Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Unless of course its not a prior pattern CT, just a unique one. Do some reading on the FOX2P and its potential link to autism, and the possibility that its actually the next stage of evolution. Nothing proven of course, just a lot of conjecture, but still some interesting reading. It just struck me that the "leaked" genes had the potential they did, if the leak is a lie, its a well researched one. I think you are on topic as it relates to the debate of whether the TBRC is targeting an ape or some form of human. None of us are geneticists here so the best we can do is base our opinions on what the research in genetics indicates, that and what Bipto and Hairy Man describe. What I'm finding says that the FoxP2 mutations aren't contributing to autism. Which makes sense because even parrots have a version of the FoxP2 gene but no experiments have verified that they comprehend what they are saying. That may be the case for this version of bigfoot in Area X. http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929707625245 http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525%2809%2900043-2 http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525%2809%2900043-2 The last two research articles tie in motor deficits with speech deficits associated with mutations on the Foxp2 allele. Based on Bipto's and Hairy Man's accounts, these creatures are certainly not suffering from any impaired ability in locomotion. So speaking and having the ability to make those sounds represent abstract concepts or concrete items may not be tied to the FoxP2, it just simply gives the creature the ability to enunciate. If you are curious about the genetics affecting intelligence most are located on the X chromosome passed on by the mother and also play a part in the development of autism. Autism is a large spectrum disorder, like so many disorders, it's not just one gene that is responsible but the way multiple genes work in tandem with each other that will cause this particular condition in varying degrees. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S096098220902154X/1-s2.0-S096098220902154X-main.pdf?_tid=42ce4584-108b-11e2-9bf7-00000aacb360&acdnat=1349620288_ef04c5ffd7cfb990348454268dabe2da
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 CT, I am not going to get drawn in with a cut and paste discussion about it, your right about one thing, we are not geneticists, but I have literally a volume of e-mails with a geneticists who gave me a good understanding of what was possible and what is not. I tend to stay in communication with the people who have the answers, rather than get drawn into google speculation. If you research it far enough, you will find that it is even unclear as to if autism really is even a disorder, but rather a genetic condition, even possibly the beginning of substantial change in how humans interact. Again, just conjecture, but presented and considered by qualified professionals. The genes presented are interesting because of their potential relevancy to the subject at hand. Sometimes its interesting because of where and how they occur in other circumstances. How relevant is the Fox2p gene in other primates? What are the characteristics of these primates, especially in upper body muscle development? So is it the language aspect that is interesting? Or the muscle development in the neck? They don't know, all they know, is it is very interesting that this gene was one of three very interesting genes that where "leaked". The latest developments in DNA are groundbreaking to say the least, and a good example that science is continually changing, and learning. I am not implying anything, other than there is plenty here to say, hmmmm
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Well I didn't mean to offend you at all. I've had my discussions with geneticists too and got a different perspective than you obviously did, which is not surprising considering the complexity of the biological sciences. I guess we can leave it at that, and wait on a body to decide.
Bonehead74 Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 If bigfoot are some form of human (as some insist), and if Dr. Ketchum's research demonstrates this (as some are quite vociferous in proclaiming), and if​ those results are known to some of the sample contributors (as has been claimed), and if Dr. K is very concerned for the creature's welfare (as evidenced by her organizing a Sasquatch Protection Group), then why are those same sample contributors and Dr. Ketchum not all up in the grill of the TBRC (like, BIG TIME?!?). It seems that if all those conditional statements above are true (as some "Bigfoot are humans" proponents maintain), then withholding that info from the TBRC and others who are actively trying to harvest a specimen would make those who know BF=people complicit in murder if a specimen is successfully collected, no? 1
southernyahoo Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 The TBRC would consider people like that getting in their grill to be emotional romanticists who have no proof. Their defense would be that of ignorance until proven otherwise.
Bonehead74 Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) Wouldn't those who are convinced that they have unambiguous and irrefutable proof that BF=human be obligated to share it with those who are attempting to kill one, and if it is ignored by the potential murderers, then wouldn't those holders of proof be further obligated to begin a wider campaign of disclosure and dissemination to do anything, NDA's-be-damned, to prevent a hairy person from being killed? If that's happening, I haven't seen it.. Edited October 7, 2012 by Bonehead74
southernyahoo Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Disclosing information which would be coming from laymen and dismissible in their eyes would only jeopardize publication of said information in a journal. Honestly, if the these "nice folks" as Mr. Branson has called them are speaking to them around camp, the TBRC should have the good sense not to murder them. They can't put that on people under NDA.
Bonehead74 Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Dr. Ketchum is a layperson? Or would be so received? I assume you're not saying that being published in a journal is a higher priority than preventing a murder. My point is, if the TBRC refuses delivery of the irrefutable fact that BF=human, then shouldn't that fact be more widely proclaimed to force the issue? If not, then I doubt that such unimpeachable proof exists. 1
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Well one would think, the least the TBRC could do was wait on their own DNA results to decide policy. For all we know , that might be what they are doing.
southernyahoo Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 There is no legal action that can be taken until a dead specimen is produced and determined to be human, or if Dr. Ketchum's paper actually proves another hairy and wild type of human exists, which would not be complete or enforcable until publication. I'm sure the TBRC would ignore anything else, and cite their right to do so. The only thing that can done is to appeal to reason.
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Folks, please put this thread back on track. This is not the place to discuss genetics. Thanks in advance.
bipedalist Posted October 7, 2012 BFF Patron Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) If bigfoot are some form of human (as some insist), and if Dr. Ketchum's research demonstrates this (as some are quite vociferous in proclaiming), and if​ those results are known to some of the sample contributors (as has been claimed), and if Dr. K is very concerned for the creature's welfare (as evidenced by her organizing a Sasquatch Protection Group), then why are those same sample contributors and Dr. Ketchum not all up in the grill of the TBRC (like, BIG TIME?!?). It seems that if all those conditional statements above are true (as some "Bigfoot are humans" proponents maintain), then withholding that info from the TBRC and others who are actively trying to harvest a specimen would make those who know BF=people complicit in murder if a specimen is successfully collected, no? I think answers would be interesting following up this line of questioning. Moreover, I guess my larger question, does the AIBR, Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers then follow this same Wood Ape stance in their screening for membership or interpretational philosophies and why, if so? since there is just as much evidence that Sasquatch is a wood ape (if not less) as there is that it is a hominoidal similar in appearance to some form of homo throwback. Edited October 7, 2012 by bipedalist
southernyahoo Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Hairyman, did I read somewhere that someone heard tummy gurgles in area X as part of their experiences there with woodapes? I've recorded something similar in my field efforts and also associated with speech. Just checking my memory here.
Bonehead74 Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 There is no legal action that can be taken until a dead specimen is produced and determined to be human, or if Dr. Ketchum's paper actually proves another hairy and wild type of human exists, which would not be complete or enforcable until publication. I'm sure the TBRC would ignore anything else, and cite their right to do so. The only thing that can done is to appeal to reason. I'm appealing to morality, not legality. Could Hairy Man or Bipto confirm that no such proof has been presented to the TBRC?
southernyahoo Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) The only proof they would be privy to would be the results of their own testing. I know that their Chairman of the board has or had samples from the same place I do, though it doesn't sound like they've submitted those for testing. I'm appealing to morality, not legality. Well if my morals were offended, what would I do about it without the power of proof in my back pocket, all published and certified by academia? Edited October 7, 2012 by southernyahoo
Recommended Posts