"?

    19. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that there's no real evidence that these things exist, so these people generally aren't reasonable. Furthermore, they'll point to evidence that has been proven to be fake and defend it to the death while tuning out any opposition. Calling these people reasonable is just unreasonable.

    20. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      The last time a friend of mine talked about his vinyl collection, it was about his blow-up sex dolls.

    21. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It freaked Einstein out too ya know?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    22. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Feynman nailed flying saucers before the digital era.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by EasyTarget · · Score: 1

      No; the remainder are too fuzzy to show anything clearly; or don't actually show anything inexplicable, but the up-loaders really seriously believe they do.

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    24. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by narcc · · Score: 1

      LOL! One of Randall's worst, by far. IIRC, he even takes a beating on the forum for that one.

    25. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      But reality is far less interesting than we want it to be ...

      I dunno, polar bear hybrids in the Himalayas. That's pretty interesting.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    26. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      Isn't the first rule of science to begin with "I don't know"?

      Not when used as an excuse to believe in things which all evidence points to not existing. Science relies very heavily on testability, measurability and evidence. "I can't prove this is false so I better assume it is true" is the opposite of science. Science is "Assume false until evidence".

    27. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      I think you're lacking in context here. In the 1980s and 1990s, the absence, poor quality or ambiguity of supernatural photos and video was always justified by the fact that not everyone had a camera with them at any given moment, and that the cameras were unweildy and difficult to operate. Now that cameras are ubiquitous, easy to operate, and far higher quality, the quality of the evidence has not improved, which rather implies that it was all camera glitches and mistaken identity to begin with.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    28. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think reality is far more interesting than we think it is. It just isn't "interesting" in the area of Bigfoot, UFOs, and ghosts. Look to astronomy, though, and we're constantly finding weird planets/stars/etc that challenge our current understandings of the Universe.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    29. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Some of the people might be reasonable but just with bad evidence that they don't know is proven false. Many more, though, are thoroughly mentally committed to the proven-false phenomenon and will take any debunking of their theory as propaganda from The Conspiracy that wants to keep everyone in the dark about it. (See: The Moon Landing Deniers.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    30. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yet, as soon as I saw GP, I started scrolling down looking to see if somebody already posted it.

      Actually, I liked this one. It took me a second but, honestly, I think he makes a great, if somewhat tounge in cheek point. I can see more evidence of people's fancy breakfast than I care to count, a significant portion of the population has high definition cameras that do a great job, even in the hands of novices.... and nobody caught a picture of Nessy or Big foot yet?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    31. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Then again, maybe "Ow my Balls!" will soon become a real show, probably on Fox.

      It's already a real show. It's called Ridiculousness and it's on MTV.

      Though I hate to admit it, I actually enjoy that show. But I realized a while back that it is essentially "Ow, My Balls". That knocked my self-regard down a peg.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    32. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      My wild and probably quite unpopular thinking on this is as such: the people you describe are perfectly reasonable people. They are drawing reasonable(ish) conclusions. They just lack access to the expanded toolset and and supply of evidence modern science has provided. What if instead of calling their theories a bunch of hocus pocus, we simply sent them on the right trail?

      Some folks don't want to be on the right trail. The right trail is kind of hard. The right trail also requires the ability to throw away knowledge when it is disproven. If the History Channel shows a program that has script like "Some scientists believe that humans were descended from DNA experiments by aliens from outer space" well there you have it. That was a lot easier than studying biology, anthropology, and physics.

      Or of course the easiest explanation of them all.

      Used the Socratic method, as it were. They are clearly already interested in the subject of undiscovered species, so "You think there is a wild ape man? Interesting. I wonder how we could prove its existence.

      They aren't all that interested. They saw a History channel show, and probably fell for the old false dichotomy trick. You think you are trying to help, but they are just very casually interested, and more likely to just enjoy arguing with you for the fun of it.

      What about DNA evidence? There's this great book called 'Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters.' Maybe we could read it to learn a bit more about genetics and see if it helps us come up with any ideas."

      There are a lot of books out there. A lot of evidence. It's shoveling shit against the tide. I think it is based on a fundamentally different thought process. The person that thinks like a scientist wants to know what the truth is, and looks for evidence of what that truth is. The vast majority of people decide what the truth is first, then look for evidence for what they have already decided.

      The latter group cannot understand that there would be a different manner of thinking. That's why they talk about atheism as being a religion, or that a scientist's personality determines the veracity of his work, or that debate can change the laws of physics.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    33. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People can go to the zoo and encounter all sorts of species they never anticipated. Where can they experience quantum mechanics?

      Aha! Finally an excuse to post this link: Double-slit experiment at home (1). Thank God for technological advancements to allow for cheap laser pens. :)

    34. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You cannot prove falsehood. You can only establish likelyhood of truthfulness. While these seem to be the same thing, they are not. For as much as nobody has proof (and therefore unlikely) evidence of Sasquatch, it only takes one to prove it true, and that is still possible (though unlikely). While I doubt there is a Bigfoot living in various wildernesses, that doesn't mean they do not exist. It only proves I have doubts.

      But then again, this is what makes for a wonderful conspiracy, the fact that you cannot prove it false (only unlikely). You cannot prove the government didn't setup 911, you can only prove that it isn't likely the government didn't set up 911, so the conspiracies remain and will remain. Just like Kennedy assassination, Oklahoma Federal Building, Waco, Sandy Hook, Aurora CO ....

      The question isn't the conspiracy, it is how unlikely is it? You cannot prove a negative. While people say "it is proven false" are sincere in their statement, they are also wrong, what they should be saying is "It is highly unlikely that bigfoot/UFO/Ghosts exists". But we should also cut them a little slack, as they are probably as accurate as they can be.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    35. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      It just isn't "interesting" in the area of Bigfoot,

      Um, 2 of the hair samples from the Himalayas match polar bears. 40,000yr old fossil polar bears. That is pretty interesting, no ?

    36. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMHO, true Atheists don't talk about atheism. Those that do, border on religious. I don't talk about not believing in the FSM or Pink Unicorns or .... because I don't believe in them. If I ran into someone that believed in those things, I would simply be amused and go on my way. But this isn't the case for vocal atheists, who run around recruiting like Jehovah's Witnesses people to their cause. They even sponsor, like churches, the "Atheists of Butte County " Roadside clean ups and get a hwy sign, just like a church.

      If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck like creature.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    37. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      To be fair, in the domain of common experience a 7' tall ape man living in the pacific northwest *is* far less crazy than the idea of a subatomic particle being in two places at once.

      Good point, and one many of the /. types often forget.
       

      There's this great book

      But here... here you come off the rails. How about not acting like a creepy religious zealot who must witness and prosthelytize and lead people to the Light?

    38. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Actually, UFO groups have seen some seriously diminishing numbers in believers over the last decade.
      Mostly, because of cameras.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    39. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Maybe you have this problem becasue you write so poorly?

      What was your point of you original comment?
      "Think about that for a bit. Do you see the problem? If you're having trouble, check out a website called youtube."

      Are you saying youtube constitute evidence and people ignore it? or are you saying youtube videos show hoaxs as real and people believe them?

      YOU aren't being clear. Don't try tio hide that in 'people don't think for themselves."
      The problem here is you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    40. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But reality is far less interesting than we want it to be ...

      For some reason I end up talking to a lot of people that believe in this nonsense... especially ghosts. My main argument is usally that their view of the world is just too mundane. Ghosts? No... the universe is far stranger, far wackier then that. Then I go on to explain Relativity and Quantum mechanics. They freak out, refuse to believe it. They'll believe in a 7' tall ape man living in the pacific northwest that no ones ever found a corpse for... but a sub atomic particle being in 2 places at once? I'm just crazy!

      As are religions. oh but no in the US we must be politically correct and respect others beliefs.... yeah right.
      Would anyone respect a grown adult who believes in Santa Claus or Fairies? You probably won't.
      Our technology is based on our understanding of Physics, funny how there are no miracles other than fake materializations in India or the face of Christ on toast in the US.
      Yet all these people still go to a doctor for vaccinations, take antibiotics and drive a car or use the internet.

    41. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Arker · · Score: 2

      While I wont dispute I have seen people that remind me of your description, I would caution against applying it too liberally. Just having e.g. an Atheist organization that functions something like a church does not necessarily imply anything religious. Churches themselves, often, have little if anything to do with religion. They are communitarian institutions, social institutions, and it makes sense that atheists would feel the same need for socializing as theists do.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    42. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      OTOH, YouTube is proof positive that your latter statement is true.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    43. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "You just said yourself that most are manipulated and faked. That means a percentage, even if very low, is proof of whatever is recorded."

      Thinking, learn it.

      It just means the rest are useless blobs people use as an excuse to confirm a faulty narrative.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    44. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Ever consider the fact that Bigfoot, werewolves and ghosts have the right NOT to be surveiled? I for one have encountered ghosts and aliens on a pretty regular basis, but unlike some people around here *cough*glassholes*cough* I respect their right to privacy and to not be recorded by my camera phone and posted to youtube.

    45. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Arker · · Score: 0

      "I dunno, polar bear hybrids in the Himalayas. That's pretty interesting."

      Exactly! The most interesting part of the story and everyone else is ignoring it.

      Polar bears in the Himalayas may be disappointing news to die-hard Sasquatch cultists but to me this sounds like an unexpected and very interesting clue that should be followed up on.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    46. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I was counting the useless blobs in the fake category.

    47. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I was actually going to add another example where life is interesting - just not UFO/Bigfoot/Ghost interesting, but didn't. Yes, Himalayan Polar Bears qualifies as interesting. Just not the same kind of interesting as finding actual evidence of Bigfoot or of a ghost would be.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    48. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You would think the modern age of cameras in everyone's phones would produce evidence-a-plenty

      One "UFO enthusiast" answered such this way: The craft know if and who is using a camera in the area through advanced scanning. Like any other bureaucracy, they are pressured to do as much as possible with as few resources as possible. Occasionally they'll let low resolution photography slip through rather than chase the photographer down. They know to stay at the "edge" of detectability. Being too careful slows down their work, and not being careful enough allows high-quality images to slip through. They try to find a middle ground.

      Plus, in the age of Photoshop, it's relatively easy to flood the Internet with look-alikes that discredit the original. Our improved image capture abilities has come with advanced fudging capabilities. It was harder to fake analog photography.

    49. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IMHO, true Atheists don't talk about atheism. Those that do, border on religious.

      Fascinating that you take one small throway statement in my contribution to th ediscussion, and turn it into the never ending "attack on religion". meme. Which in itself was just part of a group of people who I believe think differently than the scientifically inclined.

      But since you steered it this way.........

      While I don't recruit new atheists, I am not all that amenable to people who have a long list of abominations thet their God commands them to kill people for.

      Ant therein lies the issue. There are Christians out there who would gladly kill me for my lack of belief - and they have verse and scripture to justify that. It's not possible to dent that it has occurred, and still does occasionally (usually gays at this time) But 2 Chronicals 15 tells us of the penalties for nonbelievers.

      They even sponsor, like churches, the "Atheists of Butte County " Roadside clean ups and get a hwy sign, just like a church.

      If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck like creature.

      This is exactly what I am talking about. You are sitting there taking umbrage that Atheists are sponsoring a roadside cleanup. "Just like a church."

      Churches do not own the rights to road cleanup efforts. Road cleanup is not the exclusive right of churches, and shame on you for insinuating that atheists are trying to horn in on the churches domain.

      Iin my area, Fraternities sponsor road cleanup, there is a society of chemical scientists, Some individual families, and some local businesses. Other student groups. And a couple churches. But the majority is not churches.

      It's a good thing that these people do.

      But despite your desires, the real reason that a lot of church-targeted groups have decided to not sit in silence and conform to what the fundamentalists demand is that many of them are in the same groups that the fundamentalists want to eliminate. Others just don't want whacky ideas like the world being created in 4004 b.c.e. or that the speed of light speeds up and slows down conveniently or that the Flintstone Cartoon was a documentary (that's a joke)

      I mean the absolute crap that went down in Arizona recently was religion oriented, The "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", or Georgia's HB1023, and SB377 bills Idaho's HB427 and HB426, Mississippi's Religious Freedom Restoration act has passed, and Missouri's Senate bill 916.

      All of these allow Businesses to refuse to do business with anyone they feel like, and call it religious belief.

      Arizona's Governor only vetoed it because a lot of businesses, and the Superbowl were planning on pulling out:

      http://washingtonexaminer.com/...

      So no no no, dear believer. As much as you might desire that Atheists, and Homos, and all those other yucky people you want to muzzle would just keep their mouths shut, and not sponsor roadside cleanups and not meet to discuss anything.

      We've seen your plans, and how you want to implement them. You do not have the right to deny other people their rights, and those

      This has drifted far off topic, and if someone wants to mod me off topic, they should have the decency to do the samt to your post too.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    50. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by RoccamOccam · · Score: 0

      Ant therein lies the issue. There are Christians out there who would gladly kill me for my lack of belief - and they have verse and scripture to justify that. It's not possible to dent that it has occurred, and still does occasionally (usually gays at this time) But 2 Chronicals 15 tells us of the penalties for nonbelievers.

      Not to argue any of your other points, but there are atheists (and atheist societies) that would gladly kill Christians for there belief, and we have their actions and regulations to prove it.

      I do know that U.S. Christians, as a group, are among the most charitable and selfless people in the world. [deflectors up]

    51. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by SillyHamster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And therein lies the issue. There are Christians out there who would gladly kill me for my lack of belief - and they have verse and scripture to justify that. It's not possible to dent that it has occurred, and still does occasionally (usually gays at this time) But 2 Chronicals 15 tells us of the penalties for nonbelievers.

      And who are those Christians, exactly? Where do they live? What groups have they formed? How many people have they killed in their fervor to live out 2 Chronicles 15?

      There's actually a religion out there known for killing unbelievers (and believers), but this citation of a singular verse in the Old Testament as evidence that Christianity is bloodthirsty against unbelievers is pretty pathetic.

    52. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      One story, mildly amusing, I believe extensively discussed here was someone dressed in a gorilla suit and would greet hikers in the back country of a national park. He would greet himself as Bigfoot, welcome people to the national park and ask they not litter, stay on the trails, and not abuse plants and animals in the park. He had a friend take video with a camcorder which uploaded footage to Youtube became very popular. Park service protested and banned him from playing Bigfoot on grounds that he didn't have a film permit or a permit to stage a show on national park (or something like that, leading to lots of /. diatribes about IP, guvmint interference, etc.).

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    53. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Let's remember the difference between "evidence" and "good evidence". I have no doubt that, if I really wanted to, I could come up with evidence for astrology. There's plenty of eyewitness testimony of alien abduction, and that is evidence. (Of course, there was also similar evidence of rocks falling from the sky, and that turned out to be real. Lack of good evidence does not imply falsehood.)

      So, yes, there is plenty of evidence for Bigfoot/Yeti/whatever. I still don't believe in Yeti astrology.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    54. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by narcc · · Score: 1

      So you agree with me then. Great.

    55. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      IMHO, true Atheists don't talk about atheism. Those that do, border on religious. I don't talk about not believing in the FSM or Pink Unicorns or .... because I don't believe in them. If I ran into someone that believed in those things, I would simply be amused and go on my way. But this isn't the case for vocal atheists, who run around recruiting like Jehovah's Witnesses people to their cause. They even sponsor, like churches, the "Atheists of Butte County " Roadside clean ups and get a hwy sign, just like a church.

      If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck like creature.

      I totally agree. Personally, I believe in God, but I've a pretty weird faith, I'm an Omnist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

      But I'm not so weak in my faith that I need to recruit people to agree with me. I think there's a special kind of personality that has trouble accepting its own beliefs without convincing others first. I believe in God, I accept that my belief is likely weird and not accepted by most, and I don't care. It's not something I desire to debate since I know it's an argument that can ever be won in any meaningful sense. It also helps that in my belief system, even the atheists are right!

    56. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      It freaked Einstein out too ya know?

      And me... I'm still astonished by it. The world is very strange indeed. What's even more amazing is that we may very well figure it out before I die. I couldn't think of anything greater than finally seeing the grand unified theory come together.

    57. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It goes back a lot further than that. "America's Funniest home Videos" was basicly "ow my balls".

    58. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts! You would think the modern age of cameras in everyone's phones would produce evidence-a-plenty of these kinds of things. But reality is far less interesting than we want it to be ... No magic, no supernatural stuff --- and sadly no bigfoots or aliens that bother to come here and snatch cows.

      Actually, my ability to keep a job AND read /. is magical bordering on supernatural. Now if you'll excuse me, I have internets to troll...

    59. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Actually, they were Jews and considering they wrote about their GENOCIDE OF THE CANAANITES in their little book and are gleefully enacting Genocide of Canaan 2.0, plenty have died. Now be sure to show your sorrow for the suffering of the Jews at the Holocaust museum near you.

    60. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who are those Christians, exactly? Where do they live? What groups have they formed? How many people have they killed in their fervor to live out 2 Chronicles 15?

      Ethiopians and Russians spring to mind, off the top of my head. Farther in history, of course, are the Crusades. Even Hitler laid claim to the Bible--although the Nazis sought to rewrite the Bible*, so one can take that with a grain of salt. Of course, Atheists have sought the same thing in recent history--Communist Russia--but then, like the Crusades before them, it had a lot more to do with control and power. Now, one could argue that the verses in the Bible were the same--the whole point of 2 Chronicles 15 is precisely that there was chaotic war and God ordered the Jews to join the fray and convert or kill to effectively win and regain stability (and power). Meanwhile, the people today who seek to kill (or minimally jail) the gays? That's just out of some pure biblical fear without much real depth of thought to anything but crushing non-believers because their God demanded it once long ago for specific purposes.

      There's actually a religion out there known for killing unbelievers (and believers), but this citation of a singular verse in the Old Testament as evidence that Christianity is bloodthirsty against unbelievers is pretty pathetic.

      No, what's pathetic is that a singular verse in the Old Testament has been frequently ignored: thou shalt not murder. I mean, as crazy as it would sound, I'd have a lot more consideration for a person who "hears God's voice" today and follows his command to kill than to take millennial old text as justification to kill or imprison or in any other way deny rights or privileges today without any clear impetuous by God to act. Because honestly, the greatest evidence would have to be that the real reason for people being against gay marriage is a jealousy after society's many failed marriages. Yet affairs, which by pure statistics, outweigh the scope of why traditional marriage is failing** in society today... Yea, whatever.

      *And a Deist like Jefferson did the same. Take of that what you will.

      **Of course if you actually read the Old Testament or the New Testament it's clear that (1) polygamy was rampant long ago and so "traditional" marriage is...a matter of society today and (2) affairs were incredibly common and effectively tolerated as a matter of course, just as they are today (although more so then as divorce was out of the question--so Ireland would be a better example of olden days). Only in short bursts of fervent righteousness have we seen adulterers be branded or stoned. And even then like now, those in power frequently got to ignore the rules and might have multiple mistresses. I mean, fuck, how many stories of Kings don't involve concubines?

    61. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reason for that is simple: When you're staring at your cellphone 100% of the time, you wouldn't even notice if Bigfoot were standing next to you making silly faces.

    62. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to argue any of your other points, but there are atheists (and atheist societies) that would gladly kill Christians for there belief, and we have their actions and regulations to prove it.

      But do we have a link to back that up? It's suspiciously missing from your post.

      I do know that U.S. Christians, as a group, are among the most charitable and selfless people in the world.

      Are you sure?

    63. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Ethiopians and Russians spring to mind, off the top of my head

      You're claiming that these two nations are gladly killing non-Christians according to 2 Chronicles 15?

      Where? What is the body count? This religious persecution by Christians isn't getting condemned in the media 24/7?

      the whole point of 2 Chronicles 15 is precisely that there was chaotic war and God ordered the Jews to join the fray and convert or kill to effectively win and regain stability (and power).

      To be charitable, your reading comprehension sucks.

      Here's what the prophet claimed God said: "Listen to me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin. The Lord is with you when you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you. [..] But as for you, be strong and do not give up, for your work will be rewarded "

      There is nothing there about God commanding to kill and/or convert.

      In fact, this is after the nation of Judah had already won a military victory. There isn't any documented killing/converting in this chapter; only the tearing down of idols and a re-dedication of the nation to its original religion. There is no "winning" to be done - the nation enjoyed a post-war victory and a time of peace - which they credited to following God.

      [...] than to take millennial old text as justification to kill or imprison or in any other way deny rights or privileges today without any clear impetuous by God to act.

      [Citation Needed]. Considering your poor comprehension and non-examples, "kill or imprison" is meaningless emotional babble not based on any actual harm.

      It reflects poorly on your cause if you have to make things up. That's called "lying".

    64. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      the whole point of 2 Chronicles 15 is precisely that there was chaotic war and God ordered the Jews to join the fray and convert or kill to effectively win and regain stability (and power).

      To be charitable, your reading comprehension sucks.

      Here's what the prophet claimed God said: "Listen to me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin. The Lord is with you when you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you. [..] But as for you, be strong and do not give up, for your work will be rewarded "

      There is nothing there about God commanding to kill and/or convert.

      What? Seriously What?

      You omitted the part that states:

      10 They assembled at Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of Asa’s reign. 11 At that time they sacrificed to the Lord seven hundred head of cattle and seven thousand sheep and goats from the plunder they had brought back. 12 They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. 14 They took an oath to the Lord with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. 15 All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the Lord gave them rest on every side.

      In case you don't feel like reading that whole thing, as you seem to be partial to simply quoting parts that agree with you

      All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.

      If I was there, I would be put to death. Non believers, killed right there, just like it says Are you going to challenge what is right there in the bible? Huh, go figure.

      I take it you are a believer. I judge that you just lied for Jesus. And liars for Jesus don't get any further discussions.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    65. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're claiming that these two nations are gladly killing non-Christians according to 2 Chronicles 15?

      Where? What is the body count? This religious persecution by Christians isn't getting condemned in the media 24/7?

      The 25 most shocking anti-gay stories from Russia so far. Anti-gay Ethiopia eases away from new crackdown. So, not a high body count because it's almost entirely persecution. But, then, the body count for apostasy itself is incredibly low around the globe, officially. Why? Because most people are persecuted and officially renounce whatever beliefs they have to avoid death. The same for people who are persecuted for being homosexual and being "in the closet".

      Now, whether any of this actually follows 2 Chronicles 15 vs merely Christians using 2 Chronicles 15 and other versuses to justify their persecution of others.... In the end, the crux of it is not that Christians aren't inclined to have judicial law to execute those of apostasy or other "unnatural" acts but that Christians, thankfully, have had their power severely gutted after centuries of abusing that power in inquisitions, wars, and general heretic burnings. Ie, it's that most Christians are Christian in name only. Meanwhile, Russia and some African nations still cling heavily to the Bible and its justifications for serious human rights abuses.

      To be charitable, your reading comprehension sucks.

      To be sure, that's what I get for skimming. Having said that, your reading comprehension suck as well.

      There is nothing there about God commanding to kill and/or convert.

      12 They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. 14 They took an oath to the Lord with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. 15 All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the Lord gave them rest on every side.

      That seems a pretty clear us vs them oath. Granted, it doesn't specifically mention conversion, but the "all who would not" sort of implies that you at least try to talk and ask people to convert before you go about slaying them, as they may well be willing converts.

      There isn't any documented killing/converting in this chapter ...

      Right. Just an oath to effective do such in the future.

      Considering your poor comprehension and non-examples, "kill or imprison" is meaningless emotional babble not based on any actual harm.

      Sorry that I didn't provide examples since, I guess, I assumed you were at least partly aware of the strong anti-gay rhetoric in Russia and Ethiopia and at least the known attacks in the former and (hopefully) overbearing rhetoric in the latter. Of course even if there were hundreds dead or hundreds imprisoned, I doubt you'd care anyways. It's all "meaningless emotional babble" when you dare speak in terms of "body count" as if it takes more than a single human life to matter. There's something seriously wrong with the whole mindset of enforcing one's religious beliefs on others, even if it rarely leads to bloodshed. That you want proof that it regularly escalates in Christians? Thankfully not. I guess that makes Christians "better" than Muslims. I guess that makes Christians only 5' deep in horse shit instead of the 50' that Muslims are deep in horse shit. So much "better".

      PS - For that last part, I'm speaking of true Christians--if there is such a thing--who want to live by

    66. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree. Personally, I believe in God, but I've a pretty weird faith, I'm an Omnist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnism

      I too believe in the Great God Om.

    67. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      " I am not all that amenable to people who have a long list of abominations thet their God commands them to kill people for."

      More people have been killed by states in the name of Atheism than those that have been killed in the name of all other religions combined. The totality of the USSR, and China murders of people not bowing to the Atheist state is staggering. In addition, I've know quite a number of Atheists that have said things like "religion scares me, we should kill all Christians just to end their tyranny"

      While there are "commands" about "abominations" in the Bible, you can count on one hand how many times those commands were actually carried out in the Bible. And that should be telling about how often it is actually practiced as you seem to think it is taught (it doesn't mean what you think it means). Here's a hint, nobody kept those wanting to practice the Abominations in the land of Israel, they were free to leave and join the Sodom and Gomorrah's of the world .

      But, I hear your already forming the argument "Atheists didn't kill .....", which is pure sophistry and ignoring of facts. If Christians and Jews (as a group) are guilty for the acts of a few in the name of Christianity and Judaism, then so too are Atheists guilty of acts committed by Atheists in the name of Atheism. Either we are all guilty for those that act on our behalf, or we are not. I'll let you choose, but whatever you choose is the standard by which I get to judge atheism (and other religions)

      And if you want to protest the Religious Restoration Act (the core of Hobby Lobby's case) you might want to check in with Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, who wrote and signed the bill in order to protect the drug addicts who wanted to smoke Peyote under the guise of "religion". It wasn't the Republicans, it was the Democrats (with republican help).

      So, typical liberalism, wants to have it both ways, Legalization of psychotropic drugs under the guise of "religion", or religious choice is not protected by the government.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    68. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "PS - For that last part, I'm speaking of true Christians--if there is such a thing--who want to live by the Old Testament and New Testament simultaneous--which is inherently so contradictory to be literally impossible"

      I'm one of those (loosely called "Messianic"). It is only impossible to people who don't have understanding, and never read the complete text in Hebrew and Greek. There is no contradiction in the two, once you realize that translators made grave errors in translation, and often missed the nuanced inflections in the Hebrew. I will give a simple innocuous example that really won't change how anyone views the rest, but it makes my case fairly clearly in a way that even people who don't know anything else about the Bible can understand.

      The word "Sheol" is translated as "grave" or "underworld" or "dead in the grave" or any other number of ways, misses the real point, which is hidden in the root. The word "sheol" has a inflection of a interrogatory (question), rather than an absolute. It is like how a parent answers a young child's question, "Where's Grandma?" after grandma dies. The Hebrew word "Sheol" defines the answer as a question.

      There is an unknown, after death, including the possibility of nihilism. This is what the Hebrew text implies, for it is an unknowable answer this side of eternity. It is a question, one we ALL must ask, and answer. Those that are 100% sure are the ones I'm fearful of, from Muslims and their 72 virgins to atheists who are 100% certain they are correct. These are the people who are dangerous, because they will do anything to defend that belief.

      Sheol is the answer, that is itself a question. But how does one translate the untranslatable? "Death", "Dead in the grave", "grave" those work, but don't convey the totality of the word. Translations never can quite get the full flavor of the original language.

      And before you go off on my choice in faith, please be aware that most of what you think of me is probably wrong, because I am also a political libertarian, because that is what my scriptures indicate (Law of Liberty). My G-D gives me the choice to choose. HE is not a tyrant, but HE does expect us to be accountable for our actions and choices, and intentions.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    69. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      In addition, I've know quite a number of Atheists that have said things like "religion scares me, we should kill all Christians just to end their tyranny"

      If this is true, why have you not reported them to the authorities. Death threats are not to be taken lightly

      While there are "commands" about "abominations" in the Bible, you can count on one hand how many times those commands were actually carried out in the Bible.

      Let us not forget that some like me, were raised in the fact that the bible is the unerrring word of God. Not to be questioned.

      But, I hear your already forming the argument

      I understand that perfectly, because people as yourself often have these imaginary conversations with others. The great thing about that is that you always win.

      In the end, what I see from you and some others is the futility of argument. One moment there are direct commands from God, and the next moment, an almost magical picking and choosing that precisely remakes God in your own image. The ability to ignore all the abominations except one, and the mind boggling ability to alomst completely ignore the seromon on the mount.

      It's wrestling with eels - which by the way, I hope you aren't eating those. No scales, you know..

      When any point I can make can be answered by "That's not what it means." Or your placing extra words into and redefining scripture, there is simply no winning the argument. And you care about winning the argument with me a lot more than I care about winning it with you. That's because you think you can win, and I know that your faith is impenetrable, and I cannot ever win.

      And if you want to protest the Religious Restoration Act (the core of Hobby Lobby's case) you might want to check in with Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, who wrote and signed the bill in order to protect the drug addicts who wanted to smoke Peyote under the guise of "religion". It wasn't the Republicans, it was the Democrats (with republican help).

      Ahh, more the assumption, more the pretend conversations, more the pointing out that it was the evil Democrats who are at fault for everything, and the assumption that I am a Democrat. Sorry man, I am no Democrat. If there was a pragmatist party, that's what I'd be. But bad laws are bad laws, no matter who wrote them.

      However, to my original statement that many people have a completely different thinking process than those of scientific bent, thank you and a couple others for proving my point. What was a simple throwaway statement has been interpreted as an attack on the very core of your being, not to be suffered.

      A long time ago, in a Galaxy far far away, I wrote:

      There are a lot of books out there. A lot of evidence. It's shoveling shit against the tide. I think it is based on a fundamentally different thought process. The person that thinks like a scientist wants to know what the truth is, and looks for evidence of what that truth is. The vast majority of people decide what the truth is first, then look for evidence for what they have already decided.

      The latter group cannot understand that there would be a different manner of thinking. That's why they talk about atheism as being a religion, or that a scientist's personality determines the veracity of his work, or that debate can change the laws of physics.

      And here we are, you have your religion intact, your faith has not been shaken, you have negated - for yourself at least- my references to your source material, and I have a demonstration of my point. We simply do not think alike. My simple "atheism as religion" comment stirred up the anthill pretty good, even though my main point was on debating the laws of physics. Class is over, and you can make another comment because I know that you'll need to have the last word, and my point here was thinking processes, not any intention to cause anyone distress.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    70. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      What? Seriously What?

      Do I seriously need to explain that in the Bible, God's commands are relayed by prophets?

      If you read the entire chapter, which parts are "God's commands", and which parts are historical documentation of what the people did in response? (Hint: I quoted the prophet's words for a reason)

      In case you don't feel like reading that whole thing, as you seem to be partial to simply quoting parts that agree with you

      Reading sentences that are meant to be taken together is hard. Adding the previous sentence:

      "They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and soul. All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. "

      Understand? This is not a record of them killing "unbelievers", this is a record of them making a covenant (agreement) to do so, after God had commanded them to follow Him. (but there was no command to go on killing/conversion spree)

      You'll also note that this promise is followed by peace. ("So the Lord gave them rest on every side. ") This indicates that this was a domestic policy, not a foreign one, seeing as there are plenty of unbelieving countries that the Jews did not attack. Those who lived in the nation of Israel were to follow the God of Israel; but other nations that followed other gods were left alone.

      Now, did the Israelites go on a killing spree? It's possible - but it's not necessary, since being put to death is meant as a deterrent. (note the future tense of the covenant)

      If I was there, I would be put to death. Non believers, killed right there, just like it says Are you going to challenge what is right there in the bible? Huh, go figure.

      If you were a Jew who "would not seek the Lord" living in Judah several thousand years ago, sure. But you'd have fair warning to change your beliefs, as well as strong evidence that it was a good idea.

      Consider that the nation had just won a miraculous military victory, and its history was filled with miraculous interventions credited to God. Someone denying the source of those miracles, advocating forsaking God, would be viewed as a threat to the community, seeing as there was also a history of the negative results of that. (invaded by other countries, etc)

      This does not, however, remotely translate into Christians being commanded to purge un-believers, or that they're just biding their time. Take the USA - a rather Christian country in its culture: The 1st Amendment clearly protects religious beliefs - and that was codified and approved by Christians!

      That you think the Christians are out to get you is along the lines of Blood Libel. Ironic.

      PS: I suggest you read about this Jewish guy known as Jesus the Christ if you want to know why Christians have no need/desire to imitate 2 Chronicles 15.

      If you want to attack a religion for conversion by the sword, I'd suggest focusing your criticism on the one that is actively killing people every day in this modern era. You do know the one I'm talking about, right?

    71. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      The 25 most shocking anti-gay stories from Russia so far [pinknews.co.uk]. Anti-gay Ethiopia eases away from new crackdown [76crimes.com]. So, not a high body count because it's almost entirely persecution. But, then, the body count for apostasy itself is incredibly low around the globe, officially. Why? Because most people are persecuted and officially renounce whatever beliefs they have to avoid death. The same for people who are persecuted for being homosexual and being "in the closet".

      Homosexuality isn't a belief system. What does non-lethal persecution of a set of behaviors have to do with killing unbelievers?

      Furthermore, how are the Ethiopia/Russian governments representative of Christians, and how are their actions rooted in 2 Chronicles 15? I was responding to a narrow claim, and you're replacing it with a very different one in order to say that I'm wrong.

      Concede the point before expecting me to change topics, if you're actually interested in discussing that.

      That seems a pretty clear us vs them oath. Granted, it doesn't specifically mention conversion, but the "all who would not" sort of implies that you at least try to talk and ask people to convert before you go about slaying them, as they may well be willing converts.

      Read my argument carefully, please. Did God command them to take such an oath? No. Is there any killing commanded by God? No. That's what the text plainly says. Thus, God did not command to kill/convert.

      If your complaint was that the people killed each other in the name of following God, it'd be a more valid criticism. But I can only answer the argument as was presented.

      It's all "meaningless emotional babble" when you dare speak in terms of "body count" as if it takes more than a single human life to matter.

      You claimed Christians kill and imprison using a "millennial old text as justification" - you have a responsibility to substantiate the accusation. For the claim to be true, all of its parts that need to be true simultaneously.

      You need 1.) Christian actors. 2.) someone killed or imprisoned. 3.) Justification of the activity using the Bible.

      Your list of Ethiopia and Russia is insufficient without demonstrating that they are (1) Christian and (3) acting based on the Bible. Your hostile inability to provide examples of killing also indicates that you threw "kill" in there for emotional effect. Logical fallacies are fallacious.

      But, whatever. Explain to me again why Christians shouldn't follow the oath to "All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman" as offered by God?

      1.) God does not offer such an oath. (Christians generally take time to comprehend the Bible they claim to follow, at least relative to non-Christians who criticize said Bible)

      2.) Christians aren't living in a Jewish theocratic kingdom. If you live in the US or other Western countries, you're living with a government that has religious tolerance protected by law, put there by Christians.

      3.) Agreements are binding on the parties that agreed to it, and are not binding on the parties that did not agree to it. That oath was made by a specific Jewish community several thousand years ago, and is not binding on Christians in different cultures and locations and times. An understanding of Christian theology will also discover why Christians have no need to imitate such an oath. They may learn from the history, but they do not need to repeat it.

    72. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      IMHO, true Atheists don't talk about atheism.

      True atheists. True... Atheists. Wow, you really said that.

      Did you ever consider that people talk about it because they're surrounded by people who talk about religion, and like it or not, religion is quite popular? Equating rational arguments against theism with religion is just silly. It makes complete sense that people would want to educate others, and this is seen as fine when it comes to plenty of other topics, but not to you for this specific topic, which you've arbitrarily declared to be off-limits.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    73. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      I think there's a special kind of personality that has trouble accepting its own beliefs without convincing others first.

      If someone said 1 + 1 = 3, I would probably try to correct them. Does that mean I lack confidence in my own conclusion that the answer is 2? No, that's absurd.

      Like it or not, people generally feel the need to 'correct' others, and it's necessarily because they lack confidence in their own beliefs.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    74. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homosexuality isn't a belief system. What does non-lethal persecution of a set of behaviors have to do with killing unbelievers?

      Again, "All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman."

      It doesn't command to kill unbelievers. It commands to put to death those who do not seek to believe. Those who accept homosexuality as normal in directly contrivance to the Bible obviously do not seek the Lord, at least as far as anti-homosexuals believe--obviously, homosexuals that strive to seek the Lord in some fashion do, you know, seek the Lord. As far as "non-lethal persecution", I'll concede that life imprisonment--which is what you effectively get if you deem a person homosexual who refuses to "convert"--is not "put to death" but it's pretty fucking close.

      Furthermore, how are the Ethiopia/Russian governments representative of Christians, and how are their actions rooted in 2 Chronicles 15? I was responding to a narrow claim, and you're replacing it with a very different one in order to say that I'm wrong.

      Well, I guess by your logic any time you see a person not doing a "Christian" thing no matter how much they can point at the Bible to justify their actions, it really doesn't count. By the same logic, we can't blame the Nazis for the holocaust because, well, it was all individuals and even though plenty in the movement engaged in genocide, it just doesn't really count because they weren't True Nazis or some such.

      As for your point of a narrow claim, well, congratulations. So the rest of the Bible supports the sort of genocide, but it's not specifically in 2 Chronicles 15? Yea, I'm putting words in your mouth, but the very notion that you want to make a "narrow claim" highlights the point that you clearly don't feel comfortable in making a broader claim about the Bible's support of genocide.

      Concede the point before expecting me to change topics, if you're actually interested in discussing that.

      I'll conceded whatever point you like if you'll admit the Bible is a bullshit excuse for murder and that too many people are quick to excuse those who use it as "not really Christians" or some such while ignoring that until the point they actually commit the murder--and often, quite a while after that--that you'll still see people supporting their actions. It's that convenient "but hindsight is 20-20" that ignores there were clear warnings signs from people who you put faith in because they claim to be Christians while refusing to actually verify their actions and reject them for engaging in unChristian believes well before it escalates to the point of no return.

      And believe me, it's not like Christianity is the one name people use to hide their evil. Muslim. Hindu. Republican. Democrat. Libertarian. Right to life. Right to choose. US Soldier. In the end, you don't judge a person by the label they call themselves but by their actions. And you frequently strive to verify the validity of their actions. None of that is fun or easy or liable to make you friends of any crowd. Yet to do anything less is to be duplicitous.

      That's the real crux of the problem. Trying to argue some narrow point about what a verse "really" says just misses the point, as if it was a matter of the wording of regulation that was the issue or unintentional misinterpretation. I am my brother's keeper speaks more of being sure your brother isn't up to willful evil under the guise of text which, even most generously, is one that calls for people, great and small, to be "put to death".

      Your list of Ethiopia and Russia is insufficient without demonstrating that they are (1) Christian and (3) acting based on the Bible. Your hostile inability to provide examples of killing also indicates that you threw "kill" in there for emotional effect. Logical fallacies are fallacious.

      Right.

    75. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      As for your point of a narrow claim, well, congratulations. So the rest of the Bible supports the sort of genocide, but it's not specifically in 2 Chronicles 15? Yea, I'm putting words in your mouth, but the very notion that you want to make a "narrow claim" highlights the point that you clearly don't feel comfortable in making a broader claim about the Bible's support of genocide.

      You are too short for this ride. The narrow claim is not mine, but what I responded to.

      The claim is that Christians are eagerly looking to kill unbelievers according to 2 Chronicles 15, such that an unbeliever needs to be cautious and fearful of them.

      This is wrong on so many different levels, it can only be made in irrational ignorance.

      2 Chronicles 15 is a relatively obscure chapter. The majority of Christians will not have studied that verse in the past year, so pointing to it as a motivation to plan death for others is silly. If they're not even paying attention to it, how do you think it's going to motivate them to kill?

      Then it's in the Old Testament, and was a record of what a historical Jewish community decided to do to follow God. This has less weight to a Christian than an Old Testament command (see the 10 commandments and various ceremonial laws) or the New Testament (NT) commands.

      I can tell you right now that the NT has absolutely no commands regarding the killing of unbelievers. Instead, it has verses such as Rom 12:18: "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." To look to the OT as if it were the standard of true Christian belief is ignorance of *ALL* Christian theology. Arguments made in complete ignorance are not likely to be true.

      That is why it's pathetic to believe Christians are bloodthirsty killers looking to implement 2 Chronicles 15. It's simply not true, in a way that betrays a severly broken thought process.

      Your entire response can be summed up as, "but Christians are still evil". That's an emotional argument that logically surrenders the point, but without the integrity to acknowledge the original accusation was wrong and should be retracted.

      That may make you feel better than those evil Christians, but it's not going to yield truth or understanding. Abandon those at your own risk.

    76. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I dunno, several Athiests I have had conversations with, have insisted that that they are "true atheists" and don't care about what others believe, and insist that the vocal anti-theists are not "true atheists".

      I haven't declared anything off limits. My limits are whatever we agree upon. If having a conversation with me, someone points out all the "evils" committed by Christians, based upon their view, then by all means, any act committed by an Atheist is equally subject to how "atheism" should be viewed. But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism". So the horrors of Crusades are fair game, but the atrocities of the USSR and China, and Vietnam and .. in the name of clearing the blight of religion from their societies ... are not.

      My only rule is that logic must be applied equally, or it isn't logical. Something that many arguing against theism are simply not willing to make. I wonder why.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    77. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      I dunno, several Athiests I have had conversations with, have insisted that that they are "true atheists" and don't care about what others believe, and insist that the vocal anti-theists are not "true atheists".

      That's pretty idiotic.

      But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism".

      You say "atheists" as if referring to all atheists.

      So the horrors of Crusades are fair game, but the atrocities of the USSR and China, and Vietnam and .. in the name of clearing the blight of religion from their societies ... are not.

      I have no idea what these people you're talking about actually think, but I would imagine, at least, that they take into account intent and how deeply religious beliefs played into those horrors. That probably would make a different to them.

      Something that many arguing against theism are simply not willing to make.

      It's also something that many arguing against atheist are simply not willing to make.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    78. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      So, you're dismissive of anything that reflects badly upon Atheism and atheist in general, by ignoring actual concerns. If you're going to be grammatically pedantic, fine, I get it, and will rephrase my statements so that you can understand my intentions better.

      That's pretty idiotic.

      Atheists who say those things, or me for reporting it as it happened?

      But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism".

      You say "atheists" as if referring to all atheists.

      THESE (mentioned previously) Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism". (citing example followed, which was ignored)

      I have no idea what these people you're talking about actually think, but I would imagine, at least, that they take into account intent and how deeply religious beliefs played into those horrors. That probably would make a different to them.

      I see, tossing "all" atheists into the same basket is not okay, but doing the same with "all" religions is! Do you dismiss the idea of State Sponsored Atheism caused the state to persecute religions in the name of atheism? Or is it simply the case that that wasn't "true atheism"?

      I can assure you that my faith doesn't require me killing anyone. There is not a commandment to kill, and specifically has a prohibition against murder. Of course there is no such commandment to not kill in Atheism for atheism is completely amoral and without any absolutes. Meaning there is nothing prohibited or commanded in the name of no-diety, therefore any time atheists say anything about atheism, it is subject to change based upon the whims of those that adhere to it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    79. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      So, you're dismissive of anything that reflects badly upon Atheism and atheist in general, by ignoring actual concerns.

      I generally don't think anything reflects badly on an entire group, since people are individuals. What atheists have in common is that they all lack a belief in a god, which is a perfectly rational position and a harmless belief.

      Atheists who say those things, or me for reporting it as it happened?

      The people who say those things.

      I see, tossing "all" atheists into the same basket is not okay, but doing the same with "all" religions is!

      It was not me, but speculation about what these people believe. You seem to be interpreting that as my own belief. Also, I never said anything about all religions.

      Do you dismiss the idea of State Sponsored Atheism caused the state to persecute religions in the name of atheism? Or is it simply the case that that wasn't "true atheism"?

      I think these things are more about control than about any religious beliefs or lack thereof.

      for atheism is completely amoral and without any absolutes.

      What?

      Meaning there is nothing prohibited or commanded in the name of no-diety, therefore any time atheists say anything about atheism, it is subject to change based upon the whims of those that adhere to it.

      Well, these words are always defined by humans, and all of them are subject to change (or, more accurately, new definitions will be added in addition to the old ones) over time, regardless of what religious beliefs people have.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    80. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      harmless belief.

      ;)

      for atheism is completely amoral and without any absolutes.

      What?

      You may have morals, but they aren't derived from your lack of belief in a god, anymore than mine are defined by my failure to believe in the FSM or pink unicorns. Lack of belief in something doesn't define anything "moral", hence the term "amoral" (no morals)

      Well, these words are always defined by humans, and all of them are subject to change (or, more accurately, new definitions will be added in addition to the old ones) over time, regardless of what religious beliefs people have.

      Or ... even shorter periods of time, like minutes or even seconds.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    81. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      You may have morals, but they aren't derived from your lack of belief in a god, anymore than mine are defined by my failure to believe in the FSM or pink unicorns. Lack of belief in something doesn't define anything "moral", hence the term "amoral" (no morals)

      I just didn't know what you meant.

      Or ... even shorter periods of time, like minutes or even seconds.

      If you talk to various people in the group, probably. There are different kinds of atheism I suppose, but the common point is that all atheists lack a belief in a god. The same is true of other (even more ambiguous) terms like "liberal," "conservative," "libertarian," etc.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  4. JBS Haldane by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J...

  5. Almasty? by Mondor · · Score: 2

    Well, Russians are calling it the Snow Man. Almasty is what it's called in Caucasus - Chechnya and so on. Just saying.

  6. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The logical explanation is that Bigfoot has no mitochondria, and that the results obtained are from contamination. Scientists really shouldn't bring their pet polar bears to the lab.

    1. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or it is an offspring of lesbian females of bear, horse and dog.

  7. Re:Americans by alphatel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wow Americans really are uneducated and will believe in all sorts of garbage. From this, to paranormal crap, to religion, to pseudoscience, to debunked science like autism being caused by vaccines, etc.

    Yes but not that Global Warming fiction!

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  8. Horses and dogs and bears? by return+42 · · Score: 1

    Oh my!

    1. Re:Horses and dogs and bears? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      man-bear-pig DNA may have also contaminated the horse-dog-bear samples.

    2. Re:Horses and dogs and bears? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I was getting near the end of the comments and I feared for a second that nobody had written man-bear-pig vs horse-dog-bear yet.

  9. I've believed in the abominable snow man. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 0

    (now questioned)

    I've believe something like the big foot or more importantly the abominable snow man for many years now.

    Due to Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, also known as the Andes flight disaster, in South America, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1... this was a rugby team that crashed and survived close to two months, on a snow whipped mountain top.

    The big deal about this crash is they had to eat the dead to live. The book (which I read) mentions two large "ape like creatures were that were "busy" in the route they were taking to get down so they diverted. They tried to wait them out but grew tired of waiting so circled around them. It sounded like they ("apes") were waiting for the survivor out of curiosity.

    They might of of been called abominable snow men in the book but there was no real clue what they were other than very large, ape looking beings (given bears they could of been).

    1. Re:I've believed in the abominable snow man. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Edit: the name of the book was "Alive!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

    2. Re:I've believed in the abominable snow man. by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the movie adaptation of the same name? I can't speak for accuracy as I haven't read the book but it was very engaging.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  10. Loch ness DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sasquatch may not be true; but there is still a dinosaur in a loch in Scotland.

    1. Re:Loch ness DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  11. So...Southpark was partially right... by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Funny

    It wasn't ManBearPig it was ManBearHorseDog! Quickly someone let Al Gore know!

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:So...Southpark was partially right... by Al+Gore+(verified) · · Score: 1

      I'm super cereal!

  12. Re:Americans by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm guessing you've never been to EU, Russia, Africa or Asia. Paranormal crap is even bigger business in Asia and Africa than it is in the US, pseudoscience outshines the US in many Asian nations, and autism by vaccines is pretty much equal universally across this rock(I take this as a fair point that no matter how smart someone claims to be, stupidity is a universal trait). I'm surprised that you didn't get in with "fattest nation" but then you'd be talking about Mexico.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  13. Inconclusive by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    Chupacabra isn't included.

  14. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation needed. There are people here (in Europe) who object to vaccines out of religious convictions, but they are a tiny minority, comparable to people who refuse blood transfusions out of religious conviction (though they are not Jehovah's Witnesses).

  15. Not even our scientific laboratory can detect Big by nhat11 · · Score: 1

    foot... that's how elusive they're!!

  16. Documentary series by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Informative

    Channel 4 put out a three-part documentary series about this research last year, called Bigfoot Files. Depending on the episode you got a mixture of local legends, interviews with bigfoot chasers, and of course the search for and testing of the putative hominid remains. The article mentions that one of the samples tested as human; there's a rather heartbreaking local tale behind that. Very nicely done and desensationalised.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  17. Re:Americans by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is just an anecdote, but anyway. When we had our first child, I was in serveral lectures about child upbringing and first aid and similar. One was in Frankfurt(Main), Germany, by a physician who strongly opposed vaccination and had lots of graphs and pictures to support his stance. He didn't mention the vaccination-autism-connection, because that seems to never have caused the big craze in Germany as in the U.S. and U.K.. But the people there didn't seem to be of the religious type (Religion isn't that big in Germany anyway, especially not in large urban regions), but more of the wealthy non-conformist affiliation.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  18. 12s to oblivion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so one matched DNA of a human yet they state still no matches.... when do we have DNA of a Sasquatch anyways?
    They have nothing to compare and still could be human with over jealous hair genetics.

    1. Re:12s to oblivion by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      ...still could be human with over jealous hair genetics.

      You're talking about Ruby Rhod, right?

  19. Alternate theory. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    It's human on its father's side.

    1. Re:Alternate theory. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      And Wookiee on its mother's side.

    2. Re: Alternate theory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think I could get drunk enough to hit that!

  20. Horse! by SeeingMole · · Score: 1

    Even here, they've managed to mix in some horse!

  21. This headline sucks due t inaccuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First it's 'DNA Samples', then next it clarifies and says this is RNA, so we're actually only getting a view of what the mother was (the mother of bigfoot may apparently be human, or a horse, or a dog, or a bear). Subsequent references discuss 'DNA' and 'RNA' interchangeably like it means something. Seriously, how did this get past an editor?

    1. Re:This headline sucks due t inaccuracy by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      RNA and mitochondrial DNA are two different things, I thought?

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    2. Re:This headline sucks due t inaccuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RNA and mitochondrial DNA are two different things, I thought?

      They studied the DNA sequence of the RNA that comes from the Mitochondrial ribosome (which has it's own DNA / RNA and ribosomes).

  22. The mishmash of DNA is to be expected by dietdew7 · · Score: 2

    Bigfoot has shape shifting abilities. That would explain why there is so little evidence of his existence. A shape shifting big foot turns the big foot is a robot theory on its ear.

  23. Bigfoot doesn't exist by myth24601 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, we have never found any corpses from this beast and with the amount that man has spread out, I am 100% certain we would have found the beast by now.

    --
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    1. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Bigfoot believer or anything — I personally am the closest thing I know of — but the excuse is that they eat their dead.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The closest thing to a bigfoot?

    3. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I am 100% certain you have not found it.
      I am also certain that 100% of basement dwellers dropped off in the wilderness would be dead within 72 hours.
      The saddest part about the whole thing is, even though the democrats could wiñ the white house with anyone they trotted out, you are going to get Hillary.

    4. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The closest thing to a bigfoot?

      I'm two meters tall, got plenty of mass to me, quite hairy, and I often sound like a wookie when I yawn. Not to mention, I wear a size 16. "Sasquatch" is one of my nicknames from high school.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Seriously, we have never found any corpses from this beast and with the amount that man has spread out, I am 100% certain we would have found the beast by now.

      At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic, just a few years ago I remember seeing several scientists stating on camera that they believed that every large mammal on earth was already documented and known to science. Not long after that I read a news piece reporting the discovery of several previously unknown species of mammals including a species of deer that reportedly weighs in at 150lb. Another example is a species of whale native to the Southern Arctic that is only known from a few DNA samples obtained from whalers. The point being that even though it is fun to ridicule crypto zoologists, there are numerous examples even in this day and age of unknown species hiding right under our noses.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    6. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Including the bones? And what if one Bigfoot is wandering the woods, gets injured and dies alone? Do the other Bigfoot hunt his corpse down (knowing where it is due to psychic abilities or something) for the sole purpose of eating him? Even if Bigfoot did eat their own dead, there would still be traces.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by niado · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seriously, we have never found any corpses from this beast and with the amount that man has spread out, I am 100% certain we would have found the beast by now.

      At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic, just a few years ago I remember seeing several scientists stating on camera that they believed that every large mammal on earth was already documented and known to science. Not long after that I read a news piece reporting the discovery of several previously unknown species of mammals including a species of deer that reportedly weighs in at 150lb. Another example is a species of whale native to the Southern Arctic that is only known from a few DNA samples obtained from whalers. The point being that even though it is fun to ridicule crypto zoologists, there are numerous examples even in this day and age of unknown species hiding right under our noses.

      Here are some relevant lists for your perusal:

      List of megafauna discovered in modern times
      List of recently discovered mammals
      List of cryptids

      Not very many on the second list that I would consider "large" (scientific definition of "large" in the context of megafauna is somewhat ambiguous, though often bounded on the lower end at 100 pounds). Most of the creatures on these lists are very similar to already known and described species (the giant peccary, for example), and aren't very impressive discoveries from a lay viewpoint. Notice on the "list of cryptids" there is only one creature with "confirmed" status - the Okapi, discovered over a century ago.

    8. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      ha, shows how much you know, bigfoots don't die.

    9. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 1

      Well, Bigfoot does seem pretty unlikely at this point, but what about Yeti? Some form of undocumented mountain ape that lives in the Himalayas seems totally plausible to me. It's not like people are going through leisurely jaunts up the Himalayas with their camera phones.

    10. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      there are traces, big piles of bigfoot poop that gets blamed on bears. Bears don't actually shit in the woods.

    11. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Including the bones?

      Why not?

      And what if one Bigfoot is wandering the woods, gets injured and dies alone?

      Maybe they don't get out much.

      Even if Bigfoot did eat their own dead, there would still be traces.

      Probably. But you can't reason with people who believe things without evidence.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You have a point, but by your logic it would be deemed unsuitable to ridicule alchemists when a new element is discovered in a particle accelerator. The vast, vast majority of Cryptozoologists don't engage in science - they engage in wild speculation and pseudoscience. Plus I wouldn't call the southern Arctic or dense jungle "right under our noses" :)

    13. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      A new type of deer that to 99% of people might look similar to some other type of deer could escape detection but a bigfoot would be similar if they were all so similar to humans and simply blending in with us. Maybe that is the answer, tall people are bigfoots!

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    14. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And until DNA analysis proves them distinct species -- how many of these 'new' discoveries are actually regional variants (which is to say, breeds) of existing known species? The way species are classified, often determined by trivial variations in stuff like size or coat color/length, makes me think they'd consider dogs to be two hundred distinct species.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  24. Re:Americans by ArcadeMan · · Score: 0

    Americans really are uneducated and will believe in all sorts of garbage [...] paranormal crap, religion, pseudoscience...

    There's no need to repeat yourself.

  25. Not all work was wasted by Flavianoep · · Score: 2

    Two samples, from India and Bhutan, matched polar bear 12S RNA—a surprising finding that Sykes is following up on to determine whether some Himalayan bears are hybrid species with polar bears.

    While it may look like a waste of time searching for bigfoot, something unexpected and interesting was found.

    --
    Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
  26. Re:Americans by umghhh · · Score: 2

    judging on the '-1' score neither group has sense of humor

  27. Strange twist? by slater86 · · Score: 1

    So bigfoot turns out to be manbearpig. Didn't see that coming.

    --
    When people ask if I'm an optimist, I say "I hope so". --Bill Bailey
  28. Recent Bigfoot sighting in NJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some have connected that creature to the closing of several lanes of traffic on a bridge.

  29. Proof that Slashdot editors ARE working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The original headline was Alleged 'Bigfoot' DNA Samples Sequenced, Turn Out To Be Horses, Dogs, and Bears, Oh my!

    What more proof do you need?

  30. Re:Americans by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0, Troll

    AGW is Psuedo Science.. Every major prediction in the last 20 years has been completely falsified, yet plenty of people cling to it like a bible or a gun or something.

    We should be many Degrees warmer and the Ice Sheets should be gone already, and flooding of Florida should nearly be complete. Don't forget about the Polar Bears Drowning ....

    I look and see Piltdown Man all over again. "scientific consensus" means nothing, and isn't science.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  31. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2012, researchers at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and the Museum of Zoology in Lausanne, Switzerland, put out a call for hair samples thought to be from anomalous primates

    Correct me if I'm wrong, after all I'm only an American, but those places aren't in America?

  32. I, for one, welcome... by kick6 · · Score: 1

    our new horsedogbear overlords.

  33. The mishmash of DNA is to be expected by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2
    Since mitochondrial DNA is passed on by the mother, this means that it's still possible that some guy's going around getting bears, dogs and horses pregnant. The human DNA match, of course would be from a woman getting pregnant by a bear.

    The mystery continues.

    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  34. Re:Americans by geekoid · · Score: 1

    The anti-vaccine crazies have been around for decades. Well before wakefield committed fraud and illegal experimentation on children.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  35. Bear is believable by medv4380 · · Score: 1

    The general description of Bigfoot matches a large bear standing upright. Which they can do. Horses and Dogs are far less believable to be mistaken for Bigfoot, but possible depending on where they were found. A large wolf in the Himalayas might be when visibility is low. But I can't see how someone could mistake a Horse as Bigfoot. Even in extreme conditions.

    1. Re:Bear is believable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you miss understand. People aren't mistaking the actual animals for Bigfoot. They are finding bits of hair and claiming it's from Bigfoot.

    2. Re:Bear is believable by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Take a few swigs of 105 proof moonshine in those extreme conditions and re-evaluate your so-called "bears and horses". You doubters and your sobriety affliction....

  36. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, I hope you don't have children.

  37. Nope by geekoid · · Score: 0

    "We should be many Degrees warmer"
    lie.

    "the Ice Sheets should be gone already"
    lie.

    " and flooding of Florida should nearly be complete. "
    lie.
    " Don't forget about the Polar Bears Drowning ...."
    it's happening, although some of mating with brown bears and creating a new species.

    "I look and see Piltdown Man all over again. "
    This you are clueless. Their was NEVER scientific consensus on piltdown man, and when Scientist looked at it they declared it a fraud.

    Let me explain this to you..well not to you becasue clearly you are an idiot who could change his narrative if he tried, but to the people who ahd the misfortune of reading your drivel.
    Everything listed below has falsifiable tests, and in fact any of it can be tested by anmyon with an 8th grade understanding of sciecne...so not you.
    1) Visible light hits the earth
    2) When Visible light hits the earth IR is generated.
    3) Visible light pass through CO2
    4) Man spews giga-tonnes more CO2 then can be absorbed back into the system. This is becasue we dig up stored CO2 and release it in the air.
    5) CO2 absorbs energy from IR.

    SO more CO2 in the air, more energy it absorbs. Energy(heat) continues to rise.
    That is AGW.

    So, please come up with a scientific test that disproves any of those points. I look forward to you nobel prize winning paper.
    Or, you need to explain what trapping more and more energy doesn't impact the climate.
    If you can' do either of those, you have two choice: Continue spouting off nonsense like an idiot, or change you narrative to accept proven scientific facts.

    oh, and read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geekoid look at the idiots name.... "Archangel Michael" clearly religious right wing nutjob.... don't bother with him you can't teach stupid. Ignorant yes but stupid nope. not happening.

    2. Re:Nope by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1, Troll

      " Don't forget about the Polar Bears Drowning ...." it's happening, although some of mating with brown bears and creating a new species.

      You lose a lot of credibility repeating the fraudulent "polar bears in danger from AGW" claim. It's bogus. The polar bear population is no in danger, it's increasing. As far as specifically drowning / brown bear mating, those phenomenon have not changed significantly and have nothing to do with AGW.

      4) Man spews giga-tonnes more CO2 then can be absorbed back into the system. This is becasue we dig up stored CO2 and release it in the air.

      This shows a basic misinterpretation of the carbon cycle. CO2 does not stay around forever as CO2. Estimate range widely from somewhere around 5.4 years to 30 years or more. You can look at the NOAA's video that shows the fluctuating concentrations of CO2 and see the cycle is quite dynamic. Much of it is absorbed by the ocean and land sinks, but isotope studies point to the CO2 molecules from any point source are short-lived, and do rarely re-enter the atmosphere, if ever.

      SO more CO2 in the air, more energy it absorbs. Energy(heat) continues to rise.

      Maybe. Typically. Certainly in a closed system with no other cooling / heating effects going on. Sorry, but the science is not "settled", neither on the specific calculations on the global temperature for a given CO2 concentration, nor on the ways and amounts that human activities can impact the climate directly.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    3. Re:Nope by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Wow. Mods on this are pretty telling. +1 Informative, +1 Interesting, -1 Overrated, -1 Troll, -1 Troll

      AGW really is like a religion.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    4. Re:Nope by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      "We should be many Degrees warmer"
      lie.

      AGW has been proclaiming this for years, but the variation has been minimal contrasted against historical records. It's the theories that proclaim that "doom has come."

      "the Ice Sheets should be gone already"
      lie.

      Northwest passage BS ring any bells?

      " and flooding of Florida should nearly be complete. "
      lie.

      I can remember this one from the 80's, that Florida would be under water by 2015. Don't see it happening.

      " Don't forget about the Polar Bears Drowning ...."
      it's happening, although some of mating with brown bears and creating a new species.

      We've got so many polar bears in Canada and they're so aggressive and territorial that several times the government has considered culls to keep them and other animals from becoming depopulated. Bastards will wipe out large groups of deer and moose, eat half, leave the rest to rot. Then do it again.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Nope by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      ""I look and see Piltdown Man all over again. "
      This you are clueless. Their was NEVER scientific consensus on piltdown man, and when Scientist looked at it they declared it a fraud."

      That is mighty revisionist history. There were University classes featuring Piltdown Man, and quite a number of "Scientists" got their PhD with their final Thesis supporting Piltdown man. It WAS scientific consensus for about 30 years (1911-1953) , with growing doubts for the last ten. There is also Peking Man, discovered about the same time (also fraud) which was also used as "proof", much like the UEA manipulation of Global Warming data, don't you think?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  38. Re:Americans by geekoid · · Score: 0

    The fallacy there is that belief in those thing reflect intelligence or education. UP until a masters degree, the more educated soneon is the more easily they believe in the crap.

    It's not education per se, it's the lack of critical thinking skills.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  39. Reinhold Messner was right! by 14erCleaner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Legendary alpinist Reinhold Messner once wrote a book about his encounters with suspected Yetis in the Himalaya. He concluded that they were bears, a variant of Ursus Arctos, the same species as polar bears.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
    1. Re:Reinhold Messner was right! by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Legendary alpinist Reinhold Messner once wrote a book about his encounters with suspected Yetis in the Himalaya. He concluded that they were bears, a variant of Ursus Arctos, the same species as polar bears.

      To bring this to a better level of detail for /. readers..

      The species Ursus Arctos is actually more commonly known as the "brown bear". There is in fact a subspecies of brown bear that lives in the Himalaya (Ursus arctos isabellinus).

      Polar Bears are generally considered a different species (Ursus maritimus). However, they are closely related to Brown Bears, and can in fact freely interbreed. The reason they are considered a different species is that their bodies and behavior is very specialized for hunting seals on polar ice sheets. Brown bears can't live very long in Polar Bear habitat, and visa versa. Still, genetic studies do show that some interbreeding is occurring. However, there's no polar ice anywhere near the Himalaya, and a polar bear flat out could not survive there.

      If indeed there is some kind of white brown bear Yeti subspecies, most likely it is just another brown bear subspecies, adapted to high-altitude permafrost environments. Genes for white fur are clearly floating around the general brown bear genome, but would only be selected for where there is permafrost. In fact the nearby isabellinus has a very light-colored fur already. Genetically, it wouldn't take much work to turn that pure white.

  40. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not even

  41. Re:Americans by itsenrique · · Score: 1

    +1 Scary Ignorant.

  42. Bigfoot is the bastard child of a horse and bear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You all think this debunks the idea of bigfoot but what this does is provide evidence that bigfoot does in fact exist and is a hybrid creature from the mating of horse, bears, dogs, racoons, etc.

    So there!

  43. Re:Americans by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    You misspelled "yet".

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  44. How so very oz by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Horses, dogs, and bears; oh my!

  45. This does not disprove Sasquatch by Taylor123456789 · · Score: 0

    All this study shows is that some samples alleged to be sasquatch were not. There are many other samples of "unknown" DNA, which also proves nothing, since there is no control sample. This study has no bearing on whether sasquatch exists or not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    In fact, there are thousands of eyewitness reports by individuals and groups, including park rangers, law enforcement, and military, hundreds of good pictures, and dozens of good videos of a large bipedal creature in the remote forests of America and Canada. This creature fits the physical and behavioral criteria for a primate, probably a relic population of Gigantopithicus. You can see some of this evidence at BFRO.net and other sites. Remember, the lowland gorilla was considered a myth just over 100 years ago.

    1. Re:This does not disprove Sasquatch by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      True, it does not disprove Sasquatch - but it also does nothing to support it.

      And on that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing, that is in fact an informal fallacy. Absence of evidence (if you have actively been seeking to collect evidence with tools capable of doing so) absolutely is evidence, but not "proof", of absence in every branch of science.

      If you go to a doctor and get a biopsy looking for cancer, and no cells are found, that is absolutely a valid indicator that cancer of they type being screened for, is not present (though the tests can fail sometimes to detect it when it is).

      Environmental DNA/RNA sampling is a very powerful technique to detect the presence of species that are difficult to observe. Almost any physical remain left by an animal, even extremely small samples (feces, blood, saliva, hair, skin, tooth, nail, etc.) will allow detection of its DNA to be matched against libraries to determine its phylogenetic grouping, and species identity if known.

      If over a reasonable amount of time no one can produce a sample bearing the DNA of a novel creature, then it cannot reasonably be supposed to exist.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  46. Dog-bear-horse? by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    cousin to the infamous man-bear-pig

  47. Now you know... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    ... just how deep the conspiracy goes!

  48. Re:Americans by Nyder · · Score: 1

    .. (Religion isn't that big in Germany anyway,...

    Ya, I bet it's hard to be religious in a country that has in most recent history tried to eradicate a religious population. You just don't know when your religion is going to be next...

    --
    Be seeing you...
  49. cellphone cam captures the unbelievable by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    An article talked about over the years people make claims they've done some incredible feats mostly unintended. Like someone going too fast on a skateboard off a ledge, board separates from rider, board bounces off a wall, lands on hand railing at same time rider lands on board, which then by chance the angle was just right the rider was able to smoothly land on clear surface and come to a controlled stop. Yeah right, oh wait! A friend got it on the phone and it's gone viral on FB!

    OK, so where's the space aliens, Bigfoot, and Nessie?

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  50. Listen to Bigfoot on 364.200 by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    sorry for OT but I could not pass this one up. You can here NORAD air defense command center, their callword is Bigfoot, on these frequencies, http://home.comcast.net/~kilow...
    I actually have heard Bigfoot, NORAD's ATC base giving vectors for what I believe was a KC135, I scan the freq regularly. Not much traffic but occasionally hear something.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  51. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone know if this study included any of Melba Ketchum's samples?

    Be nice to have independent scientific confirmation or rebuttal of her claims. Otherwise this study will only add to the circus.

  52. Goodbye Manbearpig, Hello Horsebeardog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cereal.

  53. Re:Americans by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

    The original study linking vaccination to autism was from the UK. The press has really overstated the anti-vaxer thing in the US. I don't remember the exact statistic, but close to 99% of American children are vaccinated (at least partially). Most of the ones who aren't are clustered in immigrant communities, that's why we see the outbreaks. It poses no threat to the general population.

  54. Re:Americans by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    Ya, I bet it's hard to be religious in a country that has in most recent history tried to eradicate a religious population. You just don't know when your religion is going to be next...

    Of course, it's equally likely that the next scapegoat for all society's ills will be atheists and secularists -- moral decay leading to the breakdown of the family, and messing up the financial markets with their joint loans hitting divorce; sex outside marriage leading to single-parent families, hence benefit claims; unmarried co-habiting couples pushing up the price of housing...

    Not that I believe any of this -- the above is just a portfolio piece that I can use in my job application when the next great dictator wants a minister for propaganda. :-)

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  55. Well, not after you spay them? by publiclurker · · Score: 0

    I guess he works fast.

  56. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. (Religion isn't that big in Germany anyway,...

    Ya, I bet it's hard to be religious in a country that has in most recent history tried to eradicate a religious population. You just don't know when your religion is going to be next...

    No. Nobody quits religion because of this. For most non-religious this event is also in a distant past. People are non-religious because the idea doesn't sell anymore. Some parents get desperate trying to shield their kids from the rest, but they are hard pressed to explain why they shouldn't play with the others. Church scandals and non-religious charities also bring the realization that if you want to be a moral person you can be it without enrolling in a church.

  57. Re:Americans by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    In 2012, researchers at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and the Museum of Zoology in Lausanne, Switzerland, put out a call for hair samples thought to be from anomalous primates

    Correct me if I'm wrong, after all I'm only an American, but those places aren't in America?

    Did they call for the hairs because they believed they would be genuine bigfoots, or to prove that they weren't...?

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  58. Crack team of Scientists by puddingebola · · Score: 1

    The review was reviewed by a crack team of scientists at the University of Halabalaga. The reason for the findings are that Yeti/Bigfoot RNA is made up of horse, bear, porcupine, wolves and dogs, is the Yeti/Bigfoot are a cross between horse, bear, porcupine, wolves and dogs. I'd like to thank the academics and researchers at the University for their cracker jack work, and wish them well in the continued research and pursuit of these elusive creatures.

  59. Re:Americans by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    Don't forget about the Polar Bears Drowning ....

    If the polar bears aren't having trouble in the North Pole, why have they all started moving to Tibet to f*ck the yetis?

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  60. Re:Americans by dj245 · · Score: 1

    The original study linking vaccination to autism was from the UK. The press has really overstated the anti-vaxer thing in the US. I don't remember the exact statistic, but close to 99% of American children are vaccinated (at least partially). Most of the ones who aren't are clustered in immigrant communities, that's why we see the outbreaks. It poses no threat to the general population.

    It poses a threat because these terrible ideas of the anti-vaxers get picked up by legitimate sources sometimes. And there are people who can't tell the difference between legitimate science and junk science. Ideas can spread more virulently and rapidly than real diseases. The antivax ideas are a threat, even if the effects of their actions aren't causing significant problems at this moment.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  61. Re:Americans by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Having visited around in various parts of Europe, I think what's going on in parochialism and insularity. That is, there is a LOT of religion in Germany, however it's not seen if you're never look outside your social circles or regions. That is, the people in cities tend to think that the entire country has the same social atmosphere. But get outside into villages and smaller towns and the feeling is much different. Everywhere you look there are churches, which is not a surprise since many are a thousand years old, but also those churches are still in use. Even inside the cities, show up on Sunday morning and you'll see a stream of people still showing up and entering the cathedrals.

    Germany actually feels more religious than some of it's neighbors (in the west anyway, not sure what former East Germany is like).

  62. Re:Americans by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    I think people are the same almost everywhere. People like to look at the US as the home of the irrational people, but in reality if you compare people you will see the full spectrum represented everywhere. It's just that some societies are tilted slightly one way and some are tilted slightly the other way.

    For example, everyone just assumes that California is a radically liberal liberal state, full of hippies, druggies, peaceniks, etc. Like we're all one big Berkeley. But really California is very evenly divided politically, it just happens to leaning to the left a bit more than other states with a few more democrat votes in the capitol (though the governor's office swings between the parties very often). We probably have far more libertarians than we do socialists.

    Similarly, I've seen far more overtly homophobic and racist speech in Europe than I've seen in America (after a few drinks at least).

  63. Re:Americans by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Their ideas are wrong, but they're hardly a threat. Most people don't take them seriously, and only 80-95% (depending on the disease) of a population needs to be immunized to achieve herd immunity.

  64. Re:Americans by dj245 · · Score: 1

    Their ideas are wrong, but they're hardly a threat. Most people don't take them seriously, and only 80-95% (depending on the disease) of a population needs to be immunized to achieve herd immunity.

    I think you are grossly underestimating the ability of people to be complete morons. This link is a little dated, but in 1999, a poll showed that 18 percent of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth. In 2011, seven percent of people said they believe more than half of the federal government's budget goes to public broadcasting. Another four percent thought it was 31 to 50 percent of the budget. Is is easy to get 10-15% of the population to believe in absolute rubbish despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    The MMR vaccine has an effectiveness of only around 95%- meaning 5% of people do the right thing, get vaccinated, but could still get the disease. MMR is given at 12-15 months of age, so roughly 1.5% of the population who will get the vaccine hasn't gotten it yet. Some people (no idea what %) are very poor and never go to doctors, even if the vaccine is free. That 5-20% "margin" of herd immunity starts to look awfully shaky if you consider all the people who already can't or don't get a vaccine.

    Finally, the anti-vaxxers tend to live in pockets of people who believe as they do. This means the disease can get a foothold in those neighborhoods, and survive. There is a very real risk that some diseases could thrive long enough to mutate enough so that the vaccine doesn't work anymore.

    Even if this doesn't become a "big" problem, the consequences can be very damaging on an individual basis. My daughter is only 6 months old. She hasn't gotten many vaccinations yet because she is just too young. If some clown passes on the measles to her, her death is a very real possibility. Can you justify a death like that as not being "a serious threat"? The stakes too high to ignore these idiots.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  65. Re:Americans by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

    Why is that, Mr Piltdown Man? Because I don't jump on the Piltdown Man psuedoscience "conclusive proof" that is manufactured? Because I actually respect the scientific method? If all the predictions made fail, what does that mean, scientifically? FYI, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing and is largest it has been in a long time. How does that fit the "Global Warming" predictions of it shrinking to non-existence by 2020 made a dozen or more years ago?

    Or do you believe the "Ice sheet shrinks=global warming proof" while also believing "ice sheet grows=global warming" at the same time?

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.