The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

This whole charade is kind of funny. Never would I question an expert in their particular field, unless I knew for a fact that they were wrong, or that there is evidence to support that they were being dishonest. It's strange how bad hope affects logic. I have seen a lot of literature from credentialed scientists who claim that Ketchum doesn't know what she's talking about, but then those same people are attacked by the Ketchum camp because they may be snarky, too truthful, don't sugar-coat their disdain for her enough, or whatever it may be. It's completely insane, IMO.

[Guest thermalman]

From Wiki:

In sexual reproduction, mitochondria are normally inherited exclusively from the mother. The mitochondria in mammalian sperm are usually destroyed by the egg cell after fertilization. Also, most mitochondria are present at the base of the sperm's tail, which is used for propelling the sperm cells. Sometimes the tail is lost during fertilization. In 1999 it was reported that paternal sperm mitochondria (containing mtDNA) are marked with ubiquitin to select them for later destruction inside the embryo.^[5] Some in vitro fertilization techniques, particularly injecting a sperm into an oocyte, may interfere with this.

The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time. (Y-chromosomal DNA, paternally inherited, is used in an analogous way to trace the agnate lineage.) This is accomplished on human mitochondrial DNA by sequencing one or more of the hypervariable control regions (HVR1 or HVR2) of the mitochondrial DNA, as with a genealogical DNA test. HVR1 consists of about 440 base pairs. These 440 base pairs are then compared to the control regions of other individuals (either specific people or subjects in a database) to determine maternal lineage. Most often, the comparison is made to the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence. Vilà et al. have published studies tracing the matrilineal descent of domestic dogs to wolves.^[6] The concept of the Mitochondrial Eve is based on the same type of analysis, attempting to discover the origin of humanity by tracking the lineage back in time.

Because mtDNA is not highly conserved and has a rapid mutation rate, it is useful for studying the evolutionary relationships - phylogeny - of organisms. Biologists can determine and then compare mtDNA sequences among different species and use the comparisons to build an evolutionary tree for the species examined.

Because mtDNA is transmitted from mother to child (both male and female), it can be a useful tool in genealogical research into a person's maternal line.

Nuclear DNA, nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid (nDNA), is DNA contained within a nucleus of eukaryotic organisms.^[1] In mammals and vertebrates, nuclear DNA encodes more of the genome than the mitochondrial DNA and is composed of information inherited from two parents, one male, and one female, rather than matrilineally.^[2] Nuclear DNA is the most common DNA used in forensic examinations.^[3]

This whole charade is kind of funny. Never would I question an expert in their particular field, unless I knew for a fact that they were wrong, or that there is evidence to support that they were being dishonest. It's strange how bad hope affects logic. I have seen a lot of literature from credentialed scientists who claim that Ketchum doesn't know what she's talking about, but then those same people are attacked by the Ketchum camp because they may be snarky, too truthful, don't sugar-coat their disdain for her enough, or whatever it may be. It's completely insane, IMO.

Do you think a lot of it is because of jealousy or skepticism, by the other scientists?

Edited March 4, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

This whole charade is kind of funny. Never would I question an expert in their particular field, unless I knew for a fact that they were wrong, or that there is evidence to support that they were being dishonest. It's strange how bad hope affects logic. I have seen a lot of literature from credentialed scientists who claim that Ketchum doesn't know what she's talking about, but then those same people are attacked by the Ketchum camp because they may be snarky, too truthful, don't sugar-coat their disdain for her enough, or whatever it may be. It's completely insane, IMO.

I completely agree. It's disturbing how many of her supporters blindly accept what she says, no matter how insane, but won't even consider anything that seems to contradict her. The fossil record, the explanations that her samples were contaminated, the explanations that it's impossible for humans to breed with existing lemurs or their giant extinct cousins. None of it seems to matter.

Also, I like your term Nephilemur. I'm going to steal it.

[Guest]

Ummmm, isn't Ridge versed in a field that deals with DNA?

Yes he is - and is published. Ridgerunner posted the various journals he has been published in, in an earlier post. So, along with GenesRus and Theagenes - I am very happy to accept what they say on this topic.

Ridgerunner, I hope you won't stop posting - I, and others, have learned so much from you. Speaking for myself - you have helped me to understand portions of this - I did not think I ever would. So, please know many of us appreciate the time and effort you have put into trying to explain and answer questions. I know I can't possibly thank you enough.

[Guest]

Yes he is - and is published. Ridgerunner posted the various journals he has been published in, in an earlier post. So, along with GenesRus and Theagenes - I am very happy to accept what they say on this topic.

Ridgerunner, I hope you won't stop posting - I, and others, have learned so much from you. Speaking for myself - you have helped me to understand portions of this - I did not think I ever would. So, please know many of us appreciate the time and effort you have put into trying to explain and answer questions. I know I can't possibly thank you enough.

Seconded.

[Oonjerah]

Prolemur sasquatchicus sapiens

To become a Vet, I assume biology is required. Evolution & anthropology, maybe not; at

any rate they are not MK's strong points. She agreed to do the study, and at some point,

came to believe that Bigfoot exists. Perhaps she saw Bigfoots, at night, saw the eye-shine.

With lemurs, you automatically get eye-shine, reflective membrane, tapetum lucidum.

Many animals have it. "it's leaning toward lemur." Maybe that translates as, "we found a

spot of lemur in the nuDNA," -OR- lemurs have eye shine & so does Bigfoot, so they must

be related. [?]

Many animals have tapetum lucidum; but do their close cousins who are diunal lose it?

How far up the primate line does it come? I looked for it in monkeys, & while my search was

not complete, I found nothing. Some New World monkeys, aotidae, are nocturnal, but their

night vision is not from tapetum lucidum; instead, their eyes are extremely large.

How come Bigfoot has tapetum lucidum? Did he carry the 40 million year old gene for it, and

this reactivated, an atavism, when Bf became nocturnal? ... or, simpler, since Bf's paternal

line seems to be extinct, was Bf's dad always nocturnal and never lost the t.l. habit?

Do human children sometimes have eye shine which disappears as they mature? If so, is

it tapetum lucidum? Do humans have a dormant gene for it?

(Sans education in biology, I'm tryin' to figure this one out. Y'know ... on the Slim chance that

the finding will hold up under review.)

[Guest]

In fact - here is ridgerunners quote from this thread I copied it March 1st - and I believe he posted it the same day.

And yes, I do have publications in PubMed (Nature, EMBOJ, MCB, PNAS, NAR, JCB, NSMB, JI, and a couple others). So I feel I am qualified.

[Guest Tyler H]

PLEASE, LOOK AT THE PDF IN TYLER'S POST 887!

It shows very elegantly how regions of MK's contig show 100% homology to human or bear when BLASTed individually, but show 96% homology to lemur when BLASTed as an assembly. The lemur results are an ARTIFACT of the BLAST algorithm applied to an artificial assembly of DNA sequences. Like all programs, BLAST can only provide good results if you feed it good data. Tyler previously posted PDFs showing that MK's contigs were stitched together from human, bear and "other" sequences = poor data.

Alternately, you have to believe that now-extinct, giant, prehistoric lemurs were promiscuously fornicating with human females thousand of years ago, and that their Zagnut-craving offspring now inhabit our forests and swamps. Decisions, decisions ... bad data vs naughty lemurs! Eeeeh, I think I'll go with bad data.

Tyler, please thank your PhD friend for the time he spent putting the latest PDF together. It doesn't get clearer than that.

EVERYONE ELSE, GO SEE THE PDF IN POST 887.

Cheers,

Genes

"Alternately, you have to believe that now-extinct, giant, prehistoric lemurs were promiscuously fornicating with human females thousand of years ago, and that their Zagnut-craving offspring now inhabit our forests and swamps. Decisions, decisions ... bad data vs naughty lemurs! Eeeeh, I think I'll go with bad data"

OMG, that had me laughing. Great post Genes.

Now, listen - I know some people out there are very "married" to this 'parallel phylogenetic tree' theory wherein the prosimian line ended up producing a bipedal species. Whatever - not impossible, and I won't argue the theory. But PLEASE note this: This theory is only being brought up, due to the DNA results from Justin's sample. And we KNOW that:

• Justin's sample, independently tested by two VERY capable labs, showed evidence of exactly TWO mammalian contributors - Bear and Human
  
• We now see (via data supplied by well credentialed people who have looked at Melba's data) that Human mixed with bear will push Genbank towards indicating a match with Otolemur.
  
• Forget whether the theory can hold up or not... this sample showed NO evidence of a third contributor that was neither bear, nor human. There is no cause for this theory to rear its head, as relates to the physical evidence at hand. If you want to discuss the theory as a possibility, that's fine - but this tissue did not originate from the animal that Justin shot. If it had, the two mammalian contributors would have been unknown lemur relative, and human.
  
• If aanything, the theory that this creature is Otolemur AND human makes sasquatch even more far-fetched than it already was.
  

Sometimes I'm not sure an Occam's razor can exist in this endeavour... but if it does, it certainly is NOT for human lemur hybrids. The answers are all right here at your fingertips folks - this tissue (sample 26) is bear and human. The boots may give us evidence of what was actually shot, but this tissue is not doing that.

How would you know that CL? Have you got inside information? If so, share with us.

@GenesRus "Alternately, you have to believe that now-extinct, giant, prehistoric lemurs were promiscuously fornicating with human females thousand of years ago, and that their Zagnut-craving offspring now inhabit our forests and swamps."

That is the problematic understanding posters are putting up. No interbreeding ever has to take place, when we share some of the same DNA with many other warm-blooded animals. Some of the posters need to research and/or read up on the DNA similarities between humans and other types of animals.

Ummmm... Thermalman, are you attempting to chide Genes, and/or tell him how genetics REALLY work?

Edited March 4, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest]

But PLEASE note this: This theory is only being brought up, due to the DNA results from Justin's sample.

Tyler I will admit to not listening to the interview where Melba discusses this. So, did she say the "lemur" results came from Justin's sample only?

[Guest Tyler H]

leisureclass, not to be picking on you, but I knew without looking at the name of the poster, that you were new to this. Bear habitat and bigfoot habitat are pretty much the same, because what they EAT is pretty much the same. If an area can support a large bear, it can support a sasquatch. I think this has been discussed a lot elsewhere, you should take a look. "5,000 misidentifications", and those are only the logged reports, with thousands more unreported. These arguments don't fly with me, which is my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

Question: if Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and Apes have 24 pairs, how many do Bigfoot have according to DNA tests?

I believe chromosome counts can only be obtained from samples that have live cells - hopefully someone like RR or Genes can correct me, and/or tell us why that is.

Tyler I will admit to not listening to the interview where Melba discusses this. So, did she say the "lemur" results came from Justin's sample only?

Good question Melissa - I could actually be wrong - maybe it wasn't just Justin's sample that brought htis up. To my knowledge only Justin's sample pointed in that direction, but maybe one of the other samples did as well. I know that one of the other 2 "full genomes" did NOT point in that direction, but perhaps the third did as well.

[Guest njjohn]

Yeah, that is a good question since I thought Ridge posted three graphs that lined up pretty well, but one was broken up.

[Guest thermalman]

Ummmm... Thermalman, are you attempting to chide Genes, and/or tell him how genetics REALLY work?

Nope, that would be a violation of rules. But I do believe his fornication statement is not accurately enlightening, when we know most warm-blooded animals share basic DNA, as further illustrated by the high percentage of shared DNA with humans and other animals, eg. gorillas, chimps, mice, etc. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8565634

There are links posted earlier that will confirm those DNA shared findings, not of the highly impossible fornication scenario, which can't happen because of the different chromosome counts between humans and lemurs.

Edited March 4, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest thermalman]

Tyler I will admit to not listening to the interview where Melba discusses this. So, did she say the "lemur" results came from Justin's sample only?

This might help you Melissa. It was posted earlier in #887 http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2070&category=Science

[Guest Tyler H]

Nope, that would be a violation of rules. But I do believe his fornication statement is not accurately enlightening, when we know most warm-blooded animals share basic DNA, as further illustrated by the high percentage of shared DNA with humans and other animals, eg. gorillas, chimps, mice, etc. http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8565634

There are links posted earlier that will confirm those DNA shared findings, not of the highly impossible fornication scenario, which can't happen because of the different chromosome counts between humans and lemurs.

But Melba's claim is that the mtDNA is 100% human... so, if the BLAST results point to Otolemur... where does that leave us?

Far as I can tell, that is saying that the maternal line was human not too far back.

Someone in Melba's camp had said to me, well before Melba's release, that two of the genomes pointed to a "wet-nose" primate, and one pointed to a "dry nose primate"

Since the release, one of my sources has said that 1 genome appears to have no "non-primate" contamination (the "dry-nosed" result), and 1 appears to have canid contamination, and 1 (Justin's) has bear contamination. We have seen how the bear influences the Human, when you BLAST it - it pushes the suggested matches towards Lemur... and bears have wet noses. Could the genome that allegedly has canid contamination be producing a similar result? (I'm just simplistically focusing on the wet nose trait of canids)

[Guest]

Nope, that would be a violation of rules. But I do believe his fornication statement is not accurately enlightening, when we know most warm-blooded animals share basic DNA, as further illustrated by the high percentage of shared DNA with humans and other animals, eg. gorillas, chimps, mice, etc. http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8565634

There are links posted earlier that will confirm those DNA shared findings, not of the highly impossible fornication scenario, which can't happen because of the different chromosome counts between humans and lemurs.

"..when we know most warm-blooded animals all life share basic DNA..". Humans share 'basic DNA' with turnips, it is just less than we share with lizards or mammals.

The fornication you object against is however exactly what Ketchum proposes. She specifically states that bigfoot is a hybrid, she then suggests that the mDNA is fully human and the nDNA is a mixture, leaning toward lemur.