Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By marnixR

Thread: Yeti mystery solved?

  1. #1 Yeti mystery solved? 
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,557
    BBC News - Professor: 'Yeti hairs genetically identical to polar bear'

    Sounds right to me.
    Polar bear breeding with brown bear I understand.

    Professor Sykes found that he had a 100% match with a sample from an ancient polar bear jawbone found in Svalbard in Norway, that dates back at least 40,000 years - a time when the polar bear and closely related brown bear were separating as different species.
    Prof Sykes believes the most likely explanation is that the animals are hybrids - crosses between polar bears and brown bears.


    Last edited by ox; October 17th, 2013 at 07:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Here is the corresponding article: BBC News - British scientist 'solves' mystery of Himalayan yetis

    Interesting. I didn't know brown bears and polar bears were so closely related.


    MrMojo1 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    If the polar, brown, and grizzly bears can successfully interbreed (producing viable breeding offspring), are they really different species?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If the polar, brown, and grizzly bears can successfully interbreed (producing viable breeding offspring), are they really different species?
    Ursus maritimus versus U. arctos.

    So yes. There are plenty of species which can successfully interbreed but don't (because of non-overlapping habitats or other reasons).
    Last edited by Strange; October 17th, 2013 at 12:05 PM. Reason: spilling
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Here is the corresponding article: BBC News - British scientist 'solves' mystery of Himalayan yetis

    Interesting. I didn't know brown bears and polar bears were so closely related.
    I learned this titbit on Inside Nature's giants.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If the polar, brown, and grizzly bears can successfully interbreed (producing viable breeding offspring), are they really different species?
    Ursus maritimus versus U. arctos.

    So yes. There are plenty of species which can successfully interbreed but don't (because of non-overlapping habitats or other regions).
    biological species concept(involves a reproductive barrier)
    vs
    phylogenetic species concept

    a goddamned thrill a minute
    seems a tad too fickle for my tastes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If the polar, brown, and grizzly bears can successfully interbreed (producing viable breeding offspring), are they really different species?
    Ursus maritimus versus U. arctos.

    So yes. There are plenty of species which can successfully interbreed but don't (because of non-overlapping habitats or other regions).
    .

    I thought the distinction also included "viable" offspring, that the offspring is able to reproduce (e.g. horse and donkey produces sterile mule). So different species can reproduce an hybrid, but that hybrid is usually sterile. There are exceptions for nature does what it wants, despite how we classify things.


    Morocco's Mule
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    biological species concept(involves a reproductive barrier)
    vs
    phylogenetic species concept

    a goddamned thrill a minute
    seems a tad too fickle for my tastes
    It is an entirely man-made way of categorizing things. But nature is complex and so there are no simple rules that are satisfactory.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    biological species concept(involves a reproductive barrier)
    vs
    phylogenetic species concept

    a goddamned thrill a minute
    seems a tad too fickle for my tastes
    It is an entirely man-made way of categorizing things. But nature is complex and so there are no simple rules that are satisfactory.
    gee darn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    biological species concept(involves a reproductive barrier)
    vs
    phylogenetic species concept

    a goddamned thrill a minute
    seems a tad too fickle for my tastes
    It is an entirely man-made way of categorizing things. But nature is complex and so there are no simple rules that are satisfactory.
    gee darn
    It is just an attempt at classifying life, but it is nevertheless understood very well that life is a continuum. The "plateaus" of species is simply where the forces of evolution have balanced out for a while. Ultimately the exact point of demarcation of "species " is less important than the study of the organisms themselves and their interrelatedness.
    Strange and MrMojo1 like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The point is that these are examples of the transitional species creationists deny exist. Today the two species can interbreed because very occassionaly they have an opportunity to do so. At some point in the future, if their domains remain non-overlapping, they shall have become fully distinct species, unable to interbreed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It is an entirely man-made way of categorizing things. But nature is complex and so there are no simple rules that are satisfactory.
    it still doesn't mean that species aren't real, just because they can blurry at the edges - its' like denying that black and white exist just because there's shades of grey inbetween

    as far as the OP is concerned there are some doubts about how genuine the claims are :

    Beware of the yeti, and spurious science too
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    190
    The last town I lived in had an annual hunt for Bigfoot, it encompassed several hundred acres however Bigfoot was always a man disguised as such rather than the real thing! :P
    [Analyst/Engineer/Independent]

    "SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty88 View Post
    The last town I lived in had an annual hunt for Bigfoot, it encompassed several hundred acres however Bigfoot was always a man disguised as such rather than the real thing! :P
    that sounds like an interesting form of folk culture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Sides of a Circle- the mystery solved or unsolved?
    By arun karthik in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: September 14th, 2013, 02:57 PM
  2. neaderthal still exists; bigfoot, sasquatch, yeti et al
    By dencat in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 26th, 2012, 06:25 PM
  3. Mystery of Saturn's Two-Faced Moon Solved
    By tzh in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 8th, 2007, 06:59 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •