Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 Is there a way to show how this hybridization works in other species and compare this to how it would relate to bigfoot?
Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 that is the point, it can't work. There are many problems with this hypothesis. If I am to understand ketchum's hypothesis, is that an unknown primate that is not related to man or apes somehow evolved to be able to hybridize with humans. If this is incorrect, let me know. This whole thing is impossible. Species don't converge, they diverge. Longer the time of divergence, the more different their genetic makeup become. If they are not related to apes, then that divergence is far too great to be able to hybridize with humans. Now don't confuse this with convergent evolution. Convergent evolution is when two separate unrelated species occupy similar niches and end up looking very similar, but they could never hybridize.
Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 She threw out the claim that the unknown male contributor was closer to lemur, then made the throw away statement about extinct 500lb. lemurs, I guess to suggest that breeding would somehow be possible, which we know could not be true. If chimps are are closest living relatives and we diverged from them seven million years ago and cannot breed with them, then lemurs who diverged from us 50 million years ago, no matter the size could not be a candidate. Is it more likely that bigfoot is simply just a relic hominid than a hybrid since the results of hybridization would result in a diverse population?
Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 From what I know of the anatomy of BF, it is not an ape nor is it an hominid. It is a new world primate. It developed bipedalism independently from humans. Their bipedalism is completely different from ours. The separation between new world and old world primates is 35 million years.
Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 This is a bad example: Dolphins and sharks look similar, but obviously evolved independently since one is a mammal and one is fish. They look similar because they evolved to exploit the same environment? We would be way closer to new world monkeys, than a shark is to a dolphin I know, but this is what you are saying? Since we are back on the ground floor after Melba, I like the idea of taking this on again. If bigfoot evolved independently from new world monkeys, then no hybridization would be possible between bigfoot and humans, modern or relic? If this split happened so long ago and they have independently evolved into something that looks like us, but is not, and exploits the same environment as us, that makes a lot of sense. 35 million years is a long time to evolve. They would have time to become smart, self aware, and maybe evolve some of the other attributes that they possess that we can’t understand.
Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 exactly. Actually I think Ketchum has some good data, the nuclear DNA. The Mitochondria DNA is obviously contamination.
Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 Could this be something that over 35 million years could have evolved into bigfoot and developed bipedalism independently? The Aotidae are the night monkeys (also referred to as the owl monkeys). Members of this group live in high elevation habitats and therefore have thicker fur than other monkeys. They are nocturnal and have large eyes which enable them to see better in low light.
Guest wudewasa Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 From what I know of the anatomy of BF, it is not an ape nor is it an hominid. It is a new world primate. It developed bipedalism independently from humans. Their bipedalism is completely different from ours. The separation between new world and old world primates is 35 million years. Wow, so you have examined the body of a sasquatch to arrive at you above conclusions?
Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 It's good to look at this from a fresh perspective.
Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) Wow, so you have examined the body of a sasquatch to arrive at you above conclusions? From hand prints, it is obvious that BF does not have opposable thumbs. Krantz, Meldrum and Green all confirm this. There are observations reported that substantiate this also. The PGF show a real BF walking briskly away. As it walks away, you can see the entire sole of the foot. Observe a person walking away from you. Can you see the entire sole of the foot? NO! Tracks of BF are in a straight line indicating a swivel knee locomotion. Our tracks are never is a straight line. All old world primates, except the most primitive like lemurs and aye ayes, have opposable thumbs. All new world primates except spider monkeys have psuedo-opposable thumbs. Spider monkeys have lost their thumbs. This is straight forward systematics and conforms to evolutional theory. Edited March 12, 2013 by OHZoologist
Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 exactly. Actually I think Ketchum has some good data, the nuclear DNA. The Mitochondria DNA is obviously contamination. I agree with you about the mtDNA, but my understanding is the nDNA is junk as well. If you BLAST it, it comes up as a mix of bear and human. Unless there was some pig DNA in there that I missed, my guess is MK's sample was just what Smeja said it was - a bear with human contamination - and not a new species.
Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 I agree with you about the mtDNA, but my understanding is the nDNA is junk as well. If you BLAST it, it comes up as a mix of bear and human. Unless there was some pig DNA in there that I missed, my guess is MK's sample was just what Smeja said it was - a bear with human contamination - and not a new species. Well I don't know anything about her nuDNA samples. The fact that she said the nuDNA showed that it was not related to human or apes is something I would agree with.
Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 I think we we can agree on, is nothing can be gleaned from her work and we are back to new hyphotheses.
Guest wudewasa Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 From hand prints, it is obvious that BF does not have opposable thumbs. Krantz, Meldrum and Green all confirm this. There are observations reported that substantiate this also. The PGF show a real BF walking briskly away. As it walks away, you can see the entire sole of the foot. Observe a person walking away from you. Can you see the entire sole of the foot? NO! Tracks of BF are in a straight line indicating a swivel knee locomotion. Our tracks are never is a straight line. All old world primates, except the most primitive like lemurs and aye ayes, have opposable thumbs. All new world primates except spider monkeys have psuedo-opposable thumbs. Spider monkeys have lost their thumbs. This is straight forward systematics and conforms to evolutional theory. 1) PURPORTED hand prints 2) ASSUMING the PGF is an actual sasquatch I am not assuming on both accounts. Get a body and then we'll have the FACTS
Guest Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 1) PURPORTED hand prints 2) ASSUMING the PGF is an actual sasquatch I am not assuming on both accounts. Get a body and then we'll have the FACTS PGF would be hard to fake. try walking so you expose the whole sole of your foot.
Recommended Posts