Yeti samples found to be bear hair

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...tm_term=evolution_news_podcast_&sf175258231=1

I recall being told this was impossible to test by fl0at. He can take it up with The Scientific American.

 

It's just bearly possible.

 

Nope, you are still incorrect, and still don’t understand.

There is no DNA known for Yeti, so you can’t say this isn’t Yeti, just that it’s closest KNOWN match is bear.

 

They also don't understand. No one understands, but you.

 

Provide me the yeti sequence, so I can compare that sample to the yeti one.

 

The sample was a bear sequence. You compare the sample to all known beAR sequences. You can call a yeti a bear. You can call a bear a yeti. You can't claim a completely unknown alpine great ape.

 

Prove that yeti doesn’t differ by a single amino acid? Now tell me the sequence accuracy.

You still don’t understand. You still don’t get it. At this point, you probably never will.

Science deals with observations. If it can’t be observed, science doesn’t get to claim it doesn’t exist. Because that would be proving a negative; which is a logical impossibility.

All it can say is this is the closest known match. That’s it.

 

I get what you are saying, but any two beings of the same species is going go have far more than one amino acid different in their DNA make up. But even though you and I might vary by a few sequences here and there, we are still both Human.

So the hair given is bear hair, but that doesn't prove the Yeti isn't a bear. But then it wouldn't be a "Yeti" as we would think. People would go, oh, that is a bear, but the Yeti is still out there waiting to be found.

All that is proven is that the tested hair is bear hair, and if you want to call a Yeti a bear, so be it, but it was always claimed to be something other than a bear, so it cannot be Yeti hair as defined by what a Yeti is supposed to be.

 

I didn't claim yeti don't exist as an observable fact. I have said there is no evidence they do, as described by lore. This hair is observably bear hair. If you want to argue yeti are virtually genetically identical to bear, I am going to ask for evidence. No matter what, the claim of yeti has the burden of proof, not the null.

Give me a falsifiable claim regarding this alleged yeti hair that hasn't been falsified and points to it being the cryptid.

That's science. Saying "you can't rule out..." any number of improbable possibilities doesn't actually advance the claim. Ancient Aliens is not a scientific television program.

I'm telling you there is no physical evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny as having anything but a mundane explanation. You're replying with unfalsifiable hypotheticals and treating them as established data points

 

Probability <> Proof

 

There is evidence; there are eye witness accounts. This is evidence. You are saying proof, and I'm patiently explaining to you the difference.

There is physical evidence; there is historical evidence. You simply don't know what that word means.

 

An eye witness account is not physical evidence. Eyewitnesses are generally not reliable when the observation is not repeatable.

 

Also, I said burden of proof in reference to making a claim. I didn't ask for proof I asked for physical evidence that is falsifiable, yet supports the claim.

 

You will just keep narrowing the requirement until it stops at: body, right here, and paper in Nature.

You don't want evidence. You want proof.

Footprints count as physical evidence. Dismissed. Contaminated hair samples. Dismissed. Historical evidence re: Gigantopithecus, dismissed.

Again, you want proof. Just state that, so we can dismiss this idea that this is about science, when it is about absolutism.

 

Footprints of what?

Contaminated, how so? Every one of them? Always?

Gigantopithecus, then why is the hair bear and not ape? What is it eating?

I want real evidence I can measure. A fake footprint isn't real. A person's account isn't measurable. Sure man, there could be a bigfoot or yeti. But there probably isn't and there is no reason thus far to really believe it.

 

Won't be convinced until we recover Yeti pubic hair.

 

You can measure all of this evidence, and just did. You weighted it low.

You don’t want evidence, you want proof.

 

I should just accept fake evidence, huh?

 

Provide me “real evidence” of aurora borealis, that isn’t this fake evidence you speak of: video, eye witness, etc.

That’s the part you don’t get: you’re too biased to be objective, and when you’ve lost your objectivity, you’re worthless.

You start with the belief it is “fake” and work to prove it as such.

The only thing you should accept is that good science and good scientists first start with objectivity.

 

I can take you to observe the northern lights. You can go see them. You can predict it. Where can I go to observe bigfoot? Where and when can you predict it's appearance?

What you don't understand is that we live in a tangible world where testable claims can be rejected. I don't want proof of big foot, I want tangible evidence that withstands reasonable scrutiny. If you want to play socrates and state that nothing is knowable, then I am a Nigerian prince and if you deposit this check for me and return only half, you can keep the rest. Also, I have miracle elixirs for sale.