Incorrigible1 Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I have 2 conditions: ............ For those old enough to remember the original Cheech and Chong on vinyl, sounds like the start of the punchline from The Pope: Live from the Vatican. Thanks for the memory, and plussed for a good belly laugh. http://www.amazon.com/Cheech-Chong/dp/B000002KJ8/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1404772462&sr=1-1&keywords=cheech+and+chong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) This doesn't have a lot of bearing on the thread subject but interesting to me nonetheless. Us Homo Sapiens are getting more and more admixed it seems as things are discovered. this article is of the Nepalese inheriting a gene that helps them live at high altitudes: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/tibetans-thrive-high-places-thanks-extinct-denisovans-n146891 Edited July 7, 2014 by people booger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clownboy Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Ty Chelefoot. The author seems to really know what he's talking about but sadly is very difficult to follow and absorb for us amateurs. I hate just having to draw conclusions when someone is just off the charts smarter than me but can't put it all into layman's terms. I'm trying to teach myself about DNA little by little but it's like learning Chinese on a See and Say. I still like the fact that these are fact checking papers and not personal attacks on Ketchum. They expose themselves to fraud just as much by doing so and I doubt their authors would want to embarress themselves in print over a subject like this unless they spot the real errors that they and their peers would agree upon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 georgerm, Oh For Heaven's sake what a silly and clearly undefined rebuttal that you have posted against Dr. Ketchum's DNA paper! I majored in science and have a BS degree in nursing. Your rebuttal makes no sense. Hubby works with genetics and I will have him look over your posting and then an expert can decide if you are making stuff up to discredit Melba. These creatures EXIST. I have seen then. Dr. Ketchum is an EXPERT in DNA, her work puts people in JAIL. She solves crimes. She has also proven a new species whether you care or believe it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 She solves crimes. She has also proven a new species... Welp, that's it. Melba "gumshoe" Ketchum has done it. Move along...nothing more to see here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clownboy Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Susi, Georgerm's post did not say it was his own findings. It caimed it was from a biochemist with a P.H.D from Harvard. However, thank you for posting your response as it made me reread it and realise that he never gave his name. I would value it more if someone risked putting their name to thier findings. As to your feeling that Ketchum is an expert in DNA, you might want to consider that she only works in the one field of DNA extraction and evaluation. I have no problem with her knowledge in those fields, it's the conclusions she's drawn outside of her fields that I think would be strengthened with the proper experts guiding her work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 A single or very small related source of maternal inheritance is concluded by Ketchum and her team since the mitochondrial DNA is human and seems to be from one source; mitochondrial DNA, unlike nuclear DNA, is inherited exclusively from the mother.) Ketchum and her team's assumption that their data support the notion of a single or very limited mating between a female human founder and a male non-human hominid is highly problematic, to say the least. First of all, the DNA would have undergone extensive DNA recombination since the time that the human and non-human hominid mated. Secondly, for successful mating to occur, the non-human hominid would have to be very closely related to humans. This criticism seems to be a straw man, and misrepresenting what was in the paper. Though I would agree that successful mating occurs between very closely related species. http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/data/documents/Novel-North-American-Hominins-Final-PDF-download.pdf The mtDNA whole genome haplotypes obtained were uniformly consistent with modern humans. Of the 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes sequenced, 16 diverse haplotypes were found suggesting that these hominins did not originate in a single geographic location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 I have a feeling I know the answer, but why did she have such trouble finding a credible publication for her paper if she has proven a new species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 I would suppose it would be that the explanations of Sasquatch origins defies archaeological evidence to date is the biggest problem without getting into how strange the nuDNA was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 in what way does it defie archaeological evidence? Doesn't that happen regularly in most scientific fields? Look at how much new discoveries change things in paleontology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 If she exuded credibility, wouldn't another source have printed her findings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 in what way does it defie archaeological evidence? Doesn't that happen regularly in most scientific fields? Look at how much new discoveries change things in paleontology. European bones found here and dated to say 15k years ago would be helpful. Ketchum's conclusion was that the Sasquatch had migrated here from Europe because they had European mtDNA predominantly. That's pretty hard to explain because they should have more Native American haplotypes if they came here from Asia over the land bridge.which archaeological evidence would support if there were say, some large skeletons in the mix with Clovis peoples. I think the cross breeding would have to be more of a recent and ongoing thing to explain mostly European , with a few Native American and African haplotypes present. It might have been too disturbing to put that in the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) Southern, I believe you to be correct. I remember Melba telling me how odd the findings were, and how surprised she was at the results she obtained. I truly do believe in Melba's work, and I think that she sincerely posted and revealed the BF DNA results that she obtained. If Melba worked at a major university she would have had more support, and I feel badly for her that her work is being dissed as much as it is:( Edited July 8, 2014 by WV FOOTER Edit preceding quoted post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) European bones found here and dated to say 15k years ago would be helpful. Ketchum's conclusion was that the Sasquatch had migrated here from Europe because they had European mtDNA predominantly. That's pretty hard to explain because they should have more Native American haplotypes if they came here from Asia over the land bridge.which archaeological evidence would support if there were say, some large skeletons in the mix with Clovis peoples. I think the cross breeding would have to be more of a recent and ongoing thing to explain mostly European , with a few Native American and African haplotypes present. It might have been too disturbing to put that in the paper. I can kinda see what you're saying. I'm far (far) from a DNA expert but I still can't wrap my head around how BF having human DNA would work. They have many nonhuman characteristics. Edited July 8, 2014 by mbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 There is a fundamental point that I don't understand. The tissue samples were supposedly from a 'squatch that was shot. An infant squatch, the "Mother" had been hit and wandered off. The shooter stated, he didn't know what it was. Who doesn't know what they are shooting? Next question. The shooter said that he didn't know anything about bigfoot. Who in California has never heard of Bigfoot? Next question. With the mother running off wounded and these two "small" infants on the ground "jabbering" to each other why not grab both of them and tie them up. Or at least take the entire carcass of the dead one. On these points alone I say the whole thing is BOGUS!! Ketchum has been known to miss handle evidence before. That spells CONTAMINATION! which makes it worthless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts