Yowiehunters Forum

Hi
Considering the numbers of researchers,scientists and ordinary people out looking for evidence of their existence it seems the wildman is by far the most sort after cryptid. Disappointed that even DNA analysis is being disputed as well as dentition evidence...at what point does the world of science go ok a lot of anecdotal evidence so let's have a serious look at this,maybe nothing short of a body will do.

I think that the DNA results are often misunderstood - what's often interpreted as 'human contamination' could mean that Yowie DNA is so similar to our own that it 'passes for human' upon initial examination. If we share much of the same DNA with Bonobos, we might also share a significant amount of DNA with Yowies.

I think any reasonable person (using the legal sense of the term) would concede that people are seeing something which defies current scientific explanation. People who've never heard of the Yowie before have seen one, people from various ethic backgrounds and age groups have seen them, there's a history of Aboriginal lore stretching back tens of thousands of years that describes these creatures - and unlike Europeans, indigenous Australians had never seen monkeys or other primates, and yet their tales of such things pre-date the arrival of Europeans by about 55,000 years. They also had to have based these stories on something.

Whenever people laugh or claim it's been 'proven' to be fake it's easy to call them out on it; "when did they prove that?" "where did you read about it?", etc. People rely on the 'everyone knows it's c**p' argument, but they can never back it up. If it went to court, the existence of Yowies would be proven in a legal sense without a problem - in a court of law eyewitness testimony is the standard. In the court of science, nobody will even blink until things are completely undeniable. There are still people who deny that evolution occurs, and who think the Earth is flat...so unwillingness to accept facts is an enduring trait it seems.

I agree ...naysayers will always be naysayers but with advances in DNA technology according to DR Brian Sykes hair is easy to cleanse without destroying the DNA so you would think the contamination argument can be easily disputed.

Lozza62 wrote:I agree ...naysayers will always be naysayers but with advances in DNA technology according to DR Brian Sykes hair is easy to cleanse without destroying the DNA so you would think the contamination argument can be easily disputed.

I suppose it's a form of confirmation bias that I'm describing. I have to wonder if they're simply not understanding what they're looking at because it defies their expectations.

It may be a question of not seeing the forest for the trees - if they find DNA in a sample that they identify as being human they'll conclude that the sample is 'contaminated'. They don't seem to consider the possibility that Yowie DNA might pass for human DNA under a microscope.

What if the so-called human hair 'contamination' that is often described is actually Yowie hair? Since we don't know what Yowie hair would really be like, what if they're misidentifying it?

I have to wonder if they're simply not understanding what they're looking at because it defies their expectations.

I'm no expert, but scientists are just people, the same as the rest of us are. Science is based on observation, comparison and accurate recording - but people often overlook things without even knowing we're doing it.

If they did see a genuine Yowie hair, would they even be able to identify it as such?