Guest slimwitless Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) Melba Ketchum and Derek Randles (among others) are scheduled to appear. Details here: http://bigfooteviden...subspecies.html Edited to add: The site linked in the blog post suggests the guest list is merely "proposed". Apparently not all have agreed to attend! FWIW Edited November 13, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Umm... - Dudlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 This may be the first event I have ever gone to... In May, Richland, WA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 If it happens, and the guest list becomes a for sure thing, I'll see you there TR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Way to embarrass me in front of parnassus. P: Oh man. I'm really uncomfortable with them saying they're that close to us. With a physical appearance like that, it seems really really hard to imagine it. Parn's theory almost becomes credible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 13, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 13, 2011 Well I certainly hope the chief topic at the conference is related to the current, on-going research. I think I'll be waiting until late Feb., early March and weigh in then or when the abstract of the talk is published in advance perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 The idea of humans covered with hair, a large size and amazing strength I can stomach. Humans with mid tarsal breaks, arms that extend to the knees and the ability to see well in the dark makes me question the taxonomy that is afoot (pun intended). Since there is all this DNA talk going on, has anyone found any nuclear DNA of this purported human? If so, has this been karyotyped? Chimps have 48 chromosomes, humans have 46, so how many are Mr. & Mrs. Mid-Tarsal supposed to have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 13, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 13, 2011 Well maybe it's the chromosomes that behave like nothing else and not just the dna (per some of the previous statements about the project). Still I'd imagine Sapiens would have to have 46 but if they are hybrids I guess there is some leeway there. Guess that's why we've been waiting 18 months ..... "threw us a curve" and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Parn's theory almost becomes credible... I don't think so. Parn says the DNA is modern human. He's repeatedly rejected the possibility of another species/subspecies in the genus Homo. To be clear, we still don't know what, if anything, Ketchum is going to say about all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I gotta say it- warning level or not--- Nice shorts, Derek!!!! Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I guess nothing has 47 chromosomes? If the experts are finding 46 I'm just shocked. How could they be human? They have no fire,no communities that I have heard about, no species specific definite language that we know about. They communicate with knocks and screams, not the written word. The mothers care for their children,but human? I'm just speechless. I **never** expected this. When I read our experts saying human I was even thinking maybe they have 47 chromosomes, then I regained my senses... How could they be fully human??? Hubby thinks we are all beyond help... I hope to prove that something I believe in is real to him some day But this is too much for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 There are disorders that cause humans to have more or less of the 46 chromosomes. They aren't always obvious or result in fetal demise and are usually associated with the sex chromosomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Cart..... Horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 The idea of humans covered with hair, a large size and amazing strength I can stomach. Humans with mid tarsal breaks, arms that extend to the knees and the ability to see well in the dark makes me question the taxonomy that is afoot (pun intended). Well put I agree with that completely. Cart..... Horse. LoL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) Just to briefly explain the link, UBCS, Unexpected weak-to-strong “biased†substitutions, is a bias where there are more mutations that are of the strong variety in males. The two bases C and G have three hydrogen bonds so are strong. A and T have only two. As near as I can figure strong type substitutions happens more during crossing over or during recombination in males so more of those types of changes occurs. I believe that would be on sections of DNA where crossing over or recombination happens before making sperm. They are talking about the region where there was an apparent fusion and vestigial telomeres or what apparently used to be the ends of earlier chromosomes but are now near the middle. They are using that bias to date the age of the fusion from 3 million years ago to to 740,000 years ago. I don't think they would be too human 3/4 of a million years ago assuming that type of dating is accurate. I doubt they would be at all human 3 million years ago. It seems kind of iffy to me since I don't really understand why that is being used as dating since it seems to happen on telomeres and that region. Actually they did say near so it may happen to previous telomere sequences. Anyway, whatever it means, it likely indicates an approximation when two of our chromosomes fused depending on how credible you find that study. I don't know of a better dating method when they fused. Link ...One exception to the UBCS pattern found in all autosomes is chromosome 2, which shows a UBCS peak midchromosome, mapping to the fusion site of two ancestral chromosomes. This provides evidence that the fusion occurred as recently as 740,000 years ago and no more than ∼3 million years ago. No biased clustering was found in SNPs, suggesting that clusters of biased substitutions are selected from mutations. UBCS is strongly correlated with male (and not female) recombination rates, which explains the lack of UBCS signal on chromosome X.... edit to fix typo Edited November 13, 2011 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts