Jump to content
Yetie9

It's time

Recommended Posts

Huntster

LOL.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Too funny! And I do have the matching front and back rugs too....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
1 hour ago, norseman said:

And I also have to beat this illness or I may never drive a motor vehicle ever again.

 

I told my wife I will find a way to tie myself into the saddle..... if I cant drive? Ill ride. I may be backwards or upside down.... but Ill ride!

 

And I sincerely hope you do, Norseman. I think I can speak for everyone by say our thoughts and well wish are with you.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
6 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

"The Denisovans might be the first non-Neandertal archaic human to be sequenced, but they are likely not going to be the last."  - Huh? Why haven't ALL archaic non-Neanderthal been fully sequenced? 

 

"I would be surprised if there were not other groups to be found there in the future,"

 

"Huh? Why haven't ALL archaic non-Neanderthal been fully sequenced?"         Because we have not found "all archaic non-neanderthal" yet.

 

http://www.digitaljournal.com/science/40-000-year-old-bracelet-from-extinct-human-species-discovered/article/432798

 

From the article on the 40,000 year old piece of a bracelet;

 

"However, tens of thousands of years later, and prior to becoming extinct, they did coexist with us and the Neanderthals for a period, and skeletal remains of hybrids, and genetic studies confirm that they also mated with our forebears and the Neanderthals.Strangely, however, DNA evidence also suggests that, at some point, the Denisovans must have interbred with an as yet unknown and undiscovered species of humans beings."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

Words matter and I should have been more precise. Thanks for pointing it out. What I meant to say is why haven't all known, archaic, non-Neanderthal DNA been full sequenced?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
40 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

........why haven't all known, archaic, non-Neanderthal DNA been full sequenced?

 

Precisely, if that is truly the reason why DNA research fails to be in front of hominin discovery. 

 

Again, why pompously come out after a finger bone is discovered with the statement that Denisovan DNA is in 3%-5% of non-Africans? Why can't that be determined up front? 

 

The failure of geneticists to be more accurate and/or honest appeared in the Kwit/Zana DNA study as well. I think their determinations were lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter
1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

Words matter and I should have been more precise. Thanks for pointing it out. What I meant to say is why haven't all known, archaic, non-Neanderthal DNA been full sequenced?

 

Because doing so would mean destroying those fossils at least in part.  It's not a realistic objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Just  some responses to offer to some of the comments and questions about sequencing fossil DNA....

 

Any who have an interest in this topic should absolutely get a copy of Svante Paabo's great book, "Neanderthal Man".  It can be tough sledding in places, but the narrative of how DNA was extracted from fossilized remains is exciting and captivating.  The question has been asked about why all ancient DNA hasn't been sequenced at this point. If you read the book, you'll be left with the impression that it is miraculous that ANY ancient DNA has EVER successfully been sequenced. DNA is a fragile thing, even when it is modern, fresh and uncontaminated. What you get when you try sequencing DNA this ancient, if you get anything coherent at all, is only bits and pieces of the genome. These DNA fragments need to be stitched together to form anything remotely useful that allows you to identify it as a distinct species. (A time consuming, tedious and expensive process) Even then, you won't have completely sequenced the genome....just enough to give you something useful.  Only after doing this will you be able to competently compare the genome sequence to modern descendants' DNA and identify which sequences are likely to have come from those ancestors. Without the ancient template to compare it with, the modern genome doesn't screams, "This is Neanderthal"!  Until you have something know to compare it to it is only just one sequence fragment in the modern DNA.  You need a map.

 

I have no doubt that the more refined and consistent the sequencing of ancient DNA becomes, the more likely it will be that we discover modern humans have inherited DNA from far more ancient ancestors than is commonly know or believed. Already we know of one in the Denisovan line, a common ancestor between those people and modern humans, that is so far unidentified.  The history of modern and our progenitors is a long, long way from being written, and we are even further away from understanding what we do know.  One fossilized bone fragment, if it holds sufficient DNA, could stand what little we do know and the entire predicted model on its head.  This stuff is incredibly fascinating, and not just because it might shed light on BF origins as well.  

   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
22 minutes ago, WSA said:

..........The question has been asked about why all ancient DNA hasn't been sequenced at this point. If you read the book, you'll be left with the impression that it is miraculous that ANY ancient DNA has EVER successfully been sequenced. DNA is a fragile thing, even when it is modern, fresh and uncontaminated.........

 

This reinforces my confusion on how supposedly 40,000 year old Denisovan DNA can now yield so much genetic information, yet hairs from an apelike nest in a PNW rainforest testing consistently as "human", and very fresh, cannot do likewise. It is repeatedly called "human", and dismissed/discarded without another word.

 

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/denisovan/

 

Why Am I Denisovan?..........

Edited by Huntster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Hunster>>>>Yes, one would ask that question, sure. I have too, of course, and I've already stated my conclusion up-thread.

 

But in a larger sense,  the subjective pre-suppositions of the person doing the sequencing is no doubt a huge factor. So, what do I mean by that? It is sort of like the old adage that when you are holding a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you are holding a fossil that you are fairly certain (based on morphology) is not a modern human, you'll definitely be looking for divergence in the genome from modern humans. If, on the other hand, you consider a purported BF sample to be anything but that, the first indication it is modern human, or contaminated by modern human DNA, it gets discarded and discounted. It would take somebody with a different mindset to drill down past that initial result and possibly look for the discrete and non-obvious differences by sequencing the entire genome.  What it takes, I think, is for the scientist to at least be neutral on the probability of BF. Even better is a scientists who is fairly convinced the sample has morphologic dissimilarities from modern humans (like hair follicle appearance) to not be mislead by the initial results.  Or, as I describe it, be as open minded as possible and to not blame the data if it doesn't tell you what the results "should" be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
4 minutes ago, WSA said:

........It is sort of like the old adage that when you are holding a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you are holding a fossil that you are fairly certain (based on morphology) is not a modern human, you'll definitely be looking for divergence in the genome from modern humans. If, on the other hand, you consider a purported BF sample to be anything but that, the first indication it is modern human, or contaminated by modern human DNA, it gets discarded and discounted........

 

Well, it took a while, but I finally got somebody to admit it...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Not so much admitting it Hunster as just acknowledging how people think, and we all can probably agree there is something like this working against BF discoveries. I don't think it rises to the level of a conscious conspiracy to suppress evidence, although it certainly can look like one. We are all told that scientists leave their biases at the lab door, but I think anyone who follows scientific news can easily doubt that as true.    

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Those same hairs were placed under a microscope and perfectly matched other hair samples allegedly from Sasquatch. The 'no medulla' uncut ends are consistent through out the history of this subject. Even without DNA this should be raising a red flag to most anyone who's job it is to determine Human hair from animal. A non cut end on a "Human" hair SHOULD raise mainstream science' interest . Does it?

 

@ WSA 

15 minutes ago, WSA said:

It would take somebody with a different mindset to drill down past that initial result and possibly look for the discrete and non-obvious differences by sequencing the entire genome

 

And those people exist, or used to anyway. I typed in "how large is the Sasquatch genome and everything that came up referenced Dr. Ketchum's Sasquatch Genome Project. You know what that tells me? It tells me that NO OTHER SCIENTIST that I know of is working on this. And even scientists in the past who noted the morphological differences were marginalized and were made to walk a pretty rough road. Even though in every other way they were highly respected experts in their field........until they attempted to use their expertise on Sasquatches. Then, across it all went South...and never in a nice way.

 

5 minutes ago, WSA said:

I don't think it rises to the level of a conscious conspiracy to suppress evidence, although it certainly can look like one.

 

Indeed it can.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
21 minutes ago, WSA said:

Not so much admitting it Hunster as just acknowledging how people think, and we all can probably agree there is something like this working against BF discoveries. I don't think it rises to the level of a conscious conspiracy to suppress evidence, although it certainly can look like one. We are all told that scientists leave their biases at the lab door, but I think anyone who follows scientific news can easily doubt that as true.    

 

I believe that most of it is conscious group behavior motivated by fear of the rest of the group........in short, heretics acting appropriately in order to avoid the flames at the stake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Yes but few if any do anything about it but come here and complain about/ discuss/condemn the science condition regarding Sasquatch. There is no consensus, no public pressure, nothing, or very little of it. But we all know the lay of the land so to speak and apparently are quite apathetic about it. Personally I don't understand that. There is no room for apathy in a subject whose public disclosure carries such serious implications. There is no question in my mind that not only are scientists fearful of the stigma and potential repercussions but the believing community is every bit as fearful of those same repercussions- imagined or otherwise. IMHO I think most is imagined. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...