Guest Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Why are we pretending that a paper will be published that will have anything of merit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Does anyone else find it interesting that Dr. Ketchum chose to address the following question on her FB page? someone asked a question that she could answer so she did. Would it have been more suspicious if she didn't answer? double think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 When you consider other primates and animals, it just isn't happening naturally, not that I ever read about, and I have read a lot on genetics even though I am by no means an expert. The sperm simply won't penetrate the egg, it's that simple. If you are partial to bigfoot being closer to human, I can see why you might view the recent neanderthal/denisovan research as some indication about what the study results might be. The rumors I heard were that the nuclear DNA was vastly different from the relatively modern mDNA, insinuating non human nuclear DNA was present. The only examples of that kind of combination are artificially combined animal/human hybrid embryo's created for stem cell research. You are incorrect in your assumptions about the chromosomes. The number of chromosomes is no indication of what constitutes the mDNA and nDNA or whether a viable or a non viable fetus will be produced. Not every human has 46 chromosomes with obvious defects. All mDNA does is code for the nuclear DNA, if it isn't programmed to code the nuclear DNA, it won't produce viable offspring in the embryo. In other words, if the circuits don't match, the lights are not going to come on. Even with the different species of humans/homo in the past, you are going to get grave genetic defects until the few that survived contributed what was beneficial to the population. I bet most intermingling back in ancient times produced miscarriages or fetal death until we got the 2-6% that stuck, so to speak, and from all appearances just from the paternal lines. I can't see sasquatch even being in the same ball park with neanderthals and denisovans just based on the morphology described. The mechanical complications in child birth alone because of size variation between a human female /male sasquatch would result in both maternal and fetal death even if they were compatible just 100 years ago. I don't think I need to go into graphic detail about why the other combination wouldn't be likely, although people can surprise you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 It works on either end of the spectrum: There's been plenty of the fairly skeptical folks telling us what is and isn't included in the report........ I can only think of one or two posters that routinely state their assumptions as fact. I think most are careful to point out the speculative nature of their posts. It's just better to avoid aggravation. That said, some people seem to have a real problem with any kind of speculation at all. I find that especially curious in this forum of all places. Honestly, there wouldn't be much in the way of interesting reading here without a healthy dose of (hopefully informed) guesswork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Why are we pretending that a paper will be published that will have anything of merit? We? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Don't get me wrong, I am quite certain that much of the bigfoot folklore can be traced back to encounters with hermits, homeless people, schizophrenics, and otherwise challenged persons, who often have poor hygiene, can behave unpredictably and have always evoked fear. These were "wild men." Men who lived in the wild or looked wild. For a moment I thought you were talking about forum members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 someone asked a question that she could answer so she did. Would it have been more suspicious if she didn't answer? double think... Assuming someone actually asked the question. I can't find it on her Q&A thread or anywhere else on the page. Triple think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 sy, You owe me a beer. It seems that every time you respond to a post of mine, someone plussed your response. As to your post comment, I don't expect specialists in genetics to get the facts wrong, but their interpretations of the facts are a different matter. We will see. I do hope that the paper will be impressive enough to garner some scientific response. Looks like you got it back, so it balances out in the end.. We'll have a beer after the paper pubs if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I may have misunderstood the post @Jodie, and if so I apologize, but mitochondrial DNA to the best of my knowledge does not code for nuclear DNA. It is just the genome of the mitochondria which is thought to be an ancestral symbiont. In fact, many of the proteins that function within the mitochondria are in fact encoded by the cells own nuclear DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is much smaller and circular and not organized into chromosomes , whereas the nuclear is much larger and is organized into chromosomes which only condense into that form during mitosis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Don't get me wrong, I am quite certain that much of the bigfoot folklore can be traced back to encounters with hermits, homeless people, schizophrenics, and otherwise challenged persons, who often have poor hygiene, can behave unpredictably and have always evoked fear. These were "wild men." Men who lived in the wild or looked wild. p. Coincidentally, they were all 7-8 feet tall. Dang.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I may have misunderstood the post @Jodie, and if so I apologize, but mitochondrial DNA to the best of my knowledge does not code for nuclear DNA. It is just the genome of the mitochondria which is thought to be an ancestral symbiont. In fact, many of the proteins that function within the mitochondria are in fact encoded by the cells own nuclear DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is much smaller and circular and not organized into chromosomes , whereas the nuclear is much larger and is organized into chromosomes which only condense into that form during mitosis mDNA provides the proteins/enzymes (energy) that allow the nuclear DNA to code. I was responding to TsaikoVS who said that the two had to have the same number of chromosomes. The chromosome number has nothing to do with what the mDNA and NDNA actually is or does.......am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Ahhhh... that makes sense and I apologize for taking it out of context. The mitochondria does provide all the cellular energy by aerobic means anyway that is required to run the transcriptional and translational machinery. Sorry for the mistake .... and yes , to the best of my knowledge the chromosome number does not have much to do with complexity or function . In fact, some species of fungi have far more chromosomes than humans do . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Thanks Crystal... Speaking of questions, I did ask Melba a question on FB, here it is:Can you speak about what your impressions are of the physical characteristics of the sasquatch without directly referring to what's in the paper? Answer: Not really since they all look different. Very much individuals. It wasn't exactly what I was looking for in an answer but I probably didn't phrase the question right. To me, she's talking about what she has seen rather than common features they have without going into the specifics of the genetics involved. Even then, she doesn't really go into details about what she saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) Interesting reply from Dr. Ketchum Jodie. Some might say that Chimps, Orangs and Gorillas all look different and those scientists that study them might even say they are very much individuals. Edited March 6, 2012 by Polypodium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 "Giant" as a noun is used to refer to (mythical) upright primates larger than humans, which the popular "bigfoot" certainly would be, given the thousands of descriptions. As an aside, it is interesting to observe what seems to be proponents here downplaying size estimates of bigfoot, perhaps anticipating a "bigfoot is human" Ketchum paper. Of course, none of that "anticipatory downsizing' holds a candle to the post above which essentially casts bigfoots as homeless people in need of social services. Don't get me wrong, I am quite certain that much of the bigfoot folklore can be traced back to encounters with hermits, homeless people, schizophrenics, and otherwise challenged persons, who often have poor hygiene, can behave unpredictably and have always evoked fear. These were "wild men." Men who lived in the wild or looked wild. if you met this guy in the woods, how might you describe him? a wild man, perhaps? Even today, it seems clear from videos that normal humans in the woods are sometimes responsible (intentionally or unintentionally) for "bigfoot" reports. So in a real sense, humans are "bigfoot." But these humans look like you and me and Christopher Lloyd, and their DNA is like yours and mine and Lloyd's, they are you and me and Lloyd, good old "Hss", not "Pattys". p. Please stop trying to insult our intelligence with this. Why are we pretending that a paper will be published that will have anything of merit? SShow me evidence to suggest there is NOT such a paper. Dr Ketchum has everything to lose and nothing to gain by pulling a hoax. She's "all in" (to use gambling parlance) at this point. She must be convinced that she has something signigicant to risk her personal, professional, and business credentials in such a manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts