Bigfoot Dna Update

[jayjeti]

 

 

 

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?!!" 

 

 

I transcribed the video interview you linked to.

 

Question asked Dr. Ketchum:

"In the nuclear there is an unknown male progenitor, and what I want to know is do you have any information of what would be the closest of known primates to the unknown hominin male progenitor."

 

Answer Dr. Ketchum gave:

"It could be more toward the lemur line oddly enough, it is definitely not an ape, and its interesting that we found out there's an extinct mammal that oddly enough weighed 4 to 500 pounds, and also they have an opposable thumb, . . . it really freaked me out that we had lemur, I didn't expect that."

 

..............................................

 

What Dr. Ketchum is talking about is the interviewer asked her what closest primate this unknown male progenitor was related to.  She answered they found some DNA that is found in lemurs.  She didn't say a lemur had mated with a human.  She was answering a question about this unknown hominin (hominin is a species of man) what primate it would closely relate to.  One of its genes can also be found in lemurs.  Lemurs are among the primates that had a common ancestor with us, and when sequencing sasquatch DNA and matching it to known genes at Gen Bank she oddly discovered it had one that matched lemur DNA.  

 

Humans and primates share mostly the same DNA, with a small percentage of novel DNA distinguishing our species.  All she is saying is one of the genes in the unknown hominin can be found in lemurs.  She never said or inferred a lemur mated with a human, and she's had to re-state that many times.  She's also commented it's not an exact match of the lemur gene, but a slight variant.  So, all she is saying is the species of male hominin that interbred with a Homo sapien female had a gene that also found it's way into lemurs, not that a lemur mated with a human to gain that gene.  This unknown hominin evidently resulted from a branch of man that took a much different route than the branch Homo sapiens derived from. 

 

It's people misunderstanding what Dr. Ketchum is talking about that spread the false rumor of her claiming a female human mated with a male lemur to produce sasquatches.  Go find where she ever stated lemurs and humans mated.  She is talking about a unique gene she found in the sasquatch DNA that closely resembles a lemur gene.  It was something evidently passed down through a common ancestor before man split away from the other primates, of which we share many of the same genes.

 

 

...................................................

LeafTalker, I had in mind how earlier species of man who first started using stone tools are often referred to as primitive man. by the way they lived.  Natives in the Amazon are viewed as primitives by the way they live so primitively.  I view sasquatches as a species that is intellectually inferior to modern man and thus lives more primitively.

Edited February 9, 2016 by jayjeti

[LeafTalker]

Woohoo! Nice review of what Dr. Ketchum actually said.  

 

The Sasquatch people are not intellectually inferior to us, and the word 'primitive' is not in favor in anthropological circles, for good reason, in my view. But the Sasquatch people definitely live more simply than we do. With that, I agree whole-heartedly.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

C'mon! Put on your thinking caps here. Lemur? An extinct 4-500 lb. Lemur? Get it?.....No? Then I'll give you a hint: Other than a Loris what is the only primate that has EYE SHINE?

[ShadowBorn]

Woohoo! Nice review of what Dr. Ketchum actually said.  

 

The Sasquatch people are not intellectually inferior to us, and the word 'primitive' is not in favor in anthropological circles, for good reason, in my view. But the Sasquatch people definitely live more simply than we do. With that, I agree whole-heartedly.

 LeafTalker

I believe that the word primitive  describes these creatures very well, and that we are doing them wrong encroaching on their land. This is what will happen when they are discovered and it is happening now as us as humans grow and we expand.

 

I am saying this for what this says in your article that you have posted and I

 

" Terms like 'stone age' and 'primitive' have been used to describe tribal people since the colonial era, reinforcing the idea that they have not changed over time and that they are backward. This idea is both incorrect and very dangerous. It is incorrect because all societies adapt and change, and it is dangerous because it is often used to justify the persecution or forced 'development' of tribal peoples. The results are almost always catastrophic: poverty, alcoholism, prostitution, disease and death "

 

Due to change they want to remove this or these words due to development of our race and force a race that does not want nothing to do with our development. At one time we all lived primitive and we were perfectly happy then. It was not until trade and money was introduce and became a slave to it that everything went sour. Do we honestly believe that these creatures will ever except our society? After they have been living in such a way that is so primitive that we cannot even understand. 

 

Jayjeti

Before there were humans there lemurs and before there apes and chimps there were lemurs. So the one gene in common is lemur which is possibly in ape as well as humans. Lemurs do go back some 50,000 years or maybe more and you can look this up. They were here before humans and apes and chimps so the gene is carried with in us. So it is possible that these creatures might carry these genes as well. 

 

So if these creatures DNA is like ours is it possible that within their genes certain genes are turned on that are not turned on in ours. Which makes them to have red hair , grow large and strong, turn on this night vision or more like open their pupils bigger for more light. All these things some how happen to them because nature selected them this way. For myself at this stage in my own discovery any thing is possible and all ideas are possible. 

 

If we do have lemurs why do our eyes do not have that night vision like they do?

 

http://www.lemurworld.com/lemur-senses/

[jayjeti]

That's interesting hiflier and shadowborn, that lemurs are the rare primate that has night vision.  People have wondered how sasquatches have night vision when no other apes do.  Perhaps genes millions of years ago that were lost or became inactive in most primates are present and active in sasquatches and lemurs, who knows.  Perhaps Dr. Meldrum's inclusion of large extinct lemurs is her way of hypothesizing there could have been genes way back before lemurs split away from what later became man that contribute to sasquatch's great size, but I'm sure she'll agree that's a big leap and not known.

[JDL]

Why do we retain old genes from earlier forms?  Might it be nature's way of throwing them in the garage in case they are needed again at some point?  If so, would it be strange for a species to re-develop the ability to see in the dark based on necessity and selection?

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

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.

I'm not in either camp, but the reason is their bipedal walking evolved separately (because they have a different foot structure and locomotion).

And the case for brain development is harder to make as their are no skull or brain to look at. Thirdly is a likely sagittal crest which is not a Homo feature but is present in Apes, Australopithecus, and indicates eating of uncooked vegetable foods that take lots of chewing. One reason are brain is bigger and more evolved is because a more modern diet let Homo spend less time chewing and more time thinking as well as relieving structural stress on the cranium so the skull could expand and house a larger brain. 

The fossil evidence of a Bigfoot like creature is about 4 million or so years old so the animal, if related to us and/or an Australopithecus has been evolving and developing new DNA for a very long time and probably interacting with  our own genetics, likely earlier rather than later based on the foot differences and sagittal crest. The introduction of competing lines may have given new branchiness to the related genomes that is only now being guessed at. The possible paths for DNA would multiply and the outcomes would increase exponentially. Leading to many more possibilities and genetic dead ends as well.

[jayjeti]

Why do we retain old genes from earlier forms?  Might it be nature's way of throwing them in the garage in case they are needed again at some point?  If so, would it be strange for a species to re-develop the ability to see in the dark based on necessity and selection?

 

That sounds sensible.  Shadowborn also commented, "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."

 

It strikes at the question, "How did sasquatches develop night vision when nothing else in the ape linage, including man, expresses that?"

 

Primates are unique among mammals in that we can see the full color spectrum of light, whereas most all other mammals cannot see the red end of the visible light spectrum.  Here's a link to an article that says our ability to see in full color may have developed from early nocturnal primates with night vision.  Its an short, very interesting article.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/science/tarsiers-hint-primates-developed-color-vision-at-night.html?_r=1

 

So, the very earliest primates may have had night vision, and perhaps sasquatches may have retained genes for that adaptation, along with lemurs, when most other primates don't express that trait.  

Edited February 10, 2016 by jayjeti

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

Why do we retain old genes from earlier forms?  Might it be nature's way of throwing them in the garage in case they are needed again at some point?  If so, would it be strange for a species to re-develop the ability to see in the dark based on necessity and selection?

 

That sounds sensible.  Shadowborn also commented, "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."

 

It strikes at the question, "How did sasquatches develop night vision when nothing else in the ape linage, including man, expresses that?"

 

Primates are unique among mammals in that we can see the full color spectrum of light, whereas most all other mammals cannot see the red end of the visible light spectrum.  Here's a link to an article that says our ability to see in full color may have developed from early nocturnal primates with night vision.  Its an short, very interesting article.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/science/tarsiers-hint-primates-developed-color-vision-at-night.html?_r=1

 

So, the very earliest primates may have had night vision, and perhaps sasquatches may have retained genes for that adaptation, along with lemurs, when most other primates don't express that trait.  

 

Very interesting, lemurs are our ancestors, so perhaps a hominoid would only have had to redevelop a large retina again.

[JDL]

Or, for that matter, a normal retina in a large eye.

 

I hadn't considered that they sheer size of the eye could contribute to enhanced visual capability.

Edited February 12, 2016 by JDL

[MIB]

JDL -

 

Same thing with cranial capacity.   The sheer size, even if the proportions are different, might provide them with frontal lobes of similar size to ours.   And, if so, the next reasonable thought is ... what the heck are they doing with the rest of that massive through differently-proportioned volume?

 

MIB

[JDL]

Might explain some things.

[jayjeti]

JDL -

 

Same thing with cranial capacity.   The sheer size, even if the proportions are different, might provide them with frontal lobes of similar size to ours.   And, if so, the next reasonable thought is ... what the heck are they doing with the rest of that massive through differently-proportioned volume?

 

MIB

 

As in the case with Patty, she seemed to have a sloped, receding forehead and a vaulted cranium.  It would seem to me that she's lacking the frontal lobes where we Homo sapiens conduct a lot of our reasoning and abstract thought.  Our larger frontal lobes is what sets us apart from earlier species of man, of which sasquatches may be descended from.  But good point about what is it doing with all that other volume of brain.  Our vision is processed in the back of our brain for one, motor skills are in the top of the brain.  

[ShadowBorn]

Jayjeti

I am not sure about your assessment of patty and her receding fore head. By her actions alone on that day shows she acted rationally where we still do not believe if she is real or not. That to me does not show a creature lacking frontal lobe. It shows that she was rational as she walked away as well as showed thought not to charge. It also shows a natural animal instinct not to run or it may become prey, so it walked away at a steady pace so that it would not be chased. I was not there but the two who were know. All we have is film that has been converted that we can compare with. This is just one type of them that we know.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

ShadowBorn, they still have a frontal lobe, just not as well developed. (in theory)

They can still posses advanced reasoning and abstraction, math (visual spatial) language (everything communicates)

They just don't need the processing power there for social complexity (administrative)

Older forms of man had larger cranial capacity than we do and is still present in some older populations still existing.

These had to be smarter as living in small communities was much harder and required a lot of intelligence.

City bred man has better social reasoning (frontal again) and the evolutionary advantage of large civilization groups outweighs the loss of a certain amount of brain volume. Besides brain is a huge drain on energy so there is also an advantage, up to a certain point, of not maintaining a super computer VS a mainframe.