Bigfoot Dna

[Guest]

Well my pet peeve are those that think that there is a possibility that Bigfoot could procreate with humans. Here is an article on the newest research regarding transpositions that show that this would be incredibly difficult. If it did occur, I think it would have to be artificially done with recombinant DNA methods.

http://ts-si.org/genetics-&-genome/24800-mobile-dna-elements-and-primate-sex-chromosomes

[Guest rockinkt]

There are legends amongst the First Nations in Canada that tell of people successfully mating with beavers so mating with a squatch should be just as successful.

Hey - if you believe one legend - you gotta believe them all!

[Guest]

It is hard enough for humans to breed successfully with their own kind, much less intermingle with a another species. The only reason there are so many of us is that we have a high rate of fecundity.

[Guest]

It is hard enough for humans to breed successfully with their own kind, much less intermingle with a another species. The only reason there are so many of us is that we have a high rate of fecundity.

Depending on how one defines species, it might not be all that difficult nor uncommon. I cant find the referrence now, but some research indicates that interspecies reproduction accounts for a larger percentage than previously believed and there's some speculation that inter-species breeding may be in the long run part of a strategy that's added to some species' success over the long run. Beavers and humans....I'd give a very very low probability, but h. sapiens and h. neanderthal for instance it seems were far more connected than previously believed, and beyond that our detailed understanding of the mechanism is still at a rather rudimentary stage.

[Guest]

Depending on how one defines species, it might not be all that difficult nor uncommon. I cant find the referrence now, but some research indicates that interspecies reproduction accounts for a larger percentage than previously believed and there's some speculation that inter-species breeding may be in the long run part of a strategy that's added to some species' success over the long run. Beavers and humans....I'd give a very very low probability, but h. sapiens and h. neanderthal for instance it seems were far more connected than previously believed, and beyond that our detailed understanding of the mechanism is still at a rather rudimentary stage.

When I get settled I'll look that up, but the new research indicates that gene function is a better indicator of differentiation between what is human and compatible than gene sequences. The 2% difference in genetic codes for chimps shouldn't make it so difficult to create a hybrid as was attempted in WWII. Chimps have many similar genes that we do but they do not function the same as our version. Anyway, my point is, it is not how close the sequence is to human but how similarly the sequences function that would determine compatibility. I think they decided humans absorbed Neanderthals into our line, last I read, but I can't remember what they said about the difference in their genomic variation.

[Guest]

It is hard enough for humans to breed successfully with their own kind, much less intermingle with a another species. The only reason there are so many of us is that we have a high rate of fecundity.

fecundity, does that mean drunk?

[kitakaze]

Prediction:

There will be no Bigfoot DNA and this announcement will be a bust. In December/January there will be no paper documenting the first verified Bigfoot DNA nor will there ever. I hope I am proven wrong on both counts by both David Paulides and Dr. Melba Ketchum.

I think it is interesting that Loren Coleman via Cryptomundo threw David Paulides under the bus back in April of this year...

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bfchannels/

I would strongly suggest Bigfoot proponents not get their hopes up with this, as I think there will only be dissappointment to be had if they do.

Here are some reasons why...

1) Dr. Melba Ketchum is the same person from the whole Destination Truth Josh Gates Bhutan yeti hair affair...

Josh has a knack for finding questionable yeti evidence...

2) Ketchum is not a molecular biologist, a medical geneticist, or a laboratory geneticist. She is a veterinarian with five years education in Veterinary Medicine from Texas A&M University...

http://www.spoke.com/info/pWkasRd/DrMelba

She has no training as a geneticist. It takes a degree in genetics or biological sciences such as biochemistry and a masters or doctoral in genetics. It takes a minimum of six years post-secondary education to be a geneticist.

http://www.dnadiagnostics.com/staff.html

3) She has been testing alleged Bigfoot DNA samples from people like David Paulides and Tom Biscardi since 1995. Because so many samples were from racoons and other known animals, for convenience, she used a system that filtered out human DNA. This exposes her to human contaminated results and known animal contaminated results. The tests she did on Josh's "yeti" hair came back human, but she insisted, "The hair, visually was not human, it's coarser than horse hair ." Ketchum may know horses, but she certainly doesn't know human hair. The video showed fine wispy hair.

4) I think Ketchum is profiting off of Bigfooters she charges money for doing Bigfoot samples. She is associated with Tom Biscardi...

Tom Biscardi, has been working very hard to find a DNA house with the integratiy and courage to share the results they find in an open and honest format. He has found a professional with the courage to step out of the "comfort zone" and simply tell it like it is!

http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/DNA_Diagnostic

While doing an interview on Tom's Bigfoot Live radio show, Java Bob told me they had gotten Bigfoot DNA from a tooth that was almost certainly from native remains. I think it may have been Ketchum who did the testing, but Java Bob would not reveal to me who did the testing.

5) Ketchum's only genetic research involves trying to increase production...

http://www.dnadiagnostics.com/genetic_research.html

6) She is an entrpeneur and she was succesfully sued by OptiGen for patent infringment...

http://www.optigen.com/opt9_imppatlawx831.html

7) If someone talks about a DNA sample possibly being human and says they are uncertain, they are either incompetent or they are deceiving you. It is very basic for any legitimate genetic labs to establish whether or not a sample is human.

The first DNA sample Paulides is discussing was years old by the time Ketchum got it and that it was from a Bigfoot coming to a woman's home and rummaging through her garbage. Paulides says that the police officer still alive from the incident said when he exited the vehicle, he could feel the earth moving from the Bigfoot walking 100 ft away into the Douglas fir trees. Listen here from 4:02...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnE2QlWOMmg&feature=related

9) Ketchum says she has many unknown samples that feature animal and human characteristics, but then when questioned by George Noory, she says only a few have follicles needed for testing. See, these samples are not being tested genetically, they are being assessed visually. Listen from the 8:00 mark in the video above. She then says she can not say verbally what she would do to verify the sample of DNA is from a Bigfoot. Then she says that she sends the hair to a hair analyst, then does mitochondrial DNA sampling, then nuclear testing. She clearly doesn't know what she is doing.

10) They say they have a bone and that it is huge. She says bones are inferior to hair for DNA testing. She is IMO clearly incompetent or being deceitful. She is talking about real bone, not fossils.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7557753

11) Paulides supports Ray Wallace as a Bigfoot expert.

Don't be boonswoggled! I strongly think Paulides and Ketchum are fooling Bigfoot proponents. They tell people sending the samples that must be payed for not to rush them and that you can't push science. I think this is a hoax.

Listen to what Paulides and Ketchum are saying. Paulides says he drew up a business plan for this and that Ketchum set up a non-profit organization to take donations. Listen here from the 4:00 mark...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8HHq_9COEg&feature=related

I think these people are not out to prove Bigfoot. I think they are out for money from suckers. Don't be hoodwinked by people like this or by Cryptomundo. They have a for-profit reason to promote the idea that Bigfoot DNA is coming. Their website features paid advertising and they want as many people coming to that website and looking for word about Bigfoot DNA. Don't let a Georgia Boyz type hoax fool you.

[Guest Spazmo]

I had high hopes for Paulides when he hit the scene, but after hearing that he was involved with the "Massacre" nonsense, I pretty much stopped listening to him.

[Guest]

9) Ketchum says she has many unknown samples that feature animal and human characteristics, but then when questioned by George Noory, she says only a few have follicles needed for testing. See, these samples are not being tested genetically, they are being assessed visually. Listen from the 8:00 mark in the video above. She then says she can not say verbally what she would do to verify the sample of DNA is from a Bigfoot. Then she says that she sends the hair to a hair analyst, then does mitochondrial DNA sampling, then nuclear testing. She clearly doesn't know what she is doing.

10) They say they have a bone and that it is huge. She says bones are inferior to hair for DNA testing. She is IMO clearly incompetent or being deceitful. She is talking about real bone, not fossils.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7557753

11) Paulides supports Ray Wallace as a Bigfoot expert.

Don't be boonswoggled! I strongly think Paulides and Ketchum are fooling Bigfoot proponents. They tell people sending the samples that must be payed for not to rush them and that you can't push science. I think this is a hoax.

Listen to what Paulides and Ketchum are saying. Paulides says he drew up a business plan for this and that Ketchum set up a non-profit organization to take donations. Listen here from the 4:00 mark...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8HHq_9COEg&feature=related

I think these people are not out to prove Bigfoot. I think they are out for money from suckers. Don't be hoodwinked by people like this or by Cryptomundo. They have a for-profit reason to promote the idea that Bigfoot DNA is coming. Their website features paid advertising and they want as many people coming to that website and looking for word about Bigfoot DNA. Don't let a Georgia Boyz type hoax fool you.

I wondered when the smear campaign was going to start.......so umm, arent you the one thats making a documentary? are you trying to get money from suckers to Kit? pot meet kettle.......

[BobZenor]

There are several examples of animals separated by millions of years interbreeding.

We seem to have bred with Neanderthals based on recent studies. They aren't separated by that much but as you start to get older than that, it becomes very speculative about how "human" any of the fossil ancestors were. If you stretch that to a few million years, it becomes extremely speculative and in my opinion, it stretches credibility to give something like habilis much human characteristics. That is about the range that some animals have hybridized.

They even have a theory that we are the result of a hybrid with our common ancestor with chimps.

link

That seems to put the separation of the two common ancestral species at up to 4 million years. I don't find the study completely convincing but I wouldn't say it was not possible.

Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that if Bigfoot were a real creature that they would be close enough to interbreed. It is certainly possible though. I have always thought we should be close enough to Neanderthal to have at least some viable offspring. That seems to have been nearly proven if the results of the recent study showing certain DNA markers from Neanderthals only in non Africans are valid. Any creature that descended from erectus is certainly possible to hybridize. You would have to have more knowledge about erectus and bigfoot than I do to be able to eliminate really any erectus let alone one of the ancient ones as possible ancestral candidates. Personally, I would place very early erectus right in the sweet spot for likely separation and opportunity for speciation. That would be about 2 million years or likely a little more.

[kitakaze]

I wondered when the smear campaign was going to start.......so umm, arent you the one thats making a documentary? are you trying to get money from suckers to Kit? pot meet kettle.......

1) Handwaving away my legitimate arguments with a pat dismissal saying "smear campaign" is a weak argument, IMO. Why not address the legitimate issues rather them?

2) I note that Spaz escapes your criticism. Why not tell Spaz he's smearing Paulides with his views on the alleged PGF massacre?

3) I am in the process of making a documentary about Bigfootery, yes. Please lay out your proposal for making a film for free in which my time and effort is covered.

4) The only people that will watch my documentary are people interested in the subject matter. There are no suckers. If you want to see a Kitakaze film or listen to Kitakaze music, you do. If you don't want to, you don't. Simple.

5) Let's lay it on the line. Avatar wager: They said that in a few months they would hopefully submitting a paper documenting the first proven Bigfoot DNA. That was in August. If by January 1, 2011 no paper has been submitted, nor is there any indication of one imminently coming, you take an avatar I give you that simply reads, "Kitakaze was right." If I am wrong and Bigfoot DNA comes, I wear an avatar hear for one year that says, "I was wrong about Bigfoot."

Deal?

[Guest parnassus]

Paulides has been talking about this for a year now. (along with the Bluff Creek massacre) From what we know of Paulides and his law enforcement background, and what he said to Steven Streufert, and the only report I have seen from Ketchum, and the realities of the situation (ie no non human, non ape DNA from a living uncatalogued animal has been found), I will make a prediction:

Ketchum and Paulides will go the human route. That's what everyone wants to hear (everyone but Meldrum). And human hair and DNA is very available, and that is what Ketchum and Paulides have. They will attempt to publish a paper about hair specimens submitted as possible Yeti/bigfoot hair, indicating that Yeti/bigfoot might be some sort of human, with abnormal looking hair, and DNA that is, supposedly, "only slightly different from human."

Will some veterinary journal publish this? possibly. Dr. Ketchum is well connected in veterinary circles, and that may help. Certainly no major scientific journal (Nature, Science, primatology or anthropology journals, genetic journals, etc.) will touch it. Why not? because Ketchum's methods are not adequate, her conclusions are unwarranted, and the specimens will not support a replication of her findings and further adequate testing. In short, because she's just dealing with human specimens with some polymorphisms, and making them seem weirder than they are.

But some veterinary journal, maybe even a peer-reviewed one, might publish it. I have no knowledge of those journals and their standards.

And for some who are eager for confirmation of their beliefs, that may sustain a lifetime of belief in bigfoot and in the conspiracy of science against evidence.

Edited October 3, 2010 by parnassus

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I wonder if the DNA from the endangered Gee's Golden Langur from Bhutan is in the data base that she used. I doubt it. It would make more sense than an 800 pound animal on that branch. Mixed in with a trace amount of human finger grease, as it is on his finger in this photo. Josh needs to invest in longer tweezers.

Edited October 3, 2010 by FuriousGeorge

[Guest]

Well honestly, I didn't go to the trouble to watch the you tube video's or read the links, Kit. But I will point out that trying to do DNA analysis of any kind to the extent that Ketchum describes is just as expensive, if not more so, than making a documentary. You either donate or not as you see fit just like someone will either watch your documentary or not, same with your music. I don't have a problem with them asking for donations.

I don't think that they will be able to prove that they have Bigfoot DNA for the simple reason that you have to have many good samples that all provide the same results however many dilutions that are performed in order to say this is definitely something new, much less Bigfoot. I maybe wrong, but from what I gather from what little I have read about the project, it sounds like the samples are various ages and we don't know how they were all gathered in order to eliminate the possibility of contamination. Like you, I was dubious about the visual exam of the hairs unless she has several others that verify what she thinks she is seeing,visual observation being subjective.

Her lack of credentials doesn't bother me because when you do research like this it is never a solo effort. She would have to be collaborating with geneticists in order to interpret what the results of her research show. It sounds like they are sending the samples off to a lab so it is not like she will have the opportunity to interpret the results as she sees fit. I don't take issue with her taking ownership of the project. Do you give credit to everyone that assists you with the technical aspects of your documentary? Because I don't think I recall ever hearing you mention anyone else involved in your project although I'm sure it is a collaborative effort. I'm sure they will be mentioned in the credits of your documentary when it is completed, but when you speak of your project, it is as if it is all yours. That is fine and nothing unusual for someone who came up with the ideas, but the same probably applies to the people you are criticizing. Anyway, I give them credit for trying.

[Guest]

There are several examples of animals separated by millions of years interbreeding.

Well I see I hit the button before I had a chance to ask, which animals are you talking about because the only hybrids I found were closer than that?

Edited October 3, 2010 by Jodie