Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Based on what facts that you might have? The conclusions, which have been reported, are the *facts*. Those conclusions will never be substanciated....because they fly in the face of common knowledge. Don't ask me do do this *dance* again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Don't ask me do do this *dance* again. Fear not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Fear not. That's for sure..given you posted this fantasy>>> Yes, 15,000 years ago humans were us. The pre-hybrid sasquatch/yeti, however, was not, but was "another primate." The fact that we have not yet "discovered" it in such a way as to satisfy the demands of science does not mean it did not exist 15,000 years ago (and in fact existed for hundreds of thousands of years beyond that). By "non-human" sequence, Ketchum is referring to the non-homo-sapiens sequence she found in her data -- i.e., the "unknown" primate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 With the greatest respect, ronn... What on earth are you blathering on about? Your posts are actually painful to read. You have a very odd perception of genetic theory and how it pertains to this study. May I suggest a little self-education in order to better enable your own understanding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Unless Ketcham shifts her position on this (and provides the data), this study is DEAD in the water. I have to agree that ketcham's study is dead, I highly doubt Ketcham has a study, or even has a clue about DNA, genetics,Etc... But KETCHUM does have a study and years of experience with DNA. how this one over looked detail is constantly over looked by you, is a good example of how your argument about what did or did not happen 15000 years ago, can change with one discovery, one overseen or undiscovered detail can totally turn your "GUARANTEED" into uncharted waters in a blink of an eye. Edited December 10, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 The conclusions, which have been reported, are the *facts*. Those conclusions will never be substanciated....because they fly in the face of common knowledge. Don't ask me do do this *dance* again. It was "common knowledge" that man would never fly. It was "common knowledge" that maggots were spontaneously generated by old meat. It was "common knowledge" that illness was caused by "humors" and that bloodletting was the way to cure sickness. Do I need to keep going? "Common knowledge" is not a standard for comparison, nor a determinate of truth. The study, if the reviewers are being properly objective will rise or fall based on what the DNA show. If the DNA shows what Ketchum claims, then it is "common knowledge" that must yield to objective fact. That is how science is supposed to work. As far as I know... she has NOT shifted her position one IOTA. The notion that we have an *UNKNOWN at 15K* responsible for SAS is a POISION PILL in this study. If that's what the DNA facts show, then that is what will be objective truth, and what everyone "knows" is wrong, and no amount of argument from consensus or argument from the conclusion will change that. Yes..but this has no bearing on the Ketcham Study. On the contrary, it bears directly on the study, as it establishes precedent for HSS/non-HSS hominid hybridization. That's for sure..given you posted this fantasy>>> Yes, 15,000 years ago humans were us. The pre-hybrid sasquatch/yeti, however, was not, but was "another primate." The fact that we have not yet "discovered" it in such a way as to satisfy the demands of science does not mean it did not exist 15,000 years ago (and in fact existed for hundreds of thousands of years beyond that). By "non-human" sequence, Ketchum is referring to the non-homo-sapiens sequence she found in her data -- i.e., the "unknown" primate Proof that it's a fantasy? With the greatest respect, ronn... What on earth are you blathering on about? Your posts are actually painful to read. You have a very odd perception of genetic theory and how it pertains to this study. May I suggest a little self-education in order to better enable your own understanding? He has a very odd perception of the process of science itself, given his continual insistence that what "everybody knows" would somehow trump objective DNA data that contradicts that consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 As far as I know... she has NOT shifted her position one IOTA.The notion that we have an *UNKNOWN at 15K* responsible for SAS is a POISION PILL in this study. You have to follow the evidence and data ronn1. It would be an equal poison pill to say there is a convergent ape living amongst us today which has lived throughout documented history and still avoids detection despite all the samples turned in by the people looking the hardest for it and the absence in the fossil record. It is actually more plausible that if bigfoot exists, the fossil evidence and biological trace has been misidentified. That is just as poisonous, because a whole lot of people would have to rethink their interpretations of past evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Interpreted data Mulder. You don't get to pretend you have the paper in front of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Oh Hi Theagenes, welcome to the forum. First I have a basic rudimentary knowledge of genetics and am better with anatomy and physiology, My take on Heidelbergensis is that it is related to Neandertal. We have 2-4% of those residual genes left over from interbreeding but I don't think that is for certain based on what I've read. There are some thoughts that it might be left over from a common ancestor. Either way, if the unknown is Heidelbergensis then the combination of the nuclear DNA should have some matches to Neandertals somewhere and it didn't according to what Dr.Ketchum said. If the unknown does not have a common ancestor then how could it breed with with humans? You just answered that when you mentioned that we don't have everything sequenced. Thanks CTfoot for the quick response. I think you might be misunderstanding the relationship between Heidelberg, Neanderthal, and Denisovan. The current most popular model as I understand it has Heidelberg as an ancestor of both Neanderthal, Denisovan, and us. Heidelberg spread out of Africa into Eurasia around 800K-600K. Some of those that spread into Europe became Neanderthal while others (in Central Asia?) became Denisovans. Some of those that remained behind in Africa eventually became Rhodesian Man then Sapiens around 180-90K. When Sapiens left Africa they apparently bred with Neanderthal in the MIddle East and Europe and Denisovan in Central Asia. The recent study from the sequencing of some African nDNA indicates that there was interbreeding between humans and a non-Neanderthal, non-Denisovan hominin, presumably remnant Rhodensian or Heidelberg (sound familiar?). Now you're right that it has been suggested by some that in all three of these cases the trace DNA comes from a earlier common ancestor rather than later interbreeding. The problem with that is that then the trace DNA should show up in all modern humans, but it doesn't. Only non-Africans have Neanderthal DNA and only Melanysians and some other SE Asia people have Denisovan, and only certain African populations have this new unnamed hominin. That's why the interbreeding model seems to have legs as it were. That's not to say that interbreeding was easy or often successful. It probably wasn't at all. The preeclampsia thing in particular is very interesting. I would imagine that most inter-hominin couplings never led to fertilization or when they did, rarely made it to term, but it only had to be successful a few times to leave the DNA behind. If the event took place 15,000 years ago then the level of mosaicism she talked about shouldn't be present. It would be there if it occurred maybe a couple of thousand years ago. From what I read, if no other hybridization occurred since 15,000 years ago then that genetic mosaicism would be back bred out of the line in a matter of 32 generations. It would still be possible to carry the mtDNA from a human ancestor from a prior hybridization event from 15,000 years ago as long as there was an unbroken chain of mother-daughter transmission.[snip] Based on the lack of success with interbreeding with Neandertal for whatever reasons, it seems unlikely that anything further removed would not be successful enough to produce a different species altogether. That's where I am at with this, I'm assuming she has misunderstood the data because according to Todd Disotell , had the research been submitted to the small community that is evolutionary genetics he would have heard about it. What other disciplines, besides those who have sequenced the genomes for the ancient hominids, could you include that would help you with any meaningful interpretation of the data? As described it seems biologically impossible, if not genetically impossible. The fact is, the prevailing model at the moment (while not consensus obviously) is that humans did sometimes breed successfully with Neandethal, Denisovan, and another "earlier" form of hominin in Africa, despite the difficulties involved. What MK is proposing for the interbreeding event is almost identical with what is being proposed for the African interbreeding episode. That's why I don't really have a problem with what she's proposing as for as the interbreeding is concerned. It's what comes after that is more problematic. The mosaic comments, as you said are a little confusing. The idea that this interbreeding led to a creation of another species doesn't make sense either. The hominin should not have been changed sigificantly at all from that any more than having a few Neandethal genes changed those of us of non-African descent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 The hominin should not have been changed sigificantly at all from that any more than having a few Neandethal genes changed those of us of non-African descent. Isn't that supportive? The popular descriptions of BF sound more like what I'd expect from the unknown hominin than anything modern human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I think that one thing people are forgetting is that, even as recently as 15,000 years ago, we were still "animals". We did not have the same thought processes as we do today. If a "human" female entered her menstrual period, it is quite conceivable (to me, anyway) that male "humans", could smell/sense that (pheromones), and attempt to mate with said female. In that case, you're going to have cross (or hybrid) fertilization. In other words, if it walks on two legs, it's mate-able. I don't think think they cared if the female was from the same tribe, or looked like them. If they could sense/smell that the female was in her period of fertility, then they could mate with her. Survival meant propagation of the species. Take lions and tigers, for example. Both are solitary felines, However, we have "Ligers". A cross between both animals. Why? Because they are both "felines". They didn't just walk up to each other and say, "Hey, you're kinda sexy", and one thing led to another. One feline sensed that the other was "in heat", and they did what comes naturally. Concerning the Press Release, I think that the "15,000-year" threshold was a mistake. I think that what they meant to say was, "as recently as 15,000 years". That makes more sense to me than, "it happened 15,000 years ago" (quotations for emphasis, not for quoting exact wording). The hybridization could have happened further back in time than 15,000 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Why woud they want to mate when she was in menses? In most primative cultures that was taboo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 That's not when ovulation occurs anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) The conclusions, which have been reported, are the *facts*. Those conclusions will never be substanciated....because they fly in the face of common knowledge. Don't ask me do do this *dance* again. What common knowledge? I like to deal with facts, not subjective conjecture, and Melba has facts. Dont worry, I wasn't planning on saving the last " dance " for you. Edited December 10, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I think those little lines of A's T's G's are gonna keep a lot of people scratching their heads for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts