Guest Posted November 24, 2013 Posted November 24, 2013 SY, YOU cannot lift the NDA - only time and/or the "made public" terms will do that. Verbatim quotes are protected by the NDA. I will only confirm that her most recent statement about their being very little human in the mito, due to crossbreeding, which you quoted above, is equivalent to the phrasing she shared with me in 2012. Yet, she went public with this "100 percent human," "fully modern human," mito nonsense and stuck with it until the last few days. You've already documented this in the passages you quoted above. Regardless of what I knew, she has drastically and suddenly changed her story. THAT is what you should be focused on, not me, LOL. You state above that the mDNA is a small amount in comparison to the nDNA, in an attempt to make her recent statement OK. Just how much percentage human do you think is in the nDNA?? (Everyone else - yes, yes - I know it's only human contamination. I'm just curious as to the percentage of human SY thinks is in the nDNA, according to her.) As I have stated publicly, I have shared my documentation with individuals in a position to hold her legally accountable. Whether they actually do something with the info is up to them, but my conscience is clear.
chelefoot Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 SY, I do appreciate your efforts to help me understand this mess. Like I have said before, my expertise is in the social sciences, so I do the best can in trying to figure this out. The way I see it, the story has changed. I'm just trying to figure out why.
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 (edited) SY, YOU cannot lift the NDA - only time and/or the "made public" terms will do that. Verbatim quotes are protected by the NDA. I will only confirm that her most recent statement about their being very little human in the mito, due to crossbreeding, which you quoted above, is equivalent to the phrasing she shared with me in 2012. Yet, she went public with this "100 percent human," "fully modern human," mito nonsense and stuck with it until the last few days. You've already documented this in the passages you quoted above. Regardless of what I knew, she has drastically and suddenly changed her story. THAT is what you should be focused on, not me, LOL. Since releasing her paper and initial news release, she has consistently said that the mDNA was "100 percent" or "fully" or "fully modern" human. If you listen to that radio interview on the last page, she states "100 percent human." I cringed EVERY TIME I heard her say, or read where she said, that the mito was fully human because I knew different. Now that she has made this public, per the terms of the NDA, I can finally state that she told me way back in 2012 that there was very little human in the mDNA, due to crossbreeding, she said (and now most of us know that it is likely only contamination). This recent statement of hers is the FIRST time I have seen her admit that there is only a little human in the mito. It is a complete reversal of what she has said before. Where is this recent quote that say's there is only a little amount of human DNA in the mtDNA? There may be a small amount of human DNA in the entire genome when you include mtDNA and what is in the nuDNA, But I've not heard anything other than 100% human mito. minus one SNP I think. If this is the quote below, then read it again with an understanding of what I just said. Dr. Ketchum, November 19, 2013 I just can't understand why there is such an aversion to our study. The findings are just like for humans with a percentage of Neanderthal DNA, only our findings show the novel Sasquatch DNA to be predominant in the genomes, with the human component being the lesser contributor. In other words, Sasquatch are Sasquatch, with a little human remaining in them from the original crossbreeding long ago. It is really simple to understand. Edited November 25, 2013 by southernyahoo
Guest Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 SY, I am not understanding where or why you are confused. It is right there in your post. You have her exact words, which are in complete opposition of her previous words. There is a helluva difference between "a little" and "100 percent" or "fully." If you don't get that, I can't help you.
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 I think you are confused about her statements when she is talking about either the mitochondrial DNA or the nuDNA genomes.
BobZenor Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 ...The mtDNA is essentially irrelevant to how "human" something is besides it having to be close enough to mate. Okay shboom2, What exactly did she tell you was in the mtDNA? Your NDA has been lifted. I essentially agree with this BobZ, except for the bolded part, as in the same vein as it being preposterous for a lemur to mate with a human, what mates with a human must also be, or at least in the same genus. This is how she could say they are a people. The reason we don't know how "human" something is just because it is genetically compatible is because what we consider human could have involved relatively few genes changing very quickly. The "human" traits may not have any bearing on genetic compatibility. We don't know how human we were even half a million years ago. Some viable hybrids have happened even when the parent populations are separated by millions of years. That is why adding "human" to the equation isn't valid. Our ancestors were logically less "human" but they weren't any more or less ape. Ape is defined but human is not. It is subjective and imprecise but if human is used by paleoanthropolgists it should be used like an adjective describing how close something is to us. The problem is we don't really know how well they spoke or how their minds worked. It is speculation to assume that 1.5 million year old Turkana boy was a human as in someone that a normal person would describe as a human if he met him on the street. The logic where human was defined as tool user isn't valid if it exists in chimps and even lower animals. That was used by anthropologists for decades to define human. We don't how well ancient hominids spoke or used language. If the ancestor of chimps were upright walkers then being upright walkers is hardly something that defines humans. That is part of the "out of Africa" that erectus were first to run and walk like us so they spread first. It isn't valid but it is still used. It probably comes down to some logic and language skill that we developed who knows when. Logically that happened over time and we became more like we are now. It depends who is defining what it is to be human. The latest fad seems to be the use of symbolic artifacts to define how modern humans are different. The problem there is recognizing some artifact as symbolic. That evidence only includes modern humans and possibly some neanderthal artifacts. It could be some physical change in our brains but I suspect that was a combination of culture and general cognitive abilities related to actually using language. It's the chicken and egg question which came first. Many anthropologists seem to want something to define "human" but none of them work for anything approaching a million years old or older. Logically they were less human to some unknown degree. Thinking in terms of human and ape is assuming too much knowledge about ancient hominids. They were ape by definition but the human part is unknown and not very well defined. 1
Guest Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 No, she is now saying that they are NOT 100percent human mtDNA. Now she is saying the mito is only "a little" human. It's quoted a few pages back. Consider a DNA test(s) on 3 different objects. Each test turns out human of human contamination. (sample 1) The sample could be all human, (sample 2) contaminated by the handler, or (sample 3) have a small about of human DNA contained in it. mtDNA or whatever. 100% of the time the results obtained one any of the 3 different samples will turn up as human. Up until lately they were usually dismissed for human contamination.
southernyahoo Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 ^^ I appreciate the post BobZ. I do get that the terminology creates boundaries that in the bigger picture aren't so finite. However, when the DNA say's it is a match to modern humans, it is often regarded as an unambiguous result. That literal interpretation works both ways I would say.
Guest Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 Maybe Melba is own to something http://news.yahoo.com/oldest-human-dna-reveals-mysterious-branch-humanity-181139436.html
JanV Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 The reason we don't know how "human" something is just because it is genetically compatible is because what we consider human could have involved relatively few genes changing very quickly. The "human" traits may not have any bearing on genetic compatibility. We don't know how human we were even half a million years ago. Some viable hybrids have happened even when the parent populations are separated by millions of years. That is why adding "human" to the equation isn't valid. Our ancestors were logically less "human" but they weren't any more or less ape. Ape is defined but human is not. It is subjective and imprecise but if human is used by paleoanthropolgists it should be used like an adjective describing how close something is to us. The problem is we don't really know how well they spoke or how their minds worked. It is speculation to assume that 1.5 million year old Turkana boy was a human as in someone that a normal person would describe as a human if he met him on the street. The logic where human was defined as tool user isn't valid if it exists in chimps and even lower animals. That was used by anthropologists for decades to define human. We don't how well ancient hominids spoke or used language. If the ancestor of chimps were upright walkers then being upright walkers is hardly something that defines humans. That is part of the "out of Africa" that erectus were first to run and walk like us so they spread first. It isn't valid but it is still used. It probably comes down to some logic and language skill that we developed who knows when. Logically that happened over time and we became more like we are now. It depends who is defining what it is to be human. The latest fad seems to be the use of symbolic artifacts to define how modern humans are different. The problem there is recognizing some artifact as symbolic. That evidence only includes modern humans and possibly some neanderthal artifacts. It could be some physical change in our brains but I suspect that was a combination of culture and general cognitive abilities related to actually using language. It's the chicken and egg question which came first. Many anthropologists seem to want something to define "human" but none of them work for anything approaching a million years old or older. Logically they were less human to some unknown degree. Thinking in terms of human and ape is assuming too much knowledge about ancient hominids. They were ape by definition but the human part is unknown and not very well defined. Excellent and insightful post! Could you repost this comment on the "What is Sasquatch thread?" started today? Thanks!
Guest Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Maybe Melba is own to something http://news.yahoo.com/oldest-human-dna-reveals-mysterious-branch-humanity-181139436.html Own is a good fruedian slip.
Guest Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Thanks , if you check my posts for spelling then you are grasping for substance. BTW in most of my posts I purposely leave a mispled word for empty thoughts,
georgerm Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Is she sending out her samples or does she have the DNA testing equipment? Dr. Sykes stated he had a special method of washing human DNA off samples. Does Ketchum know this washing method?
Recommended Posts