Oonjerah Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 "The Nature of the Beast" by Dr Bryan Sykes, Ch 14, "Good science, bad science."Dr. Sykes had been asked by numerous people what he thought of Dr. Ketchum's Sasquatch Genome Project. Of course, he had nothing to say about it until she published in Feb 2013. Then his review of her De Novo paper was quite negative. No scientist I, my own take is: Anyone who can imagine that the 1st bigfoot was the hybrid offspring of a human woman and a giant lemur is (rude comment deleted) just not thinking straight. Me on Bigfoot: It's homo. Doesn't have a second name yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Me on Bigfoot: It's homo. Doesn't have a second name yet. That's about as accurate as it can be at this point. Bodhi, the sample was from the Erickson project which was submitted to the Ketchum study. Yes it was very close to human (essentially was) , so that was one sample among many that contributed to her conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Did Ketchum find the real DNA of bigfoot?Was it not accepted because it was too close to human? Have others analyzed their bigfoot tissue for DNA that matches Ketchum's results? I've forgotten how the mitochondrial and the nuclear DNA play into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 IIRC, there were ~15 individual samples analyzed with a common result surfacing, the mitochondrial DNA was homo sapien female and the nuclear was unknown, as in not of any that had been previously identified. Supposedly, a major publication reviewed the findings but declined to publish saying basically the world would not be able to handle the information w/o having to make a major paradigm shift. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 You guys understand that you're discussing the Ketchum DNA study, right? Oh I think Ketchum's study was bad science which was then poorly presented. My post was about the narrow bit of info I related and in NO WAY a support of the old Ketchum study. Thanks for clarify for me Bonehead!! I will NOT look forward to any confirming studies and I will be more diligent when looking at the initial start date for these older threads (2011; I should have noticed that!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) This post might belong in the "What Branch Of The Family Tree Does Patty Belong" thread. I just prefer this thread. If Patty is homo: Patty, I'll call her Homo pedgrande, eventhough I see her feet as proportionate to her height. Patty can interbreed with any other homo: sapiens, neanderthalensis, heidelbergensis, florensiensis, rudolfensis, erectus, habilis, etc., if she can find them. Could she breed with Australopithines or Paranthropus? Maybe. I don't know. She cannot interbreed with chimp (panini), gorilla (gorillini), orangutan (ponginae). It has been tried to cross humans with apes. Can't happen, 'cause homo has 46 chromosomes & apes have 48. (I just read that.) How can Patty be homo and, alleged, still too primitive for tools & fire? Why Not? Zana was. Zana was even non-verbal. Does this mean all Almasties lack language? I hope not. Edited January 21, 2016 by Oonjerah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) No scientist I, my own take is: Anyone who can imagine that the 1st bigfoot was the hybrid offspring of a human woman and a giant lemur is (rude comment deleted) just not thinking straight. Dr, Ketchum never said sasquatches were a hybrid between a female human and a lemur. What she did say is "one" of the genes was "similar" (not exact) to that found in a lemur, and from that those making bad assumptions or wanting to malign her claimed she said sasquatches were the result of a union between the two. She's corrected that false claim many times, she believes the unknown DNA is a hominin, and I'm sure others here may know this, but anytime someone is in the cross hairs corrections on known false claims like this may not be forth coming. Edited February 9, 2016 by jayjeti 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted February 9, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 9, 2016 This post might belong in the "What Branch Of The Family Tree Does Patty Belong" thread. I just prefer this thread. If Patty is homo: Patty, I'll call her Homo pedgrande, eventhough I see her feet as proportionate to her height. Patty can interbreed with any other homo: sapiens, neanderthalensis, heidelbergensis, florensiensis, rudolfensis, erectus, habilis, etc., if she can find them. Could she breed with Australopithines or Paranthropus? Maybe. I don't know. She cannot interbreed with chimp (panini), gorilla (gorillini), orangutan (ponginae). It has been tried to cross humans with apes. Can't happen, cause homo has 46 chromosomes & apes 48. (I just read that.) How can Patty be homo and, alleged, still too primitive for tools & fire? Why Not? Zana was. Zana was even non-verbal. Does this mean all Almasties lack language? I hope not. what I have bolded and underlined , you are saying that because of the amount of chromosomes that us human and chimps/apes have. We are not matched to and are unable to mate, or is it Zana that would be unable to. I know that we are gene splicing now as we speak, if we are able to grow human ears or able to run human blood through pigs then there is some thing very wrong with what you are saying. Some where nature has provided a way to perform an un natural act or maybe nature performed a natural act that created either us as human through them or we performed an un natural act that created them. If nature created them then it was created through a single cell just like science has been saying all along. That we were all at one time a single cell organism living with in a sea of many single cell organisms. That it took time to create what we are today which leads to the saying of dirt is where we came from. Strangely the great book says the same but not in so many words , but science proves the book is right. I really do not think that language matters if Zana was able to speak since her instinct was to survive. This ability to survive is in us all and is in our DNA and in our genes and we have lost this ability. But we go back to it , this ability to survive when we are lost or when we camp and even hunt. We might do things with out even knowing it cause it is in our genes. Genes that are passed down to us by our parents that are passed down by their parents. This is how we have advanced in knowledge and how we keep on advancing. I see our DNA as a processor where switches are turned on at certain times where nature has selected and this is why we have advanced so much. Where as these creatures, nature has selected them not to advance. IMO In a way nature might have done us all a good thing not to advance these creatures or we would be living in a world similar to that of Planet Of The Apes. Humans were selected for a purpose for a reason by nature but what are we doing wrong now. Man kind is on a verge of destroying it self since we have not learned how to live peacefully among ourselves. This is some thing that wild life has learned to do with out being taught and it is all in their genes. There peace full existence is ruled by survivability with out boundaries and it is all set with in their DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I for one take it as a given that any BF chromosome is either ape (and a mating of two would produce a fertile offspring) or human (ditto). The idea that it is some mutant cross (and of course there are proponents of that idea) is a theory in search of evidence, in my opinion, and not up for serious consideration...at least not by me. I would only go so far as to say, if the BF does have some ape-human characteristics, these are behavioral, cultural or adaptive changes only, not as a result of some ape-shags-human encounter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Just some questions..... Do we have any ape-like characteristics? Or do any apes have any human-like characteristics? If either, which perspective do you take, human-centric, or ape-centric? At the genetic level apes and humans share a lot of DNA, so where is the line between ape and human? Couldn't a particular characteristic be active in ape genes, present but inactive in human genes, yet shared by both? Could a putative species have 23 chromosomes like us, and potentially breed with us; yet have some of our "inactive ape genes" activated, giving it ape-like characteristics? DNA is a fairly precise science, and as we understand more and more what makes us "us", and what makes them "them", the old means of classification seem to get fuzzier and fuzzier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) ...as we understand more and more what makes us "us", and what makes them "them", the old means of classification seem to get fuzzier and fuzzier. Yes, they sure do. Brilliant questions and observations. Edited February 9, 2016 by LeafTalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 No scientist I, my own take is: Anyone who can imagine that the 1st bigfoot was the hybrid offspring of a human woman and a giant lemur is (rude comment deleted) just not thinking straight. Dr, Ketchum never said sasquatches were a hybrid between a female human and a lemur. What she did say is "one" of the genes was "similar" (not exact) to that found in a lemur, and from that those making bad assumptions or wanting to malign her claimed she said sasquatches were the result of a union between the two. She's corrected that false claim many times, she believes the unknown DNA is a hominin, and I'm sure others here may know this, but anytime someone is in the cross hairs corrections on known false claims like this may not be forth coming. Scroll to 5 minutes. ... "Melba Ketchum: Bigfoot is part human and part lemur" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTRImzptOi4 When she said, "it's looking more like a lemur; it's definitely not an ape," I fell out of my rocker! I thought, "Holy moley!! This woman knows as much or less about biology than I do!! ... (I never took biology in HS.) How can she be a veterinarian and not know basic biology? How can she be working on her genome project for 3-5 years, and no one has noticed that she can't get it done, 'cause she doesn't know what she is doing?" I don't come in here to fight with or malign anyone. But if you knock me off my rocker, I will yell, "What?!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Evidently sasquatches are a species of Homo, on mankind's tree, not a species of Pan (our ape cousins tree). They resemble man much more than they resemble other primates. No other primate but man can make sustained bipedal walking, their footprints look so much like ours they can be mistaken for human. No other primate has feet shaped like ours. Witnesses often comment how it had a human looking face. If they weren't hair covered no one would be viewing them as a non-human species. Early man was hair covered. It's unknown how hairy other species of man may have been, even Neanderthals, because that's not preserved. I just think it's odd some people want to make them non-Homos or a hybrid between our ape cousins and Homo sapiens. The easiest explanation is they are a primitive species of man which has occasionally interbred with other species of man, including Homo sapiens, and what we have today is a relic hominid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 As I've stated, I'm more in the "human" than "ape" camp right now, but I would hasten to add the dermal creases seen in some of the footprint casts are indicative of the ape foot, not man's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I agree with everything you said, Jayjeti, except for your use of the word "primitive". "Primitive" is in the eye of the beholder. The eyes that look at us see primitive beings. (We kill each other; we abuse our children; we precipitate world wars; and on and on and on.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts