Bigfoot Dna

[Guest]

What they say is relevent. The reason why is, the wildlife officials have ignored it for years and they are going to be held accountable.

Who cares what the skeptics say, but the officials charged with this responsibilty are going to look like fools when larry the truck driver hauls this animal in.

They also may be held responsible by losing there jobs and/or lawsuits that come.

I, for one, would love to see this happen, but I'm not holding my breath

[Guest rockinkt]

Actually, that was Buffalo Springfield.

You are absolutely right. Boy - am I embarrassed!

Crosby will laugh and Young will tell me that both groups were all about him anyway...

Stills will just say "Whatever...I'm going sailing".

Edited October 18, 2010 by rockinkt

[Guest rockinkt]

Rock lets say he found some Bigfoot dna and came out with it.

How do you think his colleagues would react to him. What would his reputation be when the discovery first comes out. Lets say the first 3-4 years. Don't you think they would run him through the ringer.

Look what they do to Global Warming skeptics

To me thats one reason why science is not serious about investigating this phenomenon.

If he had the data and it could be replicated - they would be just as excited as everybody else because that would be regarded by science as proof!

[Incorrigible1]

You are absolutely right. Boy - am I embarrassed!

Crosby will laugh and Young will tell me that both groups were all about him anyway...

Stills will just say "Whatever...I'm going sailing".

No matter, you still had me humming the tune all day long. "What a field day for the heat......."

[Guest]

Look what they do to Global Warming skeptics

Interesting. I wonder how many folks are both bigfoot "believers" and global warming "skeptics" . . .

[Guest]

Me, except I think the earth is warming, I'm just not convinced it is our fault.

[BobZenor]

...Another estimate for the loss of the MYH16 gene is 5.3 million years ago, long before Homo appeared.[16]

same wiki article I linked to previously

I don't believe that it is scientifically valid to say that Bigfoot can't be descended from a creature that existed after the MYH16 gene arose. That logic would imply that evolution has a predetermined direction. The populations that existed after that gene became prevalent were still free to radiate into new species.

You wouldn't be able to tell by fossils or tools in the area if more than one significantly technological hominid existed. That is relevant because fire and significant technology logically dramatically shaped how we turned out. We have at least three likely species of the genus Homo living in Eastern Africa 1.6 million years ago. They didn't just pop into existence at that time. There were also paranthropus or more "primitive" robust australopithecines that lived at least hundreds of thousands of years beyond that point in history. If only one of them had became significantly technological, you would have no way of knowing if any weren't. The number of stone artifacts would totally dwarf the number of fossils. Do people not generally get that sedimentation generally happens very slowly? It often/normally takes thousands of years to produce a few feet of sediment. Hunter gatherers migrate into and out of territories every few months or years depending on the size of the territory and how rich it is. I am certainly not assuming that all hominids were hunter gatherers but at least one probably was by that time. The only way to guess which hominid made artifacts would be based on brain size or similarity to modern humans. There aren't enough fossils to reasonably conclude that you necessarily even have the tool maker. Assuming that separate lineages possess the same level of significant technology is baseless since one of them is more than enough to make all the stone tools. It is actually counter to the notion of species forming in the same geographic region by adopting different niches. Otherwise it gets difficult to explain the three different populations of closely related hominids so early in the genus Homo.

To back up the point, some of the Meganthropus, aka Homo erectus, had enormous jaws and teeth, sagittal and nuchal crests. Some had quite small brains with indications of reduced frontal lobes. Those are not characteristics you would expect from a lineage that was into significant technology or apparently our ancestors. It is rather interesting that the larger jaws were apparently supported by an unusual double sagittal crest. That is perfectly reasonable if they started from a different point than more distant hominids that also developed large jaws. In other words, if we evolved into something with powerful jaws, the configuration of the bones supporting the muscles probably wouldn't be the same as paranthropus or gorillas. We could still do it based on elementary biology. We aren't restricted from growing larger jaws because we lost the MYH16. That is implied by the logic that the gene divided us into two groups, gracile Homo and robust Australopithecus so bigfoot has to have descended from a more primitive ancestor.

The study centering around the MYH16 gene that said something to the effect that evolution can't produce a larger brain until that gene arose was disappointing to me. I couldn't believe that it would be taken seriously and not destroyed by a peer review if the peers took basic biology. The cool sounding story isn't valid if it violates the most basic laws of natural selection. It is seeing something that apparently happened but forgetting basic cause and effect. They seemed to be trying to be dramatic to sell books or make themselves feel important. Why else ignore evidence to the contrary and the fact that it does ignore basic biology. Do they really think that larger brains can't evolve in a head that had the larger jaws and a sagittal crest? They are separate issues and use different genes. Yes, I am going to state the obvious. There are other paths that could lead to lager brains than the precise one our ancestors followed. We were evolving smaller jaws and larger brains because of selection pressure not because we were preordained by some particular mutation.

Just to back up the point. This is one of the more unusual variants of erectus.

link

Sangiran 31 / Meganthropus II

Homo palaeojavanicus/Homo meganthropus, Homo erectus

Found in the early 80's, this fossil has been described by Sartono and Tyler, who pointed out that it received "remarkably little attention" in 2001a. The partial skull is apparently quite large even compared with the other "Meganthropus" cranial fragments. While it has been distorted, reconstructed it has the appearance of "a Homo erectus skull of excessive size, thickness, and platycephaly". Indeed, the width of the skull is around 164-200% of the height, as compared to 121-134% in most H. erectus. Even more interesting is a double sagittal crest (has anybody heard of this before?) and evidence of a chewing apparatus rivaling the largest Paranthropus species. The cranial capacity was estimated at 800 to 900 cubic centimeters, rather on the low side. Tyler's paper was the only one to comment on body size, and reasoned that the thickness of the occipital and nuchal plane indicated "an exceptionally large body". Durband analyzed this skull too and concluded that it did not immediately group with H. erectus, but fit in well enough with the H. erectus hypodigm (specimen sample) as to not support the genus Meganthropus. Tyler, of course, proposes an offshoot/relative of H. erectus called Homo paleojavanicus, not a separate genus. Discussion is lacking, of course.

[Guest ajciani]

A sagittal crest (along with many other bone structures) forms in response to muscle stresses on the bone, and is not explicitly coded in the DNA.

Stress on the bone is a significant issue. If you are perhaps familiar with the practice of head binding? Powerful temporal muscles would act to bind the top of the skull down, and sides of the skull in. The only direction for the brain case to expand would be toward the back. This is more-or-less exactly what we see in most animal skulls, the brain case is behind the temporal muscles.

A more upright posture would also have widened the jaw (for the wind pipe), and moved the muscles out to the sides, which would have reduced the force up top, while necessitating the skull support a downward force on its sides; a situation which creates the temporal line, and allows the brain case to expand up and forward. So yes, a larger brain could have been developed while maintaining jaw power, by moving the occipital plate up, the cheeks down, and reinforcing the base and sides of the skull up to the temporal line.

As for the "double crest" in Sangiran 31... well, I couldn't find any images of this fossil online, apart from a model made, I think by Grover Krantz, so I can't point it out visually. Anyway, Sangiran 31 has an apparent temporal line, which means that it is impossible for it to have a sagittal crest as well. These structures are created by attachment of the temporalis muscles, so it's one or the other, but not both. Most likely, either a sagittal keel was misidentified as a crest, or the skull was damaged.

[BobZenor]

A sagittal crest (along with many other bone structures) forms in response to muscle stresses on the bone, and is not explicitly coded in the DNA.

Stress on the bone is a significant issue. If you are perhaps familiar with the practice of head binding? Powerful temporal muscles would act to bind the top of the skull down, and sides of the skull in. The only direction for the brain case to expand would be toward the back. This is more-or-less exactly what we see in most animal skulls, the brain case is behind the temporal muscles.

I have said pretty much the exact same thing in response to the lack of crest on a bigfoot on the old forum. I was arguing against the idea that muscles couldn't form a cone on an erectus because it lacked the crest or bony plate that is used as an attachment point. My statement was something to effect that some bones also respond to stresses by growing larger so smaller individuals wouldn't show much of a bony crest. As they became larger the muscles would find somewhere to grow on the skull by the bone responding by growing or selection pressure reconfiguring the skull when limits are approached. You can't really say that bigfoot has a sagittal crest. It could be primarily a nuchal crest as it seems to be in Patty. Any muscles stacked up on the top from the double temporal crest, if you prefer, still have to go somewhere. I find the attachment points of the muscles of the gorilla to be very confusing. The point of the cone is way above the bone so what are all the muscles really apposing, each other? It still forms the cone, primarily from the nuchal crest, so what is going to be the configuration of something larger that evolved from the meganthropus a million years ago, just as a hypothetical. It will need much larger jaw muscles and they probably aren't going to expand outwards in front of the ears. The point is moving the attachment point of the temporalis muscle upwards isn't much of an evolutionary feat. What you end up with is what some called a double sagittal crest. The brain in the Meganthropus wasn't that large anyway and it could also respond by growing smaller to make the jaws more efficient not that I think that is required.

A more upright posture would also have widened the jaw (for the wind pipe), and moved the muscles out to the sides, which would have reduced the force up top, while necessitating the skull support a downward force on its sides; a situation which creates the temporal line, and allows the brain case to expand up and forward. So yes, a larger brain could have been developed while maintaining jaw power, by moving the occipital plate up, the cheeks down, and reinforcing the base and sides of the skull up to the temporal line.

I was actually responding to the original article that I read a few years ago. The part that really bugged me was the idea that the brain growth was restricted by large jaw muscles attached to the top crest. I have much more faith in not obvious solutions being found by selection pressures. The only thing that would be different is that different bones would resize to accommodate a hypothetical growing cranium if the crest were at the top. We are talking about a larger animal after all with a larger skull. The same thing applies to growing jaw muscles. They will be accommodated over time by selection pressure and likely produce some novel feature like a double sagittal/temporal crest or elongation and narrowing or reshaping. It is very difficult to conceive of all possible configurations of a skull and how the jaw muscles can be attached as it grows larger. It is pretty much impossible since selection can act on any of the bones to change the dynamics. Saying that a large jawed individual can't grow a large brain is looking after the fact at what happened to us and assuming nothing else is possible. You demonstrated by your example that other things are possible which was my point. I still however don't think the pressure on the top in any way restricts the ability of the brain to grow except that it changes the angle of attachment a bit. There is more bone to attach to on a larger skull so I highly doubt that the skull couldn't reshape to accommodate a growing brain. Your example of the skull bindings demonstrates the brain as being somewhat flexible in fitting a reshaped skull so where is the actual problem. Pointing to specific bones that were supposedly freed to grow implies that the way that we evolved was the only way.

As for the "double crest" in Sangiran 31... well, I couldn't find any images of this fossil online, apart from a model made, I think by Grover Krantz, so I can't point it out visually. Anyway, Sangiran 31 has an apparent temporal line, which means that it is impossible for it to have a sagittal crest as well. These structures are created by attachment of the temporalis muscles, so it's one or the other, but not both. Most likely, either a sagittal keel was misidentified as a crest, or the skull was damaged.

What do you think is going to happen as the point of attachment of the temporalis muscles moves to the top of the skull. I seem to remember reading that they nearly combined at one point on the top of the skull for one of the Meganthropus fossils. It has been a few years and finding that vague a reference sounds way to hard for me right now. Most of that level of detail is buried in journals that require special access and I am not felling lucky. I stumbled upon it somewhere a few years ago. That pretty much is the same as the sagittal crest at that point and that was a million years ago. That is probably why some decided to call it a double sagittal crest. We are only talking about potential ancestors after all.

Edited October 19, 2010 by BobZenor

[Guest vilnoori]

Grover Krantz reconstruction based on Sangiran 31

http://www.boneclones.com/BC-141.htm

[Guest parnassus]

Rock lets say he found some Bigfoot dna and came out with it.

How do you think his colleagues would react to him. What would his reputation be when the discovery first comes out. Lets say the first 3-4 years. Don't you think they would run him through the ringer.

Look what they do to Global Warming skeptics

To me thats one reason why science is not serious about investigating this phenomenon.

Actually Disotell would be real sure of what he had before he published it.. And he would get it published, because he has gone through the rigor of peer review and knows how to cross the t's and dot the i's. That is the advantage of using him. And he has a secure tenured position. He mentioned this in one interview. "That is the advantage of tenure."

[Guest]

Interesting. I wonder how many folks are both bigfoot "believers" and global warming "skeptics" . . .

They have something in common: a body of evidence that "mainstream science" is doing all it can to minimize, debunk, dismiss, or simply ignore because it argues against the current Orthodoxy.

[Guest parnassus]

It will start with people willing to send their samples to him. Some have, but not all of them. He does'nt document anything about the evidence before he destroys it during the testing, atleast he hasn't shown us that he does. Thats not how any evidence I have will be tested, or studied. This is why I ask what he is offering for free, because even if he did have a huge find, he wouldn't have the other parts documented to back up the find. Besides, just one sample isn't going to really do it by istself either. People want to send samples to someone having some success in amplification from hairs, and there are reports of inhibitors with certain animal hairs where additional processes have to be done, Disotell makes no mention that he is knowledgable about this.

So, you'll have to forgive my lack of confidence in him at the moment.

Yahoo,

you write as if you have had personal experience with Disotell. Is that correct, or what are you basing this on? have you seen any reports that he generated?

[Guest parnassus]

Look what they do to Global Warming skeptics

you mean, "they" present masses of convincing data and debunk all the GW skeptics' arguments?

[southernyahoo]

Yahoo,

you write as if you have had personal experience with Disotell. Is that correct, or what are you basing this on? have you seen any reports that he generated?

I only know what he has shown us on TV. ( which is no better than what Ketchum showed us) He doesn't mention anything about hair morphology, or the challenges in getting DNA from hairs. I keep asking what he offers for free, That would include whether he gives a report to the person submitting samples or just an email to inform of the results. This would affect my decision to send a sample to him and how much. I do know that DNA testing can destroy a hair and that there are a number of different extraction methods and primers depending on what type of DNA you are after and what genes you want to sequence. If he wants to lay down a challenge to anyone with "credible" data , then he needs to be clear about what he is offering.

From the Talk show I listened to, he sounds as though he doesn't want to be bothered by footers, he needs to make up his mind.