Guest Sallaranda Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) The physical traits of Bigfoot, as displayed in numerous videos and photos, suggests that the species is distinct enough from humans that it shouldn't yield the results of "near-human". Shouldn't the mitochondrial DNA suggest an entirely different species? Any word on results from nuclear DNA? Edited May 31, 2011 by Sallaranda
Guest wudewasa Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 BobZenor, Thanks for erxplaining mtDNA vs Nuclear DNA. Yes, mtDNA is used to compare populations of organisms and assist with taxonomic placement, but that's about it. Nuclear DNA contains the actual blueprint for an organism. So, alleged sasquatch DNA really doesn't mean much, but a sequence of alleged sasquatch nuclear DNA is VERY interesting. Matching the nuclear DNA with the body of a bigfoot is the best course of action!
Guest Sallaranda Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 BobZenor, Thanks for erxplaining mtDNA vs Nuclear DNA. Yes, mtDNA is used to compare populations of organisms and assist with taxonomic placement, but that's about it. Nuclear DNA contains the actual blueprint for an organism. So, alleged sasquatch DNA really doesn't mean much, but a sequence of alleged sasquatch nuclear DNA is VERY interesting. Matching the nuclear DNA with the body of a bigfoot is the best course of action! Exactly. So, bottom line is that until results from nuclear DNA is released, I am not sure how to feel about all of this. Why would Ketchum be making conclusions based purely on mitochondrial DNA? It makes no sense from a professional. 1
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Exactly. So, bottom line is that until results from nuclear DNA is released, I am not sure how to feel about all of this. Why would Ketchum be making conclusions based purely on mitochondrial DNA? It makes no sense from a professional. Sallaranda, in an interview with me, Ketchum is distancing herself from Richard's leak. She basically says he doesn't know what he is talking about. I think that BF's are in the Homo line, but they are not us. I think they might be something like Neandertals, but I'm not sure. Even that seems kind of weird. The more I learn about BF's, the less sense they make to me and the more confused I am.
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Very close? He says it's 100% Homo sapiens sapiens. From your link: RayG I don't think any DNA test can generate a result with 100% certainty -- 99.9% maybe, but not 100.0%. Wasn't the bin Laden sample tested with only 90% certainty? Different test, but still DNA. Aren't humans and chimps 96% (or thereabouts) the same in terms of DNA content? If so, I would think a reasonable null hypothesis for the degree of similarity between humans and bigfoots would be >>98%. For someone who purports to be a statistician, I thought the guy's leak was worded very sloppily. And, Dr. K. claims he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'll wait for the publication, thank you.
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Sallaranda, in an interview with me, Ketchum is distancing herself from Richard's leak. She basically says he doesn't know what he is talking about. I think that BF's are in the Homo line, but they are not us. I think they might be something like Neandertals, but I'm not sure. Even that seems kind of weird. The more I learn about BF's, the less sense they make to me and the more confused I am. FYI, there is evidence that H. sapiens interbred with H. neandertalis. By definition, this makes them one species, H. sapiens (broken into two subspecies, H. s. sapiens and H. s. neandertalis), in the eye of any geneticist. Thus, Neandertals are us pretty much. I assume bigfoots are not us, which would mean they cannot be Neandertals either.
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Sallaranda, in an interview with me, Ketchum is distancing herself from Richard's leak. She basically says he doesn't know what he is talking about. Good to know. The "leaked" information is just too strange. They can't be Homo sapiens in my opinion. Based on the PG film, based on footprints, based on sightings, I'd say that they have a completely different anatomy. I don't think that such big adaptions are possible within one species. Edited May 31, 2011 by SwissChris
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 FYI, there is evidence that H. sapiens interbred with H. neandertalis. By definition, this makes them one species, H. sapiens (broken into two subspecies, H. s. sapiens and H. s. neandertalis), in the eye of any geneticist. Thus, Neandertals are us pretty much. I assume bigfoots are not us, which would mean they cannot be Neandertals either. Not really. The latest thing is to split Neandertal into a separate species. And Denisova was recently granted full species, though they bred with us too. And there are many cases of interbreeding between species, and scientists don't necessarily split on that anymore. For instance, Barred owls and spotted owls breed. Wolves and dogs breed. Coyotes and red wolves breed. On and on. No one knows where to divide a species. One way they are doing it lately is genetic distance. You are getting into the "species question," which has been an endless debate in science. No one knows where to draw the line. The "species question" is a total mess.
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Not really. The latest thing is to split Neandertal into a separate species. And Denisova was recently granted full species, though they bred with us too. And there are many cases of interbreeding between species, and scientists don't necessarily split on that anymore. For instance, Barred owls and spotted owls breed. Wolves and dogs breed. Coyotes and red wolves breed. On and on. No one knows where to divide a species. One way they are doing it lately is genetic distance. I suspect the new "species" will be it's own Genus of Hominini or possibly Tribe of Homininae, depending on the gene differences more closely matching chimps (such as in the Snelgrove Lake sample) or gorillas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Here's another question: which taxonomy will be accepted? Ketchum's as "first approved" paper? Heuvelman's as "first documented"? Where will Meldrum's taxonomy from track traits paper fit in?
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 You are getting into the "species question," which has been an endless debate in science. No one knows where to draw the line. The "species question" is a total mess. Fair enough. But my grad school genetics professor made the topic clear -- if two species interbreed and create viable offspring, they are truly a single species. That was the only answer he would accept on the qualifying exam if one desired a PhD-level passing score. My point is that there is credible evidence that we interbred successfully with Neandertals, while there is no credible evidence of humans and bigfoots successfully interbreeding (success = viable offspring). On that basis, plus the almost certain and likely significant differences in anatomy between humans and bigfoots, I doubt that bigfoots will be genetically mapped somewhere between H. s. sapiens and H. s. neandertalis.
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Fair enough. But my grad school genetics professor made the topic clear -- if two species interbreed and create viable offspring, they are truly a single species. That was the only answer he would accept on the qualifying exam if one desired a PhD-level passing score. My point is that there is credible evidence that we interbred successfully with Neandertals, while there is no credible evidence of humans and bigfoots successfully interbreeding (success = viable offspring). On that basis, plus the almost certain and likely significant differences in anatomy between humans and bigfoots, I doubt that bigfoots will be genetically mapped somewhere between H. s. sapiens and H. s. neandertalis. Actually, we do have a number of stories of BF's breeding with humans. The Indians said they used to kidnap women for breeding purposes. The women would come back to the tribe sometimes and bring the hybrids with them. They were more or less normal, could speak language, etc., but they often had long, gangly arms. Some of them were so wild that they could never be controlled. Seraphina Long was a Chehalis Indian, kidnapped by a BF in 1871, who gave birth to a hybrid 1 year after being kidnapped by BF's. It died a few years later. We also have stories of human-Yeren hybrids (there is a video on Youtube of one) and human-Almas hybrids (the Zana story). There were 12 documented human-yeti hybrids recorded from the USSR and China in the last century. The balance of the evidence so far suggests that Bigfoots, Almas and Yerens can breed with humans and produce hybrids. Difference between humans and Neandertals is 200 base pairs. Difference between humans Denisova is 400 base pairs. Denisova also bred with humans. Therefore, BF could be as far apart as Denisova and still breed with us.
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Fair enough. But my grad school genetics professor made the topic clear -- if two species interbreed and create viable offspring, they are truly a single species. That was the only answer he would accept on the qualifying exam if one desired a PhD-level passing score. There are cases of tigers breeding with lions, and cougars breeding with leopards, but they're not the same species. Edited May 31, 2011 by SwissChris
Guest gershake Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 The pessimism is not about Kentucky Project videos - they are excellent. Ketchum's paper is good and well-written. The DNA evidence is apparently good stuff. But is the scientific community going to accept this new evidence? I worry about this quite a bit. If the above are true, how could they possibly refuse to accept it?? They can't just say "sorry guys, really well-done, everything executed as it should be but we still don't buy it, do you really think there are bigfeet running around in our forests?"!
Recommended Posts