Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 MK was stating results she found in the DNA. If people don't have a clue about DNA and the concept of it, they should remain quiet and learn. Actually, I think it is a good idea for people who don't understand DNA to ask questions. Some people on this forum have different expertise than others. Some in DNA, some in biology, other have good practical sense of things. I am here to learn, and to put forth my evaluation of things based on my expertise and training. Some like this, some find this antagonistic. I am open to debate the subject. I have read the manuscript several times, as I am sure you have. I have a number of issues with the science she is putting forward in her paper. But that is what one does when one publishes science. If she did not want this, why then engage in and put this forward as science. Because she wants science to recognize her accomplishments. She wants credit for proving Sasquatch. This is what we are doing - evaluating her science. In the end, it will be reproduced or not, and if she got it correct, well I have mentioned my capitulation a few pages back. So evaluate her science, and then put forth your debate. I am getting a bit weary of some on this thread, but have tried to remain civil, and focus on the facts. I am sure there are moments I have strayed, where I have gone into my non-professional psychological evaluation of MKs motives. I may be right, I may be wrong. Who knows, perhaps she has even other motives that go well above bigfoot, money, and all of us. I don't know. So we can continue to discuss the points of the paper, or I can retreat back into lurkerville and people can discuss their mutual admiration of this paper and how scientists just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 So we can continue to discuss the points of the paper, or I can retreat back into lurkerville and people can discuss their mutual admiration of this paper and how scientists just don't get it. Please don't take a trip to lurkersville. It's nice to have someone on here to explain science to us liberal arts majors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 No, I don't think she has found a species with the genome she is suggesting. But the conclusions of the paper do not support the naming of the species Homo sapies congnatum. I can not prove the contig is wrong (it make no biological sense to me the way it is) without access to the raw data. But if it was right, it would not be a Homo sapiens. I hope this makes more sense. Supposing one could definitively tie the mtDNA to the novel nuclear sequences, what then would it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Supposing one could definitively tie the mtDNA to the novel nuclear sequences, what then would it be? Homo Sapien Impossiblus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 ^ The "novel nuclear sequences" would still appear human/bear/misc-contamination, barring full release of the data set obviously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Supposing one could definitively tie the mtDNA to the novel nuclear sequences, what then would it be? Good question. I would think that the nuDNA would take precedence over the mtDNA for establishment of the species. I wanted to look at the mtDNA sequences more thoroughly but the full sequences were not available. I want to go back and check how much Neanderthal or Denisovans deviated from modern human. I still believe that a new subspecies of Homo sapiens would need to be more homologous than what has been reported. If it all held up as presented, I really don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Good question. I would think that the nuDNA would take precedence over the mtDNA for establishment of the species. I wanted to look at the mtDNA sequences more thoroughly but the full sequences were not available. I want to go back and check how much Neanderthal or Denisovans deviated from modern human. I still believe that a new subspecies of Homo sapiens would need to be more homologous than what has been reported. If it all held up as presented, I really don't know. Would the mtDNA at least put it in the homo genus, though? Edited March 4, 2013 by leisureclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Would the mtDNA at least put it in the homo genus, though? I have problems imagining how the mtDNA could be human and the nuDNA be so novel (as presented) - my gut feeling is that it will end up in the Homo genus, but not sapiens. I think it is still being debated in Neanderthal is a separate species or a subspecies. Based on the reported physical attributes, I would say it should be further removed than Neanderthal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) I have seen bears in the wild to rival anyone here. If you toss off Jacobs as a bear, I immediately either (1) mistrust your credentials or (2) recognize it as an effort to appear "skeptical" (shame on you, Jeff, Loren, and Alton, but I at least understand the pressure). Now who's using personal incredulity. Anyway, the PGC says its a skinny bear with mange and I'm taking them over you. You understand right? Mr. "Its Meldrum over you anyday." Edited March 4, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Now who's using personal incredulity. Anyway, the PGC says its a skinny bear with mange and I'm taking them over you. You understand right? Mr. "Its Meldrum over you anyday." PGC, LOL, They won't even admit to mountian lions passing through the state, witch I know for a fact to be 100% wrong, so for them to even entertain the Idea of bigfoot are extremely slim to none. At one time they even said that there were no coyotes in P.A. now we over run with them. PGC is one the most dishonest organizations in the state, and with Pa's hitory, that's saying something. Edited March 4, 2013 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 PGC, LOL, They won't even admit to mountian lions passing through the state, witch I know for a fact to be 100% wrong, so for them to even entertain the Idea of bigfoot are extremely slim to none. Well that settles it, some anonymous person on the interest says their are cougars in Penn so the PGC should just accept it. Never mind a body. At one time they even said that there were no coyotes in P.A. now we over run with them. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=598430&mode=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Well that settles it, some anonymous person on the interest says their are cougars in Penn so the PGC should just accept it. Never mind a body. http://www.portal.st...D=598430&mode=2 I could care less if you believe me or not, I'm far from being alone on this,met many witnesses over the years, not, even if they get a body they will say it was pet that got loose, or like the body they DID RECOVER in CT a stone's throw from PA, they said it came from out west, OK, tell me another one LOL. Coyotes Yeah now they say they were here, go back to 30 years, they'd laugh at you if you asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Good question. I would think that the nuDNA would take precedence over the mtDNA for establishment of the species. I wanted to look at the mtDNA sequences more thoroughly but the full sequences were not available. I want to go back and check how much Neanderthal or Denisovans deviated from modern human. I still believe that a new subspecies of Homo sapiens would need to be more homologous than what has been reported. If it all held up as presented, I really don't know. Well the thing is, we've run into testing that uses mtDNA to identify species , (mostly for ease and speed based on barcode methods) but I'm glad there are people ready to look beyond it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Ummmm, isn't Ridge versed in a field that deals with DNA? And how can anybody believe a single word that Ketchum says anymore? She will not let anybody view her data. She claims to let a select few look at it, but that still doesn't prove anything. It's obvious to anybody who isn't emotionally attached to her why she hasn't released it. Aside from things like,"Robin here, BF is real, and we proved it. Don't ask us to show how we proved it because that just proves that you dislike her." She has no interest in being transparent. It's painfully obvious. She could dispel every rumor by releasing all of the e-mails, and data, but she won't because then the jig will be up. The NephiLemur is the daddy of BF, and we're just supposed to accept it, and carry on with our business. Edited March 4, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Ummmm, isn't Ridge versed in a field that deals with DNA? That's what I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts