Dna Results? Where Is It?

[Guest parnassus]

I'm trying to establish the forensic veracity in the statement that a Native American vandalised the cabin and all you have is Monsterquest? There should have been an ER visit somewhere having to do with holes in foot.

Careful, I didn't write what you said I wrote. Was that misquoting or paraphrasing? It is certainly possible that a person living near a tribal reservation could have inherited a polymorphism through long removed ancestors and not be considered a Native American. Further it is possible that the person who left the DNA did not enter the cabin.

Recall it is not I who is relying on Monsterquest. It is proponents who are relying on it, I am saying their pronouncements were wrong and were not even what the scientists said.

You can pursue this issue, or not, just by asking Meldrum, whom you might believe.

Edited February 11, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest RioBravo]

I assumed it was human to begin with, I was just wondering where you had received your information.

Edited February 11, 2011 by RioBravo

[Xion Comrade]

They've let leak that the preliminary studies show an animal somewhere between a Neanderthal and a Human--and Dr. Meldrum said that this is just a lot more human-like than he would have expected, seeing as Neanderthals had material culture (tools and stuff that they made, used, owned) and were fully human..

found this somewhere , cant remember where......

Although there are some striking similarities between the Sasquatch and supposed Neanderthal attributes, I don't see how the Sasquatch can be very closely related to either them or us, but rather see them going back far far farther in the genetic timeline. If they were merely in between Neanderthal and us, which would be almost impossible seeing as how WE DIDN'T COME FROM NEANDERTHAL in any way, aside from native European's containing about 4-7% Neanderthal DNA, which is the result of interbreeding NOT being a offshoot of the Neanderthal. We existed at the SAME time, not one after the other, we both are believed to come from common ancestors though. Therefore it would likely be impossible to be in between Neanderthal and us literally.

Also got to take into account that the Neanderthal shared about 99.1-.9 percent of our DNA, and were almost merely just another race of human in that sense.

If they were even related to the Neanderthal, and I do think they may contain Neanderthal and Sapien DNA, how in the world do you make up for the size discrepancy? Homo Sapiens were smaller and much weaker than the Neanderthal, both in brain and body. How do scientists figure the Neanderthal to be around 5'9 to 6'0 right now when in reality they were closer to 9 feet tall? I do think that physical anthropology is overrun with horrendous mistakes in this area and many others, just to scant a record to be any other way, but being off by 3-4 feet is ridiculous. The Neanderthal was just another race of people.

Still yet how do they explain the sagital crest?

[Guest]

Still yet how do they explain the sagital crest?

Or the "mid tarsal break?" It's just been released that we now have 3.2 million year old fossil evidence from Australopithecus afarensis (a.k.a. "Lucy") showing fully Homo sapiens-like, rigid arches in the foot. If bigfoot has apelike "mid-tarsal breaks" in its feet (as Jeff Meldrum claims), then we're talking about foot morphology most likely older than A. afarensis. I can't see any way that both Meldrum and Ketchum could be correct, i.e., that bigfoots have mid-tarsal breaks but are near H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis on the hominin family tree. (Of course, it's quite easy for both of them to be wrong, but that's a topic for another thread.)

[southernyahoo]

Careful, I didn't write what you said I wrote. Was that misquoting or paraphrasing? It is certainly possible that a person living near a tribal reservation could have inherited a polymorphism through long removed ancestors and not be considered a Native American. Further it is possible that the person who left the DNA did not enter the cabin.

Recall it is not I who is relying on Monsterquest. It is proponents who are relying on it, I am saying their pronouncements were wrong and were not even what the scientists said.

You can pursue this issue, or not, just by asking Meldrum, whom you might believe.

Sounds like you just pulled this out of nowhere then.

AJ, you should be aware that the Snelgrove Lake sample contained a single polymorphism different from Anglos but characteristic of the tribal members living nearby.

You made a statement of fact with only an assumption.

Meldrum is not a DNA specialist, why not talk to Nelson? Sure, one polymorphism is not alot across 300 and some base pairs, but it also hasn't been shown to support your statement above.

[Xion Comrade]

Or the "mid tarsal break?" It's just been released that we now have 3.2 million year old fossil evidence from Australopithecus afarensis (a.k.a. "Lucy") showing fully Homo sapiens-like, rigid arches in the foot. If bigfoot has apelike "mid-tarsal breaks" in its feet (as Jeff Meldrum claims), then we're talking about foot morphology most likely older than A. afarensis. I can't see any way that both Meldrum and Ketchum could be correct, i.e., that bigfoots have mid-tarsal breaks but are near H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis on the hominin family tree. (Of course, it's quite easy for both of them to be wrong, but that's a topic for another thread.)

That is another good one to differentiate them from Neanderthal, but there were several hominids who had the mid tarsal break form what I can recal, I remember Jeff Meldrum talking about it, most hominid remains do not even have feet, so there is no telling how many of them would have had it. I would imagine only the huge ones would have. Can't wait to see the official results either way. What will really blow my mind is if they turn out to be apes...

[BobZenor]

Or the "mid tarsal break?" It's just been released that we now have 3.2 million year old fossil evidence from Australopithecus afarensis (a.k.a. "Lucy") showing fully Homo sapiens-like, rigid arches in the foot. If bigfoot has apelike "mid-tarsal breaks" in its feet (as Jeff Meldrum claims), then we're talking about foot morphology most likely older than A. afarensis. I can't see any way that both Meldrum and Ketchum could be correct, i.e., that bigfoots have mid-tarsal breaks but are near H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis on the hominin family tree. (Of course, it's quite easy for both of them to be wrong, but that's a topic for another thread.)

Floresiensis supposedly doesn't have an arch and it is a member of the genus Homo. It would be rather a stretch to think it diverged from Homo sapiens that long ago. As far as the sagittal crest goes, there is no reason to assume they have one. Even if they do, at least one lineage of erectus had what some called a double sagittal crest or double occipital crest. I think some people called them double sagittal crests because they almost meet at the top of the skull. Obviously someone is either mistaken or their is great plasticity in the evolution of both of those features. Calling either feature apelike doesn't really have much meaning when some members of the genus homo have them and older hominids don't.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090506144307.htm

The anatomy of the foot described in the new paper might finally answer the pathological modern vs. primitive population question. Although the foot is characteristic of a biped—being stiff and having no opposable big toe—many other traits fall outside of the range for modern humans. The H. floresiensis foot is very long in proportion to the lower limb and considerably more than half the length of the thighbone; modern human feet are relatively shorter at about half of the femur's length. The stubby big toe of the hobbits is another primitive, chimp-like trait. But the pivotal clue comes from the navicular bone, an important tarsal bone that helps form the arch in a modern human foot. The "hobbit" navicular bone is more akin to that found in great apes, which means that these hominins lacked an arch and were not efficient long-term runners.

"Arches are the hallmark of a modern human foot," explains Harcourt-Smith. "This is another strong piece of the evidence that the "hobbit" was not like us."

Edited February 11, 2011 by BobZenor

[Guest]

Thanks Bob, although one interpretation of the "no arch = not efficient long-term runners" could be that we would expect a strong arch in those really mobile bigfoots. Maybe a flat foot serves one better in the mangrove swamps on Flores.

[Guest parnassus]

Sounds like you just pulled this out of nowhere then.

You made a statement of fact with only an assumption.

Meldrum is not a DNA specialist, why not talk to Nelson? Sure, one polymorphism is not alot across 300 and some base pairs, but it also hasn't been shown to support your statement above.

You ask whomever u wish.

You don't know what has been shown. It is a fact that the polymorphism is found in canadian tribal people. F a c t So there is nothing in the DNA that is not perfectly normal human DNA for that area. NO evidence of Bigfoot in that DNA. And you won't find anyone with actual firsthand knowledge who will say there is. Go ahead and try.

Neither Meldrum nor Nelson will support the statement made earlier in this thread that this is not human DNA. And a heads up...don't take anything on monsterQuest seriously.

[Guest ajciani]

Perhaps u should read the article more carefully...it's an April fool's joke!!!!!!

You should learn to tell the difference between an April Fool's joke and a peer reviewed paper.

The article was submitted in January (a little early for April), the lead authors were at Yale (and well published), Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution is a peer reviewed journal (rather distant from a 19th century rag), and there was some published correspondence between the authors and other individuals about the paper.

Now, the paper was "light". You might say it was making fun of those who bring in samples for genetic testing, without performing some preliminary investigation first. In one of those correspondences, the authors said they did do some pre-analysis of the hair before the genetic testing, and thought it looked like yak hair. They were actually surprised when it turned out to be horse (or something close to horse) hair. The genetic analysis was performed properly, and was very real.

And for those who still don't get the humor of the article. "Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the 'yeti' and primates".

Molecular phylogenetic analysis: Identifying the phylum based on genetic patterns. The phylum is actually rather high up. Vertebrate animals are in the phylum Chordate, which includes all animals that have spinal cords. The analysis can actually go down to family, and sometimes even genus and species.

Morphology: The physical characteristics of an animal.

Morphological convergence: Similar physical characteristics developed in different lineages.

So the title basically says, "Genetic Ancestry of the Yeti Indicates Significant Structural Changes to Look Like a Primate." Or, "The Yeti is a Horse That Looks Like an Ape!"

The genetic analysis indicated the sample was horse hair, but the suppliers of the sample swore up and down that they were absolutely certain it was yeti hair (based on what the sherpas told them). So the authors are basically making fun of the people who supplied the sample, by seriously and honestly reporting that the yeti is descended from horses.

Not necessarily the best way to win friends and influence people, but it does demonstrate how some scientists view the topic.

The April publication month is coincidence. The article was first published online on 18 February, 2004. Considering a January submission, my guess is that the reviewer spent 5 minutes on it and gave it a thumbs up. BTW, the journal is usually published in the second week of the month, so it would be a little late for April 1st.

[Guest ajciani]

Thanks Bob, although one interpretation of the "no arch = not efficient long-term runners" could be that we would expect a strong arch in those really mobile bigfoots. Maybe a flat foot serves one better in the mangrove swamps on Flores.

Actually, I think the flat foot would have more to do with weight distribution, and the mid-tarsal break is a mechanism to avoid excessive stress in the long bones of the foot during the motion of walking.

If we consider an issue of surface pressure. The contact area of feet increases as the square of the length, and the weight of an animal increases as a power between 2 and 3 of its height. The length of the foot is proportional to the height, so the contact area goes as L² while the weight goes as L^~2.5. If a human were to grow without bounds, then a giant would have foot problems. In fact, bunions are a commonly reported complication of gigantism, due to excessive pressure on the ball.

The foot length to height ratio of bigfoots is more-or-less the same as humans, but bigfoots are considerably bulkier animals. A human with 30 cm long feet might be 180 cm high and weigh 90 kg, while a bigfoot with 45 cm feet might be 270 cm high, but weigh 360 kg instead of 250 kg.

So in the case of human feet:

A normal human would have a weight to pseudo-area ratio of 90:900, or 0.10

A gigantic human would have a ratio of 250:2025, or 0.12

A bigfoot with human feet would have 360:2025, or 0.18

We see a gigantic human would have 20% more pressure on their feet, while a bigfoot would have 80% more pressure. A full-sized bigfoot might even have twice the pressure of a normal human foot, if it had human shaped feet.

So for bigfoots, the answer is to double the area of the foot in contact with the ground. This basically means making the foot a tad broader, and elimination of the arch.

Now, for the mid-tarsal break. The motion of walking involves the "rolling" of the foot from the heel, to full contact with the ground, and then onto the ball and toes. When the weight is on the ball and toes, it is typical that ALL of the weight of the body is momentarily being transferred through the long bones of the foot, but this force is not fully compressive (axial) on those bones. There is a significant shear component. If the body is too massive, that shear could break the long bones of the foot. If there was a relief joint (aka mid-tarsal break), then the individual bones could be shorter and heftier. It would also allow more of the foot to stay in contact with the ground while walking or running.

As for humans, the fusing of the long bones in the foot is rather common for digigrade walkers. With a developed Achilles tendon and muscles to drive it, we can get an extra bit of stride length from that fused arch. In fact, the arch is fused at an angle so that it is almost straight up during the period of maximum weight. It would seem that humans are made to be efficiently running around on their balls and toes.

[BobZenor]

ajciani, you pretty much said what I was thinking. My brother Jim the engineer stated pretty much the same thing when making a thread stating problems with Dr. Meldrum's foot reconstruction. The problems were mostly that the diameters of the bones should be considerably thicker. Dr. Meldrum accepted that criticism and explained the reasons for his other assumptions for joint placement. It was impressive the amount of thought he put into it. The long toes part never sat right with me though. Not only is the weight per area going to greater. It is also going to be a relatively greater stress on the bones so they will have to be thicker even for its size. I didn't really think about the greater area making an arch even more difficult. I was thinking about the relative thickening and probably shortening of some of the bones making the arch less of an arch and harder to support and certainly more vulnerable to breaking with the much greater force per unit area. The ankle should be forward and much thicker. Plus I doubt there is much call for long distance running in mountains and swamps. Even still, I don't accept the theory that an arch is required for efficient running. All the extra energy gained by the elastic arch could be redirected to whatever other muscles and tendons are used in a more compliant stride. That thing that walked up on my brother and I in the night had footfalls like a truck tire rolling and that was on a hard dirt logging road directly above the PGF site. I don't think it was putting extra weight on the balls. It sounded pretty even on that surface like it was rolling.

Floresiences had a long stiff flat foot. I doubt it walked like it was wearing swim fins but it was found on an island where it would have had to cross about 14 miles of water. It is kind of hard to figure why else it had clown feet.

Edited February 12, 2011 by BobZenor

[southernyahoo]

You ask whomever u wish.

You don't know what has been shown. It is a fact that the polymorphism is found in canadian tribal people.

I'm asking YOU. How do you know what race of humans the polymorphism belongs too?

F a c t So there is nothing in the DNA that is not perfectly normal human DNA for that area. NO evidence of Bigfoot in that DNA. And you won't find anyone with actual firsthand knowledge who will say there is. Go ahead and try.

Show me facts, don't just tell them.

Neither Meldrum nor Nelson will support the statement made earlier in this thread that this is not human DNA. And a heads up...don't take anything on monsterQuest seriously.

I take the science seriously, did Nelson find a polymorphism that is not anglo american but exclusive to Native Americans living in Canada? Show me, educate me.

Edited February 13, 2011 by southernyahoo

[Guest Sallaranda]

Does anyone know of a good ancestral tree that illustrates the evolution of feet in bipedal hominins?

[Guest ajciani]

I don't know a great one, but the beginning is usually taken to be ape (gorilla) like feet.

The first evolutionary step seems to be in a fossil find called "Little Foot".

Fossil feet seem to be rather rare, especially as you go further back. Anything from homo within the last 1.5 million years shows a modern foot. Homo floresiensis seemed to have feet similar to bigfoot feet (i.e. long, stubby toes, no arch), but the lineage of floresiensis is unknown; probably from austrolopithecines.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571304/

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2596/ancient-kenya-fossil-footprints-show-modern-feet

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2.htm

Keep in mind that a foot design for bigfoot would probably be different than the foot design for gorillas or any human ancestors. Bigfoots are MUCH heavier than anything in the human lineage. Well, probably much heavier. The human lineage seems to be getting cloudier every year.