Guest BartloJays Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Now that is something that I am sure John Preston will absolutely love! Classic!!! Glad I saved my plus today for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Her conversation with Justin pretty much sums it up for me. If I was her, I would give a confession and slowly slither away into the darkness that has been created. I don't think she considers that an option. She's got to dig herself out of the hole she's in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) Oh that's crazy, but an ancient human population in North America can mate with a distant relative isolated on an island thousands of miles away? Not true until proven. I'll take MK's word over your's Jerry.............anyday. 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." We know we share with lemurs. In fact, we know exactly how much we share with lemurs - 80%, give or take. http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC430288/ The issue isn't having similar DNA to lemurs. The issue is that we aren't closely related enough to interbreed with them. Agreed Edited March 3, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 3, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) For those who think "interbreeding" needs to take place for a human to possess similar genomes to creatures, take a look at this. Men and mice share 88% of genes. and 96% with gorillas. So sharing with lemurs is not out of the question. And to take it further here is a study where a single amino acid change in a protein makes a huge difference in expression (also moved to mice in this study) : http://news.sciencem...h-a.html?ref=hp Incidentally it is about a denser thicker hair coat that moved from Central China and is seen in Native Americans and East Asians....... gene called EDAR and 370a also leads to more sweat glands and other changes. All of this would have been relevant to the Ketchum study of hair and tissue at some level I'm sure. This is the abstract to the research You can click on paperflick on the right and at 3 mins there is a vid. that discusses the tenets above. Edited March 3, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 ^ Not surprising......consider we share the basic building blocks (atomic particles, I believe) with a lot of other stuff too; rocks, trees, air......but I didn't take a buttload of bio courses in undergrad so maybe I'm mistaken (??) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Humans and cats share X & Y chromes. Google the questions, there is much too much to post here. See for yourself. This is not new news...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 3, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) Sorry, what I posted above is directly applicable to the work Ketchum should be doing in the paper. It is for others to determine if it was done...... not for Google to do it (or you or I to take the point further). Have you taken a course in human genetics? What was that? I have (though long ago). Edited March 3, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Why hasn't she released the raw data? Why hasn't she released anything except her own interpretation about what she thinks the raw data says? I can think of only two reasons: 1. She's trying to figure how to stay relevant and capitalize the most monetarily. In short, she doesn't have all the answers but she knows that when other more qualified minds peep her raw data THEY will...and she will be swept aside. 2. She doesn't have any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 She now says it was a lemur that hybridized with a human to create the bigfoot species. No kidding. Check out the Bigfoot Evidence blog. Has anyone else seen the video supposedly of a squatch that was recorded by a researcher, I believe in Canada? It's on youtube and it's something about "researcher goes missing while searching for bigfoot". At any rate, he has a short clip that shows what he says is a male squatch staring from behind branches into the camera. The eyes seemed odd to me. People also comment a lot on none blinking eyes. Here's something from Wiki concerning lemurs you might find interesting: "Until shortly after humans arrived on the island around 2,000 years ago, there were lemurs as large as a male gorilla." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Delta, I think you are referring to the Todd Standing alledged pics of a hairy person. BTW, he found his way out by himself.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Why would I need to take a course in human genetics in order to understand the subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) I can think of only two reasons: 1. She's trying to figure how to stay relevant and capitalize the most monetarily. In short, she doesn't have all the answers but she knows that when other more qualified minds peep her raw data THEY will...and she will be swept aside. 2. She doesn't have any. I think you got point one spot on. I think she has raw data, but honestly, it would be indecipherable to almost all here (including myself) as it will be a comprise a file of some 300 million sequences (if that number is correct). You would need the some sophisticated analysis programs to get anything out of it. And the file would be huge (better buy yourself a spare hard drive to store it). There are many out there who do have this expertise though. She still could release a lot of the other sequencing data. I was re-reading the paper last night and realized there really was very little sequencing data - almost all of her data was put into tables, and still rather hard to interpret, and impossible to verify. Edited March 3, 2013 by ridgerunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 We know we share with lemurs. In fact, we know exactly how much we share with lemurs - 80%, give or take. http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC430288/ The issue isn't having similar DNA to lemurs. The issue is that we aren't closely related enough to interbreed with them. Maybe we aren't close enough to interbreed, but did we ever have the knowledge to create a hybrid in a lab? To answer or even consider this question, one has to acknowledge that there were advanced societies on this Earth before ours. Even though judging from dogs, cats, livestock....modern man has always been pretty good at "genetics" in our own way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I think you got point one spot on. I think she has raw data, but honestly, it would be indecipherable to almost all here (including myself) as it will be a comprise a file of some 300 million sequences (if that number is correct). You would need the some sophisticated analysis programs to get anything out of it. And the file would be huge (better buy yourself a spare hard drive to store it). There are many out there who do have this expertise though. She still could release a lot of the other sequencing data. I was re-reading the paper last night and realized there really was very little sequencing data - almost all of her data was put into tables, and still rather hard to interpret, and impossible to verify. I'm thinking that MK just MAY have something...and she knows she's on to something....however she can't fully comprehend or correctly do what needs to be done. Yet, she so desperately wants to be the Alpha and Omega in this study, as well as reap a fortune, that she's afraid to move. She needs to bring other experts in, though in order to do so she would have to disclose to them what she has, but doing so places her at risk of being swept aside or backstabbed. Thus all the NDA talk and "Smeja destroy the remaining sample" talk. To me this reeks of either someone hoaxing (which doesn't make sense for this case), OR someone greedy and is trying to figure a way to grab ALL the money and power! Which I must add I'm not saying "greedy" in a malicious manner and I can't necessarily blame MK or being greedy....It's the American way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 We know we share with lemurs. In fact, we know exactly how much we share with lemurs - 80%, give or take. http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC430288/ The issue isn't having similar DNA to lemurs. The issue is that we aren't closely related enough to interbreed with them. I think we are a good bit closer to lemurs than 80%, though not close enough to breed for certain. I have only skimmed the paper, but I believe it is mainly looking at repetitive elements, which may be where the 80%ish number comes from. I will need to look at the paper in more detail. Honestly, I don't think MK really meant to imply breeding with lemurs, giant or otherwise. Just that some of her sequencing had pieces that were more homologous to Lemur than other things. This does not need to mean "derived from" given that the same sequence is likely also homologous to most other primates, just at slightly less degree of homology (one bp mismatch is all it would take). I have not been listening to her interviews, so I might be wrong on what she is proposing. Looking again at figure 16 from the paper, it looks like she is proposing Homo sapiens are closer to Otolemur than Pan or Gorilla (taking either the distance or number of nodes between species). So maybe she is believing this.. I'm thinking that MK just MAY have something...and she knows she's on to something....however she can't fully comprehend or correctly do what needs to be done. Yet, she so desperately wants to be the Alpha and Omega in this study, as well as reap a fortune, that she's afraid to move. She needs to bring other experts in, though in order to do so she would have to disclose to them what she has, but doing so places her at risk of being swept aside or backstabbed. Thus all the NDA talk and "Smeja destroy the remaining sample" talk. To me this reeks of either someone hoaxing (which doesn't make sense for this case), OR someone greedy and is trying to figure a way to grab ALL the money and power! Which I must add I'm not saying "greedy" in a malicious manner and I can't necessarily blame MK or being greedy....It's the American way! I would have to agree again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts