Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) I, for one, welcome our new cousins and will patronize their casino. Edited December 27, 2011 by Kings Canyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I believe that scientists doing cetacean research are beginning to recognize that they have qualities of the so called "Theory of Mind" . Wiki actually addresses it should n anyone be interested. Who was that lady forum member on here that dove with whales? It was Gail wasn't it? She worked with them and can probably give you more insight in to it than reading research articles will give you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_intelligence Where the DNA is concerned, what we have been hearing is that this creature is anywhere from 37-50% human depending on what rumor you choose to accept at this point. To put that in perspective, a daffodil is 25% similar to a human which should demonstrate how little those percentages really mean. There are only 4 nucleotides in the double helix, everything on earth is at least 25% similar to humans. What is important is how the DNA expresses. Although Chimpanzee DNA is closest to us in structure only about 70% of the proteins used in transcription work the same as ours. It's not just the material, but what it is sewn with and how it is cut, that is important in constructing the flesh garment. As Bip pointed out, how close they are in demonstrating a "theory of mind" similar to ours is also important. They ought to be closer to us than the cetaceans since we share a more recent ancestor and developed in the same environment. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061013104633.htm So even if it looks like a "duck" on a spectral graph doesn't mean it will "quack" like a duck when you see the creature in the flesh. We need a live specimen to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 If it comes back predominantly human, then that would also mean that we would be predominantly squatch. Personally, I'm planning on declaring myself squatch, claiming all legal rights to my squatch nature, casting off all restictive societal expectations and abandoning all self-imposed obligations to comply with what people expect of me as a former human. LOL Now your talking.....that would explain a lot all the friggin back and ear hair!......can we keep our guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 28, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 28, 2011 This department seems to study some of the relevant topics of concern: http://www.eva.mpg.de/psycho/primate-cognition.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 LOL Now your talking.....that would explain a lot all the friggin back and ear hair!......can we keep our guns? At this point in my devolution guns are too complicated. Favoring machetes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 So even if it looks like a "duck" on a spectral graph doesn't mean it will "quack" like a duck when you see the creature in the flesh. We need a live specimen to know that. Jodie - nice post. And, an interesting focus, from dead voucher specimen to live BF. It's possible and more than arguably humane if done properly. Of course this assuming some serious public funded and approved program. I don't want to encourage any amateurs or privately funded entrepreneurs in BF research in any intrusive way. And, we are still in a bit of a fix, waiting on real data. Just a few more days? But, on the genome and so forth. It is still not clear to me we have H. erectus genome? (I confess I don't subscribe to any Anthro Journals or have even read the many links you guys provide, forgive me please, but I am curious). Anyway, at this level a few variables affect our view and cloud it I suppose..from the expression of genes in protein production and on to morphology to our growing database of genomes both ancient and modern. And, hopefully our BF's will soon be part of that reported mix. Again, my dismay the supposed Sierra Kill sample was not singled out and reported long ago, separate from the Ketchum study, as we would have a great deal more to discuss reliably. I feel like I have interrupted a great conversation, so no worries. no responses required! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 As far as I know based on what I have read, we do not have homo erectus or giganto sequenced. After I had my conversation with Justin, I did look for references to these genomes and found nothing. Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong. My only regret with the Sierra Shooting incident is that Justin wasn't able to salvage the body of the child shot or capture the other living child. You know what they say, if "wishes" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'ld all have a Merry Christmas. I'm glad Justin went with Dr. Ketchum's study because at this point, I don't think other labs have the primers needed to pull the sequences. I don't have high hopes about the blood salvaged from the echo project or the foot the MABRC supposedly salvaged for this reason. Until Dr. Ketchum's methods are published and commercially available, all you are going to get is a DNA mess IMO. Even so, that only tells you so much, this is why Erickson's materials were supposed to be an important part of this project, or so I understand. If it comes back predominantly human, then that would also mean that we would be predominantly squatch. Personally, I'm planning on declaring myself squatch, claiming all legal rights to my squatch nature, casting off all restictive societal expectations and abandoning all self-imposed obligations to comply with what people expect of me as a former human. As you've said before, GMTA, don't think it hasn't crossed my mind to get my adult children's DNA tested on the off chance that we can genetically claim we are NA and take advantage of scholarship benefits for higher education. I'm not so sure squath would get you the same kind of benefits but who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Heck, I just want the right to wear no clothes and emanate bad odors in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 There are humans and non-humans. What would a "mostly human" be? A politician? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Heck, I just want the right to wear no clothes and emanate bad odors in public. You're half-way there already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) ^ When I see that "Continental" avatar of Incorrigible's, I think of the ISH (International Student House) dorm at Georgetown -- all squatch. But I digress. If it came back mostly human, they will say "contaminated" and ditch the whole effort. But in reality, we are still learning about our genes and all that. We don't know what we don't yet know. And we don't know so much. It's complicated. As I understand it in my layman's way. So, the discussion thread is mostly sort of a shot in the dark. Edited December 28, 2011 by Kings Canyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Heck, I just want the right to wear no clothes and emanate bad odors in public. San Francisco CA longs for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tsalagi Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Maybe if they are finally recognized as the Wildmen they are then the government will step in and protect them. Allow them to settle down and live like the rest of us, quit being forced to live in hiding and stay out in the cold all Winter. Maybe they can give them housing vouchers and some sort of stipend while they are retrained for a new occupation. I wouldn't mind having a Bigfoot as a next door neighbor, sure beats the humans I live by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Well, chimpanzee DNA is 98% (roughly) identical to human DNA ... . And yet chimps are not mostly human; rather, they are all chimp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 I posted this over in the Ketchum Report thread but it backs up what Ptery says so I copied it here: Posted Today, 10:44 PM When I reread the chapter I want to make sure that the forum members understand that Paulides is not understanding what is meant by the difference in polymorphisms. Yes, the chimp is anywhere from 95% to 98.7% similar to humans depending on what study you read, but geneticist do not look at polymorphisms alone. That 2-5% difference in our genome can encompass up to 150,000,000 different base pairs and that's a huge difference when you put it into that kind of perspective. Geneticist aren't just looking at polymorphisms when comparing us to other primates. They also look at cytogenetic differences, differences in the type of transpositions, the presence of retroviruses, inactive genes, sequence differences, duplications of genes, expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations. We aren't all that alike actually, it just depends on how you want to look at it, literally. Don't let the 98% fool you into thinking otherwise, which goes back to what I've said before, it may look like a duck on a spectragraph but you got go deeper to see if it quacks like a duck. http://www.plosgenet...al.pgen.0010056 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts