Guest Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 those tiny little fruit flies which hover above your wind-fall apples share 60% of their genes with us. Would Smedja call fruit flies 60% human? Would anyone? Excellent analogy, thank you. That puts the numbers in perspective beautifully, +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Well my goodness, there is only 4 nucleotides in DNA, anything you look at is going to be 25% similar to us, including clover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Well my goodness, there is only 4 nucleotides in DNA, anything you look at is going to be 25% similar to us, including clover. Right, but most laymen (like myself) don't know that, so your post and the previous post I quoted help to put these numbers we see thrown around in their proper perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Chimps share 98% of our genes. Does this mean that sasquatch is far less human than a chimp? Again, this is a bit of nonsensical misunderstanding of the science. The only way a percentage such as this can have any meaning is if it is used in the context of "distance" between us and a common ancestor. As we (as in those of us who haven't seen the results of the study) have no idea what the common ancestor is, the figure of 10% of the way towards it is utterly, utterly irrelevant, even ridiculous. But can other apes sing?! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g9E04Ig-1U Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 All the puzzled people need to think outside the box. All will become clear when Ketchum's paper is published. I'm puzzeled, but I love to think "outside the box" and here I go. So gimme a minute...... .................okay, done. I thought outside the box and still came up empty. Suggestions? 'Thought not. Your turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 I think we've got to treat this 90% thing as some sort of scientific illiteracy in the people who have passed it on. It means nothing. Just as an example of this, those tiny little fruit flies which hover above your wind-fall apples share 60% of their genes with us. Would Smedja call fruit flies 60% human? Would anyone? Chimps share 98% of our genes. Does this mean that sasquatch is far less human than a chimp? Again, this is a bit of nonsensical misunderstanding of the science. The only way a percentage such as this can have any meaning is if it is used in the context of "distance" between us and a common ancestor. As we (as in those of us who haven't seen the results of the study) have no idea what the common ancestor is, the figure of 10% of the way towards it is utterly, utterly irrelevant, even ridiculous. Just to add to this litany of comparative genomics, we apparently share 85% of our genes with mice. Mike, I don't mean this to sound like I am disagreeing with any of your statements. I think you might be looking at it too rationally. The 90% human, if it were actually said by Ketchum to someone who isn't fluent in the nuances of the subject, logically means 90% of the way from a chimp to a modern human. It would be just the informal way to express that. That is another example of that cultural bias I spoke of, seeing modern humans as fundamentally different. 90% human would be more distant than a chimp by most ways they measure. That doesn't really square with much of the other statements. It is 90% from an animal, a chimp (zero percent human), to a modern human. That is how I read it. I wouldn't hold it against someone if they were told it was 90% human. I wouldn't even hold it against a geneticist trying to give a shorthand way of saying it to someone. It isn't like it was meant for scientific publication not that I haven't seen worse. That is probably the way that most people will see it most clearly or at least get the basic idea without a lot of explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 I have not been paying too much attention to this project and the drama it has caused thus far, although I am still holding out hope. The main problem area, in my opinion, is that so long ago Ketchum insinuated that the paper had already been accepted by a journal. If this was true, since it was so long ago, I cannot think of too many situations were revisions would take as long as they have. And if the paper were already ready back then, then shouldn't all the work be done? Please excuse my ignorance on the matter, and hopefully I am not correct in my interpretation of events. Can someone show me that I am incorrect here please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Well first, no combination of human and chimp can occur without artificial insemination since the sperm can not penetrate the egg. It would have to be forced. That's true for any great ape and human. Second, I always thought bigfoot would be something different altogether. Not human, not a relic homind, not anything we have ever seen before. If there is truth that this creature is as close as it is rumored to be, they will be hard pressed to convince anyone outside the bigfoot community that this isn't anything other than a regular human. ... Considering all the stuff going on right now, I doubt it's anything. I mean seriously, who in their right mind would forget to update the description of their copyright before it got published? first, you may want to google "artificial insemination." It doesn't mean what you think it means. second, I agree with. third, I don't doubt that they are in their right minds, but I don't think they are inspiring any confidence based on the copyrights, their content, and a number of other observed behaviors. Edited January 28, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Was it worth saying three times? Excuse me, I meant in vitro. Hummm, now its only there once...i see you caught it Edited January 28, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Mike, I don't mean this to sound like I am disagreeing with any of your statements. I think you might be looking at it too rationally. The 90% human, if it were actually said by Ketchum to someone who isn't fluent in the nuances of the subject, logically means 90% of the way from a chimp to a modern human. It would be just the informal way to express that. That is another example of that cultural bias I spoke of, seeing modern humans as fundamentally different. 90% human would be more distant than a chimp by most ways they measure. That doesn't really square with much of the other statements. It is 90% from an animal, a chimp (zero percent human), to a modern human. That is how I read it. I wouldn't hold it against someone if they were told it was 90% human. I wouldn't even hold it against a geneticist trying to give a shorthand way of saying it to someone. It isn't like it was meant for scientific publication not that I haven't seen worse. That is probably the way that most people will see it most clearly or at least get the basic idea without a lot of explanation. The 90% figure still doesn't make a lot of sense if you consider that most now place chimps as 94% similar to us while sharing 98.8% of our DNA. Neanderthals, which are a known subspecies of Homo sapiens share 99.7% of our DNA, something much closer. If bigfoot are supposed to be close enough to be another member of our species, why would it have less (apparently much less) genetic similarity? That is, of course assuming that the numbers being thrown around concerning the study actually mean anything and aren't just guesses based on flawed data. Edited January 28, 2012 by BlurryMonster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 I think you might be looking at it too rationally. Thanks Bob. I'll take that as a compliment. I don't think it is possible to look at anything TOO rationally. The 90% human, if it were actually said by Ketchum to someone who isn't fluent in the nuances of the subject, logically means 90% of the way from a chimp to a modern human. I said exactly that in a previous post somewhere.........all except the chimp bit. You are jumping to the conclusion that our hairy friend descended from a common ancestor of the human and the chimp. In fact, what you are actually saying is that humans and sasquatch shared a common ancestor with the chimps, but that we speciated. That happened 90% of the distance between us and when we split from our common ancestor with the chimps. Plausible speculation. But speculation nonetheless. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Saskeptic, you are obviously much more knowledgeable on this issue that I am. It is my understanding that there is some gene flow between early humans and chimpanzees and that it may be possible for a human and chimpanzee to produce an off spring. Would chimps and humans be variants of the same speicies? What about chimps and bonabos? I have to admit I thought your avatar was Einstein. I am going to have to look up Ernst Mayr. My understanding is that those 2 different species could *never* propagate. Where did you find this info? I fear that junk science is being touted as being possible as to the origins of BF. BF has been here since the beginning in my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 My understanding is that those 2 different species could *never* propagate. Where did you find this info? I fear that junk science is being touted as being possible as to the origins of BF. BF has been here since the beginning in my humble opinion. Here is an article from 2008 about it. Exclusive: Half man, half chimp - should we beware the apeman's coming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Here is an article from 2008 about it. Exclusive: Half man, half chimp - should we beware the apeman's coming? Very Interesting article, Zigoapex. It has always been of interest to me that, if Bigfoot does not exist, that is not necessarily the end of the story as it will almost certainly be possible to create such a creature in the future. I remember raising this issue back on BFF 1, but no one was interested in debating the issue in those days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest can Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 I don't know about you guys but the more I read about this the less I think anything will happen. Just seems like a big smoke screen to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts