Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 @ leisureclass and Melissa if it comes down to a court of law, I suspect all in question would be called? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I'm not an attorney - but my guess is -- I would not want to be the attorney defending it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 LOL, nope. Unless you're getting $1000/hr and drag it on for years.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 The lemur link, if reported true, is just stating that the male progenitor genome line is headed towards the lemur family line...... which isn't so hard to wrap your head around. Except for the fact that lemurs a) have a different number of chromosomes than us, are only found on Madagascar, and c) diverged from us at least 40 million years ago. We can't interbreed with chimps or gorillas, and those are a lot more closely related to humans than lemurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 It's irrelovent. MK has moved beyond that point above and is now in a position to command financial benefits after the fact. The lemur link, if reported true, is just stating that the male progenitor genome line is headed towards the lemur family line...... which isn't so hard to wrap your head around. I think we may need to agree to disagree on the first part. It is VERY hard for me to wrap my head around the second part. So, WHY would this be called a Homo sapien, instead of something like Palaeopropithecus kelyus cognatus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Except for the fact that lemurs a) have a different number of chromosomes than us, are only found on Madagascar, and c) diverged from us at least 40 million years ago. We can't interbreed with chimps or gorillas, and those are a lot more closely related to humans than lemurs. Not necessarily. We know that there are hundreds of types of Lemur species. Hard telling what other fossilized lemur remains may tell us. And this little tidbit from NatGeo is interesting. Something to ponder if anything.....this fossil was found in Germany. http://news.national...link-found.html Edit - to remove uninformed comment....d'oh! Edited March 1, 2013 by Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) "I've got to move it, move it"........... sorry, just had to add that. Except for the fact that lemurs a) have a different number of chromosomes than us, are only found on Madagascar, and c) diverged from us at least 40 million years ago. We can't interbreed with chimps or gorillas, and those are a lot more closely related to humans than lemurs. I think we may need to agree to disagree on the first part. It is VERY hard for me to wrap my head around the second part. So, WHY would this be called a Homo sapien, instead of something like Palaeopropithecus kelyus cognatus? Because MK has DNA to support otherwise. What have we got to disprove it? I don't agree with the 40M timeline that cannot be proven as correct. Remember, it's labeled as an UNKNOWN HOMININ which leans towards the lemur line, which was the closest primate line of the DNA found. MK states. "But all I can say is that we don't know where they came from. All we know is that they have a human maternal lineage and they have their progenitor male that is something that was not seen before-not to say that it is not just a normal hominid that's extinct and we haven't found any fossils. We don't know." Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) . You can question our DNA process all you want but we've provided 100% transparency as we promised and you are also challenging two highly reputable labs in Trent University and DNA Solutions Inc.. You do understand Tyler and myself didn't do the testing ourselves right? Edited March 1, 2013 by AaronD to remove inflammatory dialogue/quote 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Not necessarily. We know that there are hundreds of types of Lemur species. Hard telling what other fossilized lemur remains may tell us. And this little tidbit from NatGeo is interesting. Something to ponder if anything.....this fossil was found in Germany. http://news.national...link-found.html Edit - to remove uninformed comment....d'oh! The fossil is 47 million years old. Its finders and the popular press vastly oversold its importance. In fact, the finder's claims have some similarities to Ketchum's paper. See e.g. http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/19/poor-poor-ida-or-overselling-a/ ("The grand claims about it being our ancestor, though, can not be upheld as true. The researchers simply did not do the work to support their case, and even if their language was more reserved in the technical paper they have gone hand-in-hand with the History Channel to create an aura of sensationalism...") Because MK has DNA to support otherwise. What have we got to disprove it? I don't agree with the 40M timeline that cannot be proven as correct. Remember, it's labeled as an UNKNOWN HOMININ which leans towards the lemur line. It's not up to anyone to disprove it. It's up to Ketchum to prove it. She hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) "I've got to move it, move it"........... sorry, just had to add that. Because MK has DNA to support otherwise. What have we got to disprove it? I don't agree with the 40M timeline that cannot be proven as correct. Remember, it's labeled as an UNKNOWN HOMININ which leans towards the lemur line, which was the closest primate line of the DNA found. MK states. "But all I can say is that we don't know where they came from. All we know is that they have a human maternal lineage and they have their progenitor male that is something that was not seen before-not to say that it is not just a normal hominid that's extinct and we haven't found any fossils. We don't know." Fair enough. But it is a very, very long lean to get to lemurs, and appears to bypass many other closer primates. The maternal line, in this paper, is only based on mtDNA, which has come back human. Ok, so lets call that bit Homo sapien. The nuDNA is so far away from Homo sapien, it is essentially non-homologous. I suspect the lemur genome is many times more homologous that the sequence they put out. So, again, my argument, is not that she has a new species with novel DNA, it's that she want to call it Homo sapiens. Just nuDNA does not support that! PS. Like the madagascar cartoon!! Thanks! Edited March 1, 2013 by ridgerunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 @barncat Did she personally say it? Or the blogger at the website? Big difference. It was apparently taken off her facebook page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Not necessarily. We know that there are hundreds of types of Lemur species. Hard telling what other fossilized lemur remains may tell us. And this little tidbit from NatGeo is interesting. Something to ponder if anything.....this fossil was found in Germany. http://news.national...link-found.html Edit - to remove uninformed comment....d'oh! I found that tidbit on LMH interview interesting too (see pages back comment!) and the obvious reason: looking for an explanation of BF eyeshine/glow...and it seems a Taptium Lucidum is a first choice...something that is represented in the lemurs...and so somewhere in all primates past... my question (because I am lazy I guess and not the one to solve this) is what chromosome and gene location is responsible for the TL in lemurs and is that something that could have remained latent in more recent lines...even humans...perhaps just an off/off protein coding...etc... seems we don't really know if that type gene survived in early ape or human lines do we...with so few fossil genomes unraveled (just neanderthal, denisova and early human right?)?. So couldn't even P. robustus (or bosie) have possibly had that type gene or TL? Or even H. erectus? I am not suggesting this as a hybrid theory with recent sloths, etc...but as an explanation why some "lemurness" shows up at all....if it is a location to TL morphology we know... and i think why her phylogeny page so rejected...as the DNA shows that split a long time ago....predating any split with the ape human line... http://www.plosgenet...al.pgen.1001342 and for the possibilities...http://www.livescien...oming-claw.html http://www.cosmosmag...ure-ultrasound/ When I took a look at the divergence of taxonomy between zoologists and anthropologists it seems not all agree, and if we are talking science in court, could probably spend a good bit of change with experts and peer-review paper on which taxonomy schemes are "right" as applied to apes/humans.....or any of this... Edited March 1, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) The fossil is 47 million years old. Its finders and the popular press vastly oversold its importance. In fact, the finder's claims have some similarities to Ketchum's paper. See e.g. http://scienceblogs....-overselling-a/ ("The grand claims about it being our ancestor, though, can not be upheld as true. The researchers simply did not do the work to support their case, and even if their language was more reserved in the technical paper they have gone hand-in-hand with the History Channel to create an aura of sensationalism...") It's not up to anyone to disprove it. It's up to Ketchum to prove it. She hasn't. She has. And you haven't proven your point of 47m years old. I'll save you the effort. You can't.......absolutely impossible. Take a look at my avatar. I can tell you anything you want to hear, as to what it is. Just like the fossil evidence. Only difference is, I know exactly what I caught on thermal and will not lead you along for generations. Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Fair enough. But it is a very, very long lean to get to lemurs, and appears to bypass many other closer primates. The maternal line, in this paper, is only based on mtDNA, which has come back human. Ok, so lets call that bit Homo sapien. The nuDNA is so far away from Homo sapien, it is essentially non-homologous. I suspect the lemur genome is many times more homologous that the sequence they put out. So, again, my argument, is not that she has a new species with novel DNA, it's that she want to call it Homo sapiens. Just nuDNA does not support that! PS. Like the madagascar cartoon!! Thanks! RR, I'm a bit confused by your post. Are you saying that you think she did find a new species, and your only issue is with the taxonomy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Fair enough. But it is a very, very long lean to get to lemurs, and appears to bypass many other closer primates. The maternal line, in this paper, is only based on mtDNA, which has come back human. Ok, so lets call that bit Homo sapien. The nuDNA is so far away from Homo sapien, it is essentially non-homologous. I suspect the lemur genome is many times more homologous that the sequence they put out. So, again, my argument, is not that she has a new species with novel DNA, it's that she want to call it Homo sapiens. Just nuDNA does not support that! PS. Like the madagascar cartoon!! Thanks! You can argue, but she has the DNA to prove it. Based on your findings, for you to argue that is almost mute, . It was apparently taken off her facebook page. Found it with Cotter's link......thanks Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts