The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

Actually the premise that sasquatches have modern human DNA IS a testable hypothesis, but to test it you WOULD have to obtain a fresh specimen to complete the logic--"this sample comes from this creature, this sample is human, therefore this creature (no matter how hairy, big, apelike or whatever) IS HUMAN." But no one said doing the test would be easy. Neither was it easy to test some of Einstein's hypotheses, which when tested years later, turned out to be excellent.

If sasquatches were proven to have modern human DNA, then they would be modern humans, no matter what they look like. We would have to shift our definition of those words, and create two different species names for modern humans. Currently there is only one. There are many archaic humans, though. Maybe one of the archaic humans is actually a modern human that has survived to the present time, and we just have to somehow prove it. I think it would take not only a DNA sample, and a recent part of a body, but also a good look at the bone structure, since many archaic humans were identified as such not by DNA data but by bone morphology. In other words what you need is a recent skeleton of a BF to compare with. Not only would such a skeleton have to be proven to have come from a bigfoot (by provenance) but you would also have to prove it was recent, as in, not old and simply well preserved. While most archaic human bones are fossilized, some have been recent enough to actually be real bones. The Liang Bua cave remains of Homo floresiensis (Hobbit man) were actual bones, though very very fragile. I think the age they gave was 12 to 18 thousand years old.

If they sequenced the whole genome for each sample they might be able to ascertain relatedness to modern populations of humans and/or apes. From what I've been reading there doesn't appear to be any statement to the effect that they did this. I'm not sure how much mitochondrial DNA can tell us about this sort of relationship.

If bigfoot is a human then I'd expect a lot of the DNA to match modern samples pretty closely. If bigfoot is an australopithecine then I would expect some human genes but plenty of genes that are more ape-like and quite a few genes that are different from both groups. If bigfoot is a gigantopithecus then I'd expect most of the DNA to resemble other apes more than human DNA.

I am suspecting that if bigfoot is real then it probably descends from australopithecines or a very early hominid like Homo habilis. If I remember correctly H. habilis made stone tools which bigfoot does not appear to do. So I'm really leaning towards australopithecines. Two or three million years can go a long way adapting a small bipedal savannah ape to life in a forest with predators around every tree. This would accommodate the rumours of human DNA as humans evolved from australopithecines.

I am also intrigued by the reports of quadrupedal locomotion in conjunction with bipedality. That would require a lot of evolution to go from our bipedal only anatomy to one that allows quadrupedal as well. I'm not sure neanderthal or sapiens could evolve that in less than a million years or so and neither of those species has (had) been around that long. Of course that could just be my lack of imagination but it is a big difference. But for sure a quadrupedal genome would look very different from ours.

[Guest vilnoori]

Here is a link to the Nova program that deals with the discovery and identification of H. floresiensis. If Ketchum's and others' discovery is as well studied and scrutinized it will have similar results. It is also valuable to look at to get an idea of just how important bone morphology (shape, form) is to identification of human species. Enjoy!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/alien-earth.html

However, just a note, anthropologists these days are thinking that H. floresiensis was an earlier offshoot of the human tree, and was actually not descended from H. erectus but from a much earlier lineage, perhaps H. habilis or even an unknown earlier one. It may not have even undergone island dwarfism at all, but been part of the original stock from which all later human species came.

Here is a rather famous chart of the knowns of mDNA in human species, both archaic and current:

It shows neanderthals, hobbits and denisova man as well in terms of DNA relatedness.

Part of the discussion of DNA would have to deal with hybridism. Both Denisovans and Neanderthals hybridized (not extensively, but some) with later waves of our kind of humans. We know this because of overlapping areas of DNA in existing human populations. If all modern sasquatches are results of previous hybridization with our own species, then the door is wide open, unfortunately. They could totally be morphologically (phenotypically) like archaic humans (tool-poor asian H. erectus, say) but genotypically more like us.

An awful lot of typical human behaviour and even locomotion is due to cultural build-up. Human babies brought up by animals cannot talk or even walk upright, never mind tool use. These characteristics must be taught by human parents. While certain genes must be present for upright walking and speech to be possible, long ago perhaps genetically modern humans existed that were incapable of doing those things because the cultural knowledge was not present. Maybe sasquatches too fit into that category. Until we have a sasquatch baby and try to raise it to live like we do, we will never know.

[Guest Jodie]

I know I wouldn't want that job, regular kids get on my nerves, much less a bigfoot toddler.

I'm just throwing this out here as a fanciful alternative. You know they tell us that we, modern humans, have been around in our present form for about 50K years. Yet it has only been in the last few hundred years that we have developed a high tech society.

Now according to some of the shows I've seen on the Discovery Channel, not that they are always accurate, but....a modern day society's buildings, most artifacts, etc, would deteriorate in a matter of a 100 years, or so, should civilization fall apart for whatever reason.

That said, does it sound reasonable that there has never been some kind of previous civilization that was equal or perhaps may have surpassed us in some forms of technology? Because I find the thought that we have been running around the jungles, woods, and deserts for the past 49,000 years with just wood and stone tools and weapons to be ridiculous.

So my vote is that bigfoot is an artificial genetic creation, a chimera of some kind, that was designed by a previous civilization to work. It may have been cheaper to breed and cultivate bilological entities than it was to build machines for work in their economy.

Needless to say, I wonder if that was the untestable hypothesis.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Jodie

[bipedalist]

Human babies brought up by animals cannot talk or even walk upright, never mind tool use.

Before I plus one the post from which I clipped this quote Vil., do you mind providing a source citation(s)? TIA

[Guest Stubstad]

I think the most likely source of sasquatch DNA and sasquatch him/herself is: Homo Heidelbergensis and/or "Rhodesia Man". See: http://voices.yahoo.com/the-origins-saquatch-bigfoot-as-evidenced-in-10509269.html

As far as the other speculations above go, I do not have 100% proof that sasquatch exists (but fairly persuasive evidence). To know what it is, the nuclear genome will be needed.

It is unlikely as far as I'm concerned that it is related to the great apes whatsoever (other than to the extent we modern humans are).

So far, we just don't know or even have a "working hypothesis". First, the data are needed.

Richard

Edited December 8, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest vilnoori]

Before I plus one the post from which I clipped this quote Vil., do you mind providing a source citation(s)? TIA

Just google feral children, but be careful to note the age at which a child went feral. Remember that babies learn to walk from 10 months to somewhere in the 2nd year, that is very early, and some feral children were lost after that age. Talking is also a fairly early achievement.

http://listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/

[Guest parnassus]

Here is a link to the Nova program that deals with the discovery and identification of H. floresiensis. If Ketchum's and others' discovery is as well studied and scrutinized it will have similar results. It is also valuable to look at to get an idea of just how important bone morphology (shape, form) is to identification of human species. Enjoy!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/alien-earth.html

However, just a note, anthropologists these days are thinking that H. floresiensis was an earlier offshoot of the human tree, and was actually not descended from H. erectus but from a much earlier lineage, perhaps H. habilis or even an unknown earlier one. It may not have even undergone island dwarfism at all, but been part of the original stock from which all later human species came.

Here is a rather famous chart of the knowns of mDNA in human species, both archaic and current:

...

It shows neanderthals, hobbits and denisova man as well in terms of DNA relatedness.

Part of the discussion of DNA would have to deal with hybridism. Both Denisovans and Neanderthals hybridized (not extensively, but some) with later waves of our kind of humans. We know this because of overlapping areas of DNA in existing human populations. If all modern sasquatches are results of previous hybridization with our own species, then the door is wide open, unfortunately. They could totally be morphologically (phenotypically) like archaic humans (tool-poor asian H. erectus, say) but genotypically more like us.

An awful lot of typical human behaviour and even locomotion is due to cultural build-up. Human babies brought up by animals cannot talk or even walk upright, never mind tool use. These characteristics must be taught by human parents. While certain genes must be present for upright walking and speech to be possible, long ago perhaps genetically modern humans existed that were incapable of doing those things because the cultural knowledge was not present. Maybe sasquatches too fit into that category. Until we have a sasquatch baby and try to raise it to live like we do, we will never know.

v

wadr, what is it that makes you think any of this is relevant to what Ketchum has? why do you think that she has any primate mtDNA other than modern human? or any evidence of "hydrid"? has she ever said so? are you aware of what Stubstad has posted? also, are you presenting the "human babies brought up by animals" stuff as fact????? really?

p.

[bipedalist]

Interesting, poor Gazelle boy!

[Guest mitchw]

Richard, in post #681 you wrote that we need the genome, and...'o far, we just don't know or even have a "working hypothesis". First, the data are needed.'

Is it the case that Wally Hersom is funding a genome study? Would it be correct to reason that he is doing this because the current DNA results justify the expense? (Note; I came to this question after reading Robert Lindsay's blog today)

[Guest BFSleuth]

Just google feral children, but be careful to note the age at which a child went feral. Remember that babies learn to walk from 10 months to somewhere in the 2nd year, that is very early, and some feral children were lost after that age. Talking is also a fairly early achievement.

http://listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/

Just finished reading your link. Amazing stories about feral children.

Interesting that they all seemed to display many traits that are ascribed to BF:

- Acute senses of smell, sight, hearing, etc.

- Capable of running fast on all fours.

- Leaping in great bounds (with a herd of gazelle)

- Catching and eating rabbits, fowl, etc. "with great rapidity"

- Preference for the dark

- Eyes that shine like a dog or cat

- Climbing trees rapidly, swinging from limb to limb

- Changed physiology: horn hard callouses on the feet, knees, elbows, upturned toes, etc.

Some of these feral children lived through winters in some very cold climates for years. Think about that. None of them are mentioned as having used fire.

They all seem to have been taught a set of survival traits by a particular animal. Depending on the animal(s) that adopted the child, they developed different traits. The boy adopted by the gazelles could bound along with the gazelles, developed flattened teeth, and ate roots and grass. The girl adopted by the bear developed a "body like a bear" and sounded and acted like a bear. Those adopted by wolves developed pronounced canine teeth and ate carrion or fresh meat only, and had eye shine.

"Nature vs Nurture" is an ongoing discussion within psychology, and the cases of feral children speak strongly to the Nurture side of the argument. We are more largely a product of our environment than our genes. In all these feral children stories the physical capabilities seemed far beyond normal human abilities.

Most of the really wild feral children run from men and in one of the examples they never did catch it, even trying to use a helicopter with a net.

What capabilities do humans really have that we don't allow ourselves to develop by living within the constraints of a civilized life?

Now think about living within the wild for generations. The process of natural selection would be at work, and we could expect an increase in physical abilities. BF et al (meaning all wild hominids) have lived in the wild for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Their abilities for fast movement horizontally or vertically or with endurance is on par with other wild animals. It would have to be of necessity for survival.

Best wishes this holiday season to hominids everywhere.

[Guest StankApe]

Lindsey reports that Smejas steak has nuclear dna of an unknown primate http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/12/results-of-nuclear-dna-testing-for.html#moretop

[bipedalist]

...

They all seem to have been taught a set of survival traits by a particular animal. Depending on the animal(s) that adopted the child, they developed different traits. The boy adopted by the gazelles could bound along with the gazelles, developed flattened teeth, and ate roots and grass. The girl adopted by the bear developed a "body like a bear" and sounded and acted like a bear. Those adopted by wolves developed pronounced canine teeth and ate carrion or fresh meat only, and had eye shine.

"Nature vs Nurture" is an ongoing discussion within psychology, and the cases of feral children speak strongly to the Nurture side of the argument. We are more largely a product of our environment than our genes. In all these feral children stories the physical capabilities seemed far beyond normal human abilities......

Best wishes this holiday season to hominids everywhere.

Yeah, and after being married long enough you start to look like your spouse too, egads...... lol

Seriously, I appreciate the comparisons but disagree on the relative contribution of nurture, we are still a direct reflection of our genes primarily......not to discount culture.

Likewise, Merry Christmas and all the other celebrations and Happy New Year to all!

So let's say some benefactor has now paid for the DNA slab from the Sierra's (or two slabs depending on whose story you listen too) to be put to the highest possible amplification and sequences.....let's say the whole genome. How long would this take on the basis of the Human Genome project as an example?

If the entire genome of such sample(s) is completed........who will wind up with it? Who owns it? Who copyrights it? Can of worms! Don't tell me the NDA is gonna cover it, not buying it!

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Wonder what would happen if a male child grew up with narwhals.

Tim ~

[Guest parnassus]

Just finished reading your link. Amazing stories about feral children.

Interesting that they all seemed to display many traits that are ascribed to BF:

- Acute senses of smell, sight, hearing, etc.

- Capable of running fast on all fours.

- Leaping in great bounds (with a herd of gazelle)

- Catching and eating rabbits, fowl, etc. "with great rapidity"

- Preference for the dark

- Eyes that shine like a dog or cat

- Climbing trees rapidly, swinging from limb to limb

- Changed physiology: horn hard callouses on the feet, knees, elbows, upturned toes, etc.

Some of these feral children lived through winters in some very cold climates for years. Think about that. None of them are mentioned as having used fire.

They all seem to have been taught a set of survival traits by a particular animal. Depending on the animal(s) that adopted the child, they developed different traits. The boy adopted by the gazelles could bound along with the gazelles, developed flattened teeth, and ate roots and grass. The girl adopted by the bear developed a "body like a bear" and sounded and acted like a bear. Those adopted by wolves developed pronounced canine teeth and ate carrion or fresh meat only, and had eye shine.

"Nature vs Nurture" is an ongoing discussion within psychology, and the cases of feral children speak strongly to the Nurture side of the argument. We are more largely a product of our environment than our genes. In all these feral children stories the physical capabilities seemed far beyond normal human abilities.

Most of the really wild feral children run from men and in one of the examples they never did catch it, even trying to use a helicopter with a net.

What capabilities do humans really have that we don't allow ourselves to develop by living within the constraints of a civilized life?

Now think about living within the wild for generations. The process of natural selection would be at work, and we could expect an increase in physical abilities. BF et al (meaning all wild hominids) have lived in the wild for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Their abilities for fast movement horizontally or vertically or with endurance is on par with other wild animals. It would have to be of necessity for survival.

Best wishes this holiday season to hominids everywhere.

hmmm I sense we are drifting into a sea of woo with this feral children stuff. Those gazelle stories (and in fact most all of them) are hoaxes. You put a baby outside and leave it and it will die. Now it is certainly true that in generations and centuries past, "defective" children and young people might run away or even be driven away from their homes or villages, and might live a feral lifestyle by stealing and scavenging, sleeping in barns and abandoned structures. But the idea that animals raise human babies is just so much nonsense; assessments of the capabilities of "feral children" is hardly scientific, as we don't know whether they were normal to start with, and the argument could certainly be made that they weren't. Sensory deprivation stories "closet children" are a completely different issue, and always involve abuse, not to mention nutritional issues. Of course the environment is important. But let's not lose a sense of proportion here.

[Guest parnassus]

Lindsey reports that Smejas steak has nuclear dna of an unknown primate http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/12/results-of-nuclear-dna-testing-for.html#moretop

Lindsay doesn't seem to know much about DNA, which makes his stuff impossible to interpret. And he doesn't seem to get his info from The Melba. So I have my doubts about its accuracy. He and Smeja are in touch, for sure. Sounds like submitters are getting letters from the Princess of Nigeria. (That's a joke, people). If Lindsay wants people to believe (or even understand) what he's saying maybe he could post a redacted image of one of these letters from The Melba. Who's the guy who quit his job and is broke? Stubstad? he seems to be the maddest....

Moneymaker and drugs? wow. I don't know but after watching him drive down that road with the lights out with Saget, I'm not gettin near him. Of course, the feeling is probably mutual LOL.

Edited December 9, 2011 by parnassus