YETI nother explanation?

British scientist 'solves' mystery of Himalayan yetis - BBC News

quote:

---

Research by a British scientist has concluded that the legendary Himalayan yeti may in fact be a sub-species of brown bear.

​

DNA tests on hair samples carried out by Oxford University genetics professor Bryan Sykes found that they matched those from an ancient polar bear.

​

He subjected the hairs to the most advanced tests available.

​

He says the most likely explanation for the myth is that the animal is a hybrid of polar bears and brown bears.

​

Prof Sykes told the BBC that there may be a real biological animal behind the yeti myth.

​

Suspected yeti footprints - such as these in Nepal - are regularly photographed

​

Prof Sykes conducted the DNA tests on hairs from two unidentified animals, one from Ladakh - in northern India on the west of the Himalayas - and the other from Bhutan, 1,285km (800 miles) further east.

​

The results were then compared with the genomes of other animals that are stored on a database of all published DNA sequences.

​

Prof Sykes found that he had a 100% match with a sample from an ancient polar bear jawbone found in Svalbard, Norway, that dates back to between 40,000 and 120,000 years ago - a time when the polar bear and closely related brown bear were separating as different species.

​

The species are closely related and are known to interbreed where their territories overlap.

---

Interesting ...Bears do tend to be solitary, and brown bears will frequently avoid humans (why carrying a noisemaker like a can with stones in that rattles as you walk when backpacking can keep them away).Enjoy

There have been several debates over the merits of various approaches to concepts where objective evidence has not been found:

1. close-minded skepticism (or narrow minded skepticism): disbelief in the concept, belief that the concept is false, the prudent or practical approach is to ignore it,
2. open-minded skepticism: agnostic, the concept may be true and it may be false, the prudent or practical approach is to wait for further information,
3. open-minded acceptance: belief in the concept, belief that the concept is at least partly true, the prudent and practical approach is to search out new information.

Obviously, imho, the first approach would not have either found the fur sample nor tested it.Enjoy

Immaterial to the question of whether the disbeliever would have looked\hunted for yeti or tested the evidence. The would likely have claimed that the hairs came from some other animal, such as the Himalayan Goral.From the article:

quote:

---

In 2008 scientists in the US examined hairs given to the BBC which some had claimed were from a yeti.

​

The scientists concluded that in fact the hairs - obtained from the north-east Indian state of Meghalaya - belonged to a species of Himalayan goat known as a Himalayan Goral.

---

Why would a disbeliever think the new evidence would be any different? Again, the article states:

quote:

---

Research by a British scientist has concluded that the legendary Himalayan yeti may in fact be a sub-species of brown bear.

​

He says the most likely explanation for the myth is that the animal is a hybrid of polar bears and brown bears.

​

Prof Sykes told the BBC that there may be a real biological animal behind the yeti myth.

---

I'd say that is a yes, wouldn't you?Enjoy.

A previously unknown bear, and one for which there still is no physical specimen, all we know is that it is bear DNA.Curiously this is sufficient to define a new species, yes? I would say no, it is supposedly a large white furred animal capable of standing and walking on two legs (footprint evidence).The "classification" as an ape is probably of western origin ... and wishful thinking?The Yeti | MythOrTruth.Com - Mythical Creatures, Beasts and Facts associated with them.

quote:

---

The Yeti, the Abominable Snowman, the Monster of the Himalayas
When it comes to mythical or paranormal creatures, the reputation of the Yeti or the Abominable Snowman is second only to ‘aliens’. The Yeti, depending on what you read and who you talk to, is a creature that looks very similar to an ape, a big bear, an orangutan, and a wild human of disproportionate size.

---

In other words one can be open-minded about what the sample may be until the evidence is tested. It does not require that someone is actively "hunting for yeti" -- all that is needed is someone finding a sample and wondering if it may be from a yeti. The question then is would a disbeliever skeptic test a sample brought to them or dismiss it. Yes, ... if you are open-minded.Enjoy.

Actually, I see it as a refinement of the definition, based on more complete information, just as we find in many other scientific discoveries. But not just a bear -- a new species of bear, perhaps one with some novel behavior patterns and possibly some archaic traits as well.Enjoy

Or Ursus Yeti if it is deemed a new species.Enjoy

Getting back to this ... The question is not whether you accept the evidence for classifying "some unknown animal as a bear" but whether you will make the additional identification that it fits all the evidence that has been suggested for yetis.I am curious at the reluctance to agree -or potentially agree - with that possibility.Enjoy

So you are about to embark on a trip to find more hairs. Bravo.Enjoy

But would you go there just to go there or are you dying to go and find evidence.Yes I would love to go, but my position on the Yeti is that there is anecdotal and questionable (not validated/duplicate) evidence that is attributed to |yeti| and that whatever is found that explains the evidence is de facto |Yeti| in my book, so it could be anything, including a bear descendant from a 10,000 year old polar bear ancestor.It seems to me that a |firm believer| would dismiss the bear as |not Yeti| because it does not meet their expectations ... and that a |firm denier| would dismiss the bear as |not Yeti| because it does not meet their expectations (what they deny exists).So a degree of open-mindedness and a degree of skepticism are needed to look rationally at the possibility that |?bear?| ≡ |yeti|.Enjoy

Because a firm opinion would have no doubt even with contrary evidence.The person who adamantly declares "there is NO such thing as a Yeti" would say "See I told you there was NO such thing as a Yeti ... it was a bear"

Like I said a firm denier position would take. A willingness to entertain alternate descriptions would not be a closed mind, so all we are arguing about then is perhaps the degree of open-mindedness.