The Ketchum Report (Part 3)

[bipedalist]

Answer

 

ZZ.  Ancient Aliens 

[Guest]

Profit is legal last time I checked
Jealously is also
Attack the science not the poster

Edited November 16, 2013 by AaronD
to remove political rant and abusive comment

[bipedalist]

Uh what part of humor do you not get.  

 

 

Or, in the words of the best comeback line ever, "son, I'm a veterinarian too, and bitches are my business." 

 

Edited November 16, 2013 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Profit is legal last time I checked

Jealously is also

Attack the science not the poster

 

 

In that case I would like to change my answer to

B: Fraud

Edited November 16, 2013 by AaronD
removed violations from quote

[chelefoot]

Melba on FB responding to the Nature article.

 

See attachment below.

 

 

 

 

At 24:25 in the Knapp interview

 

 

 

 

She said the mito was 100 percent human, now she is admitting, "a little human"  (contamination?)

 

So which is it Ms Ketchum? 100 percent or "A little"??????

 

More reading : http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/11/there-were-once-many-hominin-populations-no-not-bigfoot/

MELBA.bmp

[BobZenor]

She assumed that bigfoot had a minor amount of human DNA in the nuclear DNA like some of us have minor amounts of neanderthal DNA. It was a logical assumption that they had at least minor amounts of modern human nuclear DNA if they had a mitochondria from a modern human.  Mitochondrial DNA being 100 percent modern human just means that it would have had a relatively recent female ancestor that passed it down.  MtDNA don't recombine like nuclear DNA so they wouldn't get all mixed up over time.  It would be either/or in the case of mitochondrial but nuclear could be any mixture.  The only exception in the nuclear DNA is the part of the male Y-chromosome which doesn't recombine.  Much of the Y-chromosome remains essentially intact, minus rare mutations, when it is passed down from father to son. 

 

I only listened to the last part around the time you listed and it all sounded perfectly reasonable.  I wish she would have always been that spot on.

[Guest]

NO, that is not what she said.

 

Since releasing her paper and initial news release, she has consistently said that the mDNA was "100 percent" or "fully" or "fully modern" human. If you listen to that radio interview on the last page, she states "100 percent human." 

 

I cringed EVERY TIME I heard her say, or read where she said, that the mito was fully human because I knew different. Now that she has made this public, per the terms of the NDA, I can finally state that she told me way back in 2012 that there was very little human in the mDNA, due to crossbreeding, she said (and now most of us know that it is likely only contamination). This recent statement of hers is the FIRST time I have seen her admit that there is only a little human in the mito. It is a complete reversal of what she has said before. 

 

Because of the NDA, I couldn't say anything when she changed her story from "a little" to "100 percent." I could only sit by and watch as people unwittingly hung their beliefs on it. People's entire belief systems focused on this claim. And if you didn't buy into it, then you either didn't believe BF were real, or you didn't believe they were people. Arguments have raged over this. Friendships have ended over this. People have accepted this as a truth - everyday you can see folks state on FB and elsewhere that BF is "half-human," "human," "100 percent human on the mito side." 

 

I expected a lot of folks to get very angry over her reversal this week, but I guess they either don't get the significance of the difference between a little and 100 percent, or maybe she's now simply that irrelevant. 

[chelefoot]

So Shaboom,

All that we heard about the mito testing was 100 percent human _ which made them "Hybrid" -is  being changed to only a "Little Human" ....  So what does this mean? They are not human hybrid? or only slightly human hybrid?

 

As a non-geneticist studies person, help me understand what this means....other than she has changed her story - again.

 

Michele

[Oonjerah]

I haven't paid much attention to Dr. Ketchum this year. I didn't believe in her study. 

My favorite quote from her should tell you why: Dr. Ketchum on Bigfoot nuclearDNA:

"It's headed a little bit more toward the lemur line, oddly enough; it is definitely not an ape."

 

Human X Lemur?  Not possible.

And over a period of 12-15K years, it eventually came to look like Patty? 

Not feasible. 

[chelefoot]

_{So now she is saying they aren't half human.....they are only a little human.}

[bipedalist]

...........

 

I expected a lot of folks to get very angry over her reversal this week, but I guess they either don't get the significance of the difference between a little and 100 percent, or maybe she's now simply that irrelevant. 

 

At one time I placed some faith that she was on to something......  attrition of good people told me that I better hedge my bets.....   and now the "fully irrelevant" suits my assessment

just fine.

[Oonjerah]

_{So now she is saying they aren't half human.....they are only a little human.}

 

Melba Ketchum interview with Linda Moulton Howe

 

 

Video time: 5:15 in, speaking of the Bigfoot nuDNA.  

 

Melba Ketchum: Bigfoot is part human and part lemur.  Published on Mar 1, 2013

 

At the time of this interview, Melba's mtDNA for Bigfoot was 100% human. 

She did claim a human-lemur cross in this interview. <-: My Point. 

 

I don't know anything about DNA and only a bit about basic biology. 

Sometimes you can cross different species to get a hybrid: Ligers & Tigons. 

The two species have to be extremely close: Horse (equus caballus) & donky 

(equus asinus). Evenso, most offspring are sterile. 

 

I have read that we humans cannot cross with chimps or gorillas. It's been

tried. There's no way we ever crossed with a rhesus monkey or something 

even more primitive.

 

If Dr. Ketchum knows less about basic biology than I do, her qualifications

as a self-trained geneticist must be very suspect. 

Edited November 22, 2013 by Oonjerah

[southernyahoo]

 

NO, that is not what she said.

 

Since releasing her paper and initial news release, she has consistently said that the mDNA was "100 percent" or "fully" or "fully modern" human. If you listen to that radio interview on the last page, she states "100 percent human." 

 

I cringed EVERY TIME I heard her say, or read where she said, that the mito was fully human because I knew different. Now that she has made this public, per the terms of the NDA, I can finally state that she told me way back in 2012 that there was very little human in the mDNA, due to crossbreeding, she said (and now most of us know that it is likely only contamination). This recent statement of hers is the FIRST time I have seen her admit that there is only a little human in the mito. It is a complete reversal of what she has said before. 

 

Because of the NDA, I couldn't say anything when she changed her story from "a little" to "100 percent." I could only sit by and watch as people unwittingly hung their beliefs on it. People's entire belief systems focused on this claim. And if you didn't buy into it, then you either didn't believe BF were real, or you didn't believe they were people. Arguments have raged over this. Friendships have ended over this. People have accepted this as a truth - everyday you can see folks state on FB and elsewhere that BF is "half-human," "human," "100 percent human on the mito side." 

 

I expected a lot of folks to get very angry over her reversal this week, but I guess they either don't get the significance of the difference between a little and 100 percent, or maybe she's now simply that irrelevant.

  

Through all my conversations with Dr. Ketchum she has always maintained that the mtDNA was fully modern human. That is 16.5k base pairs vs the 3 billion in the rest of the DNA from the nucleus/ nuclear DNA. The mitochondrial DNA comes soley from the mother (maternal line) which means they had to evolve from a hydridization event involving modern humans (this is where you could say they are half human). The nuclear DNA has recombination from mother and father which she believes explains the mosaic of human and unknown sequence in the nDNA. This is true with exception of the "y" chromosome from male samples, which should be 99.9% dad.

With continued isolation the recombination with each generation could further reduce how much the original hybridization event contributes to the nuclear DNA from the maternal line.

I have felt that the nDNA from this study was just too different from modern human and other apes to make a functional entity, but the consistency in the mtDNA across 100+ samples should be telling. So I'm not putting much weight in the nuclear DNA study which says they are closer to lemur among primates.

In the future, we need to get a reliable sequence from the "y" chromosome of these samples that are not human by morphology yet produce modern human mtDNA. Should it be truely novel there, then it validates her conclusion.

[Guest]

 

  

Through all my conversations with Dr. Ketchum she has always maintained that the mtDNA was fully modern human. 

 

YES, which is why you and everyone else under that impression should be outraged over her recent story change.  

[chelefoot]

Yes SY.  What's your take on her now saying that she only found a small amount of human DNA in the mito?