Leaderboard

Thanks CTfoot for the quick response. I think you might be misunderstanding the relationship between Heidelberg, Neanderthal, and Denisovan. The current most popular model as I understand it has Heidelberg as an ancestor of both Neanderthal, Denisovan, and us. Heidelberg spread out of Africa into Eurasia around 800K-600K. Some of those that spread into Europe became Neanderthal while others (in Central Asia?) became Denisovans. Some of those that remained behind in Africa eventually became Rhodesian Man then Sapiens around 180-90K. When Sapiens left Africa they apparently bred with Neanderthal in the MIddle East and Europe and Denisovan in Central Asia. The recent study from the sequencing of some African nDNA indicates that there was interbreeding between humans and a non-Neanderthal, non-Denisovan hominin, presumably remnant Rhodensian or Heidelberg (sound familiar?). Now you're right that it has been suggested by some that in all three of these cases the trace DNA comes from a earlier common ancestor rather than later interbreeding. The problem with that is that then the trace DNA should show up in all modern humans, but it doesn't. Only non-Africans have Neanderthal DNA and only Melanysians and some other SE Asia people have Denisovan, and only certain African populations have this new unnamed hominin. That's why the interbreeding model seems to have legs as it were. That's not to say that interbreeding was easy or often successful. It probably wasn't at all. The preeclampsia thing in particular is very interesting. I would imagine that most inter-hominin couplings never led to fertilization or when they did, rarely made it to term, but it only had to be successful a few times to leave the DNA behind. The fact is, the prevailing model at the moment (while not consensus obviously) is that humans did sometimes breed successfully with Neandethal, Denisovan, and another "earlier" form of hominin in Africa, despite the difficulties involved. What MK is proposing for the interbreeding event is almost identical with what is being proposed for the African interbreeding episode. That's why I don't really have a problem with what she's proposing as for as the interbreeding is concerned. It's what comes after that is more problematic. The mosaic comments, as you said are a little confusing. The idea that this interbreeding led to a creation of another species doesn't make sense either. The hominin should not have been changed sigificantly at all from that any more than having a few Neandethal genes changed those of us of non-African descent.

Oh good lord! I just watched the repeat of the show and it's ridiculous that anyone would think that is a BF. It was obviously a human. They're making the BFRO look stupid.

Now my understanding of DNA mapping is rudimentary at best, and I very much appreciate CTfoot and others who have shared their valuable expertise. Just for sake of speculation, I'd like to play around with the limited information we have about MK's conclusions or at least what I think she is saying her conclusions are, because it seems like her comments are being misunderstood or misconstrued by a number of people. So correct me if I'm wrong: There was a mating event between a hominin with unrecorded DNA (not necessarily unknown or undocumented---only a handful (3?) of homimins have sequenced genomes for comparison) and a modern human female sometime around (after?) 15000 BP. This event produced a viable female hybrid whose female descendents carried the modern human mtDNA all those generation s and some of those descendents are the source of the DNA she tested. CTfoot, is this scenario impossible or extremely unlikely, and if so why? You seem to be indicating that this is the case. Taking her scenario at face value for the sake of discussion, we should be able to speculate about the nature of this hominin progenitor. It's further from modern humans than Denisovans or Neanderthals but still close enough to produce a viable hybrid offspring. Presumably modern humans were able to sometimes mate successfully with both Denisovans and Neanderthals (and possibly another archaic human in Africa) since some of us still carry their DNA, so if MK's scenario is correct then her interbreeding event was probably very similar to these others only taking place around 15000 BP rather than 30000 or 40000 BP. This by itself doesn't seem impossible given what we've learned in the last couple of years about our sexual interaction (willing or otherwise) with our hominin cousins. As for the timing, Floresiensis existed up until at least 15,000 BP (an unlikely candidate for our progenitor but who knows) so other hominins might have as well--15000 BP no longer seems as improbable as it would have a decade ago. It's not clear exactly what Red Deer Man is yet but they could be a fairly recent archaic human as well. But realistically this proposed hominin progenitor couldn't have been much different morphologically from Neanderthal, Denisovan, or their likely predecessor Heidelbergensis. Somewhere in their range. The further back you go---H. antecessor, ergaster, erectus---the less likely viable offspring would be. CTfoot, I'm unclear why you think Heidelbergensis would be eliminated from consideration based on MK's comments. It would seem to me that if her interpreatation is correct (big if at this point) then Heidelbergensis would be the most likely candidate. The big problem to my mind is how you get from this mating event with a hominin that had to be fairly close to us morphologically (though maybe hairier) to the modern descriptions of an 7-8" BF. Did it evolve to become taller over the last 15,000 years? Lose its tool and fire use? It hardly seems likely.

I'll preface this by saying that I am a licensed professional chemical engineer. I'm also a West Point graduate and served on the faculty at West Point for four years, coordinating eighteen faculty in the instruction of a 900 cadet course. I'm happy to document this for the moderators, but I'm pretty sure they've already looked into my background in the past. I'm not an anthropologist, but I am an applied scientist with a book published (through Whitman) and a patent awarded in the U.S. this year (both unrelated to anthropology or bigfoot). I'm going to contrast here the attitude of a scientist who has encountered a bigfoot with that of a scientist who has not. If you've had a face-to-face encounter with a bigfoot, you've established a boundary condition for yourself. You understand that they do, in fact, exist. Whether you can demonstrate it to others or not, you understand that they're no longer a possibility, a maybe - that they are a fact (not a belief, a fact). After that, for yourself, it is no longer a question of "do they or don't they", but a lot of questions that start with "how". For a person like myself, since I know them to exist and to be natural creatures like ourselves that do, in general, the same things we do, I understand that they have logical reasons for their behavior as a species and leave behind evidence. I never dismiss the possibility of a hoax, because there are certainly huxsters and idiots who create hype and hoaxes, but my attitude upon approaching data or evidence is different than that of a scientist who has not had first-hand experience. When I look at data or evidence, the first question I have is: "Is this evidence real or manufactured?" I've got a lot of filters I use personally and I safeside my assessment. I mentally discard anything even slightly dodgy, probably dismissing some bonafide, but indeterminate, data. But you end up with a few nuggets. If information that I've previously considered indeterminate keeps showing up, I begin to look at it more seriously. For example, in spite of my several encounters, I've never heard one speak (only calls, howls, woodknocks, etc. - a collectively sophisticated array of signals). But I've now heard enough from people I have learned to respect that I believe (not know in this case) bigfoot do have their own language and may be able to understand some of ours. I've also come to assign a high probability to the ultrasound theory, and it does, in fact explain an effect I witnessed in one of my friends who was frozen in apparent shock during one of my encounters (he was within five feet of it, I was further away). My point is that I can actually look at data and evidence without the burden of the primary doubt - "do they or don't they exist?". Any analysis that a guy like Disotell performs, however, is burdened by that unanswered question. To objectively analyze evidence, he has to suspend either belief or disbelief. This is hard to do. Disotell has a track record of skepticism, and that's fine, but his beliefs are going to color his conclusions. It is also clear that he is a person who actively manages his public reputation, and his statements may be self-serving to the extent that they further what he wants people to think of him, and at this stage this likely skews things towards dismissiveness. Watch for a 180 when proof finally breaks, in whatever form that may take. From a personal perspective as an applied scientist who has literally faced the primary fact, though, I can say this. Since they exist (my fact, your belief or disbelief), there is evidence. Since they are biological creatures, they have DNA. Since some of the evidence is biological, it contains DNA. Since DNA exists, and is available in some of the evidence, an analysis can be performed. With proper procedure and safeguards, the analysis can be conclusive and defensible. So I conclude that someone, somewhere, someday can provide a DNA analysis that proves bigfoot exists and may answer several other questions regarding origin and nature. I suspect, given all of the positioning by people who have conducted research and collected evidence over the years, some of whom claim to have seen the paper, that there is, in fact, an actual paper that contains information that they believe will constitute proof. If it doesn't exist, then some of the best lay researchers, who safeguard against hoaxes for self-protection, have been hoaxed. I could perform a similar analysis regarding MK's credibility, but I don't see a need to do so. I'll simply attribute the hang-ups in getting the paper out to inexperience. I'm sure she would agree that if she knew earlier what she knows now, she would have taken different steps along the way and would be further along. That said, I don't doubt that the raw data exists and that the DNA has been tested extensively. Since I conclude that the data exists and is confirmed, that leaves only the putative chain of custody for the samples and the interpretation of the data as potential problem areas. I figure that MK a Journal will eventually work through these together and we will see a publication.

Just my 2 cents worth, but one reason i am hesitant to think she's pulling a con is that she's really gone out on a limb here publicly, and if it all prove to be false, she may as well kiss good-by her career in veteranary medicine and animal dna studies, and enroll in a cosmetology school so she can start a new career doing bikini waxing to make a living, because if it's a con, she's finished in the work she has spent her career doing. Would she gamble her career for this? She may not be doing the best job of it, PR-wise or science-protocol-wise, but it seems she's playing to win, not playing to lose. Just my impression. Bill

I disagree with your assessment here, there is overwhelming evidence proving that science was skewed for an agenda. That in fact it has been pushed along a desired curve. Heres a link to over 500 other links relating to global climate change refuting the claims you say are so hugely in the majority. So In relation to this discussion I believe we are seeing the same thing. Opinions reached before the science has played out and character assassinations ad nausium rather than discussions of facts and truth. Other wise thought of as reputable researchers acting like children...please The reason this whole DNA study is so hugely contested is that it doesn't play nice with the convenient box this species has been placed in.. A... It either doesn't exist or B.... If it does exist it must be an ape. Wrong wrong and wrong... to be intellectually honest we go where the science leads us, no more no less. We don't destroy the individuals credibility to refute the science. No no no, if that was the criteria then nothing could pass muster..everyone has some skeleton in their closets or even out on display. http://www.schnittshow.com/pages/globalwarming.html

I totally disagree with the comparison. They are pressured by the carbon fossil fuels industry all the time. That's why China is the only country worse than us about the acceptance of climate change. If scientists now are jumping on the climate change band wagon after a +50 year delay, it's because popular opinion was way ahead of 'em. I suppose it is fair in a thread about the Ketchum report to consider all the reasons why her work may not be accepted. If I were to go there, I'd chalk it up to our American culture. I have read that the Nepalese have no problem accepting Yeti. So why are we so dumb? We've had more practice dumbing down is why. We've lost our edge ... threw it out, actually.