Dna Results? Where Is It?

[Hairy Man]

For those that might be interested, Dr. Meldrum has a article in press with the Journal of African Earth Sciences entitled Ichnotaxonomy of the laetoli trackways: The earliest hominin footprints

Ichnotaxonomy of the laetoli trackways: The earliest hominin footprints

D. Jeffrey Meldrumnext terma, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Martin G. Lockleyb, Spencer G. Lucasc and Charles Musibad

a Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, 921 S. 8[th] Ave., Stop 8007, Pocatello, ID 83209-8007

b Dinosaur Track Museum, CB172, University of Colorado at Denver, PO Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217-3364.

c New Mexico Museum of Natural History, 1801 Mountain Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104-1375.

d Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado at Denver, PO Box 173364, Denver CO 80217-3364.

Received 18 February 2010;

revised 10 December 2010;

accepted 7 January previous term2011.next term

Available online 25 January previous term2011.next term

Abstract

At 3.6 Ma, the Laetoli Pliocene hominin trackways are the earliest direct evidence of hominin bipedalism. Three decades since their discovery, not only is the question of their attribution still discussed, but marked differences in interpretation concerning the footprints’ qualitative features and the inferred nature of the early hominin foot morphology remain. Here, we establish a novel ichnotaxon, Praehominipes laetoliensis, for these tracks and clarify the distinctions of these footprints from those of later hominins, especially modern humans. We also contrast hominin, human, and ape footprints to establish morphological features of these footprints correlated with a midtarsal break versus a stiff longitudinal arch. Original photos, including stereo photographs, and casts of footprints from the 1978 Laetoli excavation, confirm midtarsal flexibility, and repeatedly indicate an associated midfoot pressure ridge. In contrast, the modern human footprint reflects the derived arched-foot architecture, combined with a stiff-legged striding gait. Fossilized footprints of unshod modern human pedestrians in Hawaii and Nicaragua unambiguously illustrate these contrasts. Some points of comparisons with ape footprints are complicated by a variable hallucal position and the distinct manner of ape facultative bipedalism.

In contrast to the comparatively rigid platform of the modern human foot, midtarsal flexibility is present in the chimpanzee foot. In ape locomotion, flexion at the transverse tarsal joint, referred to as the “midtarsal break,” uncouples the respective functions of the prehensile forefoot and the propulsive hindfoot during grasp-climbing. At some point after the transition to habitual bipedalism, these grasp-climb adaptations, presumed to be present in the last common ancestor of apes and humans, were initially compromised by the loss of divergence of the hallux. An analogous trajectory is evident along an array of increasingly terrestrial extant ape species. However, a flexible midfoot was retained, presumably to spare lateral toes from bending stresses by concentrating push-off from the forefoot, beneath the metatarsals. Only later did the evolution of the longitudinal arch permit increased mechanical advantage of the plantarflexors for speed and improved economy of endurance distance walking and running.

Research highlights

â–º In this study we create the ichnotaxon Praehominipes laetoliensis â–º We establish the primitive features distinguishing the footprints of early hominins from those of modern human â–º We discuss the implications of these features for the timing and pattern of the evolution of modern forms of bipedalism

Key words: Hominin locomotion; bipedalism; footprints; foot morphology; ichnology; Praehominipes; Africa

[Guest]

http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfoot_dna.html

Here's an update from the NABS website on some of what is going on with the DNA testing.

My opinion is, just because Native American's called the "Hairy Man" a tribe or people does not make Bigfoot a human. It tells me that they had nothing else to compare it to other then themselves and so the analogy.

As far as DNA is concerned, I bet if the chimpanzee had never been discovered and its DNA sequenced without a body, photo or proof of its existence, the DNA would be at first thought to be human. It is the closest genetic link we have and without having all the other pieces it could be lumped into Homo before further analysis is performed.

I personally don’t care if it’s an ape or a relic human. I just want to know if it exists or not. I hope these researchers (Ketchum/ Erickson) have something so I can move onto something else already. I hate not knowing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy Friday,

Polypodium

[Guest ajciani]

From what the update indicates, it almost certainly exists. I think they are also on to it being some type of hominid.

February 15th has already passed, so they should be finishing up the work soon. If you give 2 weeks to get the last of the samples in, then the testing should be done by early March. Maybe the paper will be submitted in late March or early April. If the review goes smoothly, it might be published online by June.

I would also like to know why it is that Paulides thinks there is a connection between N.A. and bigfoots. Near as I can tell, the things are found all over, but not so much in the open plains and deserts. If there is a "connection", I should think it is because N.A. people get out in the woods and remote areas more often, and so can have more encounters therefor.

[southernyahoo]

My opinion is, just because Native American's called the "Hairy Man" a tribe or people does not make Bigfoot a human. It tells me that they had nothing else to compare it to other then themselves and so the analogy.

I've considered many different perspectives and this is one of them, but also from the evidence obtained by myself and others. It will be interesting to see just how human they are and then what ethnicity falls closest to the genetics of the samples. I don't have much doubt remaining that they will be considered some sort of native humanoid, just not sure if they are more related to the Native American (Homo sapiens) tribes.

I too look at what little difference in DNA there is between chimps and us. That last 3% is quite qualitative. So if we were to see DNA that is a few base pairs off here and there, I wouldn't assume it couldn't account for the morphological differences observed between BF and us.

I love this article because it is so in the vein of this discussion.

What makes us human, by Katherine S. Pollard.

http://www.asfg.mx/highschool/newsletters/Summer_asigments/09scienceWhatMakesUsHumanPollard.pdf

[bipedalist]

...Here's an update from the NABS website on some of what is going on with the DNA testing.

So the cutoff was Feb. 15 for dna samples to be included in the in process white paper (and of course there is an NDA preventing premature release of data to the public) to be submitted to a major refereed journal. Further samples or questions to NABS/Paulides not to Ketchum for the time being. And, some other project is described as monolithic being worked on by NABS that will shock the BF world. Well it looks like perhaps the time is finally right. Looking forward to using the monu- word sometime in the near future

Edited February 19, 2011 by bipedalist

[indiefoot]

The only thing that I'd describe as monumental at this point in the search for Bigfoot evidence is some of the egos involved.

[Guest]

and more Paulides/ NABS/ DNA information.

http://www.triplicate.com/20110218111480/News/Local-News/The-smoking-gun

[Guest]

The only thing that I'd describe as monumental at this point in the search for Bigfoot evidence is some of the egos involved.

That's not being very helpful, indie...if this holds up (and it's the most promising thing to come down the pipe in as long as I've been interested in the subject), it will be a true "game changer" moment for bigfoot research.

The question I wonder if the paper will tackle (assuming that the common belief that they will class bf as a hominid is true) is whether they are maintaining that it evolved OUT of the human line (a true human ancestor) or evolved out of a separate, non-human line (such as G Blacki) and the relationship is a result of convergent evolution.

Or is that something that DNA results can even address?

[WV FOOTER]

To say Bigfoot is somewhere between NA and modern man is a weatherman generalization, IMO. There have been quite a few DNA tests done on hair samples from alleged Bigfoot. Results have been returned as unknown primate. I wonder if records of these various tests have been compared to see if any similarities exist, whether it be between these samples or known creatures. I really wonder if these professionals are really trying to solve this mystery.

[Guest]

That's not being very helpful, indie...if this holds up (and it's the most promising thing to come down the pipe in as long as I've been interested in the subject), it will be a true "game changer" moment for bigfoot research.

The question I wonder if the paper will tackle (assuming that the common belief that they will class bf as a hominid is true) is whether they are maintaining that it evolved OUT of the human line (a true human ancestor) or evolved out of a separate, non-human line (such as G Blacki) and the relationship is a result of convergent evolution.

Or is that something that DNA results can even address?

The mitochrondira DNA will give a good indication when the split took place since it is circular like bacteria and doesn't get shuffled around like nuclear DNA. The only catch I can think of is if they interbred with other primates during their trip through Asia. Now that it appears that we have done so on at least three occasions ourselves, it might not be surprising.

[indiefoot]

Mulder,

Sorry if you don't consider pointing out the egos that are a prominent part of the Bigfoot discussion helpful. My point about egos was meant to address the predisposition to stand firmly on a conclusion that is based on speculation. People fight over positions that are again based on speculation. We don't have any proof that has passed a careful examination to point to..... yet.

When the paper that is under discussion is published and the results and conclusions are examined, I hope, along with many other witnesses and investigators, that the proof is there. At that point the professional researchers will take over, and yes it will be a game changer. I can imagine the possibility of a few changes that amateur researchers won't like.

[Guest fenris]

Sorry if you don't consider pointing out the egos that are a prominent part of the Bigfoot discussion helpful. My point about egos was meant to address the predisposition to stand firmly on a conclusion that is based on speculation. People fight over positions that are again based on speculation. We don't have any proof that has passed a careful examination to point to..... yet.

They always have been and will remain an obstacle, but the key element is still missing, the pesky body a/or specimen elludes us. Without it, biz as usual.

[Guest]

They always have been and will remain an obstacle, but the key element is still missing, the pesky body a/or specimen elludes us. Without it, biz as usual.

Agreed that a type specimen is the gold standard, and that without it, we still don't have much. I think this isn't the usual biz, though. Seems to me that getting a peer reviewed paper through a journal may help move the search for Sassy from pseudoscience and into more respectable realms. I can see no downside for the research side of things here, even considering monumental egos. I am excited, and I hope, like bipedalist, that the coming info is more "monu-" and less "mental."

I think, Fenris, I am with you in the general "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude. 'Cuz we still ain't seen it. I happen to be on the "it's more human" side of the fence already, so Paulides' work is not a source of soreness for my 'Squatch worldview. I am glad that they finally posted an update.

[Guest parnassus]

Yes, people prepare crappy reviews all the time. That is not the same thing as assuming going into the process that reviewers will reject a bigfoot paper because they can't handle the "implications." What implications? The implication would be that we've got arguably the greatest scientific discovery in anthropology, human evolution, wildlife biology, etc., ever. I honestly can't think of a single scientific colleague who wouldn't be thrilled to learn of such a discovery.

It's no secret that I don't think there's anything other than human perception, creativity, mythology, and tomfoolery behind the bigfoot phenomenon. But this fantasy that "science won't give bigfoot a fair shake" is far less supported than evidence for the beast itself. If Ketchum (or anyone else) has "bigfoot DNA" and can prove so with evidence presented in a rigorous scientific analysis, then she WILL be able to publish it, and with great fanfare.

Paulides and Ketchum seem to to hit a snag. Wonder what it could be...lulz

http://www.triplicate.com/2011021811...he-smoking-gun

" While the book released in 2009 was being written, NABS was in the beginning stages of hair sample analysis.

A letter about a preliminary laboratory analysis of Stewart’s sample was published in the book.

The letter states that an expert examined the hair and found it to be from an animal of primate origin.

Since then, dozens more hair samples have been submitted for evaluation, and NABS hopes to have results soon, Paulides said.

The research has taken longer than expected due to the complexity of genetically tracing the hairs, Paulides said.

“That’s probably one of the reasons no one has tried to jump through the hurdles that we’re jumping through,†said Paulides. “It’s much more complicated than anyone thought.â€

Paulides anticipates having the analysis completed within the next six months.

The work will be published in a report written by a group of scientists who will scrutinize the findings, Paulides said. "

I wonder if Ketchum has stumbled upon Native American DNA and hair characteristics.

[Guest]

Agreed that a type specimen is the gold standard, and that without it, we still don't have much...

Can hair serve as a type specimen?