The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

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.

Hi Jodie. That's mostly true, until you start getting close (perfect matches aren't always necessary for the biochemistry to work) in progesterone gradients, binders ,receptors and activators on the sperm surface and zona pellucida of the egg and I'm sure a ton of other things I have no clue about. The main thing is the biochemistry of the two is close enough for the process to work. And you typically get that in closely related species where their biochemistry hasn't diverged too far.

To put this in perspective, donkeys and horses had a Last Common Ancestor (LCA) about five and a half million years ago (while we were talking before about two hominins with a LCA of two and half). You can legitimately argue that their breeding is artificial in the sense you have to put a male donkey and a female horse in a corral together. But once you do that, they happily and reliably make mule foals. No issues about sperm penetration there.

And the only reason those mules are largely infertile is the different chromosome number of the parent donkey and horse. When the mule makes its gametes, its mom and dad's chromosomes almost always don't sort properly, and that is strictly because of the different chromosome number, nothing else. On the very rare occasion of accidental proper sorting, those sperm and eggs make perfectly healthy foals, though I'm guessing still infertile.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument. If our LCA with Sasquatch was about 16 million years ago (i.e. Sasq in the Orang/Giganto clade), then, yeah, I'd think a successful interbreeding with fertile young to be alot less likely, and as a first approximation that would be because the chromosome number would not match and the biochemistry may be too different.

For the more closely related gorilla and chimps, with our LCA time about the same as the donkey and horse, presumably the biochemistry of mating with a modern human could be possible BUT the result would be an infertile "mule" unable to extend its line purely because of the different chromosome number.

So, you see, the scenario of rare interbreeding with fertile young between two hominins with a LCA two and a half million years ago (and the same chromosome number) is, in itself, a perfectly plausible possibility.

Edited March 6, 2012 by tsiatkoVS

[Guest]

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.

You are absolutely correct in your second sentence, but incorrect in your first. I never said chromosome number had anything to do with what is actually on them gene-wise or had any effect on the viability of a fetus (beyond whether it will be fertile or not when mature) or has anything at all to do with mDNA.

Maybe some of the confusion is when I speculated about Sasq. nDNA and modern mDNA in one individual, and how the preponderance of modern mDNA in the samples implied a lot of modern nuclear DNA in Sasq. also, all things being equal.

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.

That's a fair point. Supposedly, according to at least one or two NA stories I vaguely remember, the newborns weren't all that much bigger than normal modern newborns. Take that for what it's worth.

I haven't heard any accounts of baby and mother dying in child birth because the baby was too large, but maybe those were because the women were still captive and died without their families knowing. Who knows?

Any one on the BFF really up on these stories? I've gotten pretty interested in them lately and would love to see a compilation.

Edited March 6, 2012 by tsiatkoVS

[Guest vilnoori]

Yes there are stories of hybrids, I think listed on the bigfootencounters web site. I won't peruse the whole thing to find them, go ahead if you are curious. There is one story locally here near Harrison Lake with the Chehalis indians, but the baby was said to be stillborn.

Based on footprint morphology alone I would expect sasquatches to be closer to Neanderthals or Homo heidelbergensis (a form of Homo erectus) than anything else. According to the East African Laetoli tracks even Homo habilis and Indonesian Homo floresiensis who are presumed to have diverged from the human lineage a mere 2 million years ago had a radically different foot morphology than modern humans, with a very small flat foot, a larger divergence than normal between the big toe and the rest of the toes, and the smaller toes all being considerably longer than the big toe--carried somewhat curled when walking.

Neanderthal footprints seem to show the greatest similarity to bigfoot tracks, with distinct "pea-like" toes and a very pronounced width.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neanderthal_Foot_Print.jpg

Edited March 6, 2012 by vilnoori

[Guest Jodie]

Hi Jodie. That's mostly true, until you start getting close (perfect matches aren't always necessary for the biochemistry to work) in progesterone gradients, binders ,receptors and activators on the sperm surface and zona pellucida of the egg and I'm sure a ton of other things I have no clue about. The main thing is the biochemistry of the two is close enough for the process to work. And you typically get that in closely related species where their biochemistry hasn't diverged too far.

This is not true of the primates , which I assume bigfoot is, it didn't work in WWII when they tried to make the super warriors and the reason given is because the sperm would not penetrate the egg. The chromosome number and genetic similarity are not the big factor, what I was told is that the enzymes and proteins that tell the DNA when to start and stop are different. I think only about 70% of a chimp and a human's share any similarity there, hence, no humanzee's. The further out the chromosome number match the less likely you will get anything but a close chromosome match does not mean hybridization will work either.

To put this in perspective, donkeys and horses had a Last Common Ancestor (LCA) about five and a half million years ago (while we were talking before about two hominins with a LCA of two and half). You can legitimately argue that their breeding is artificial in the sense you have to put a male donkey and a female horse in a corral together. But once you do that, they happily and reliably make mule foals. No issues about sperm penetration there.

Once again, this does not work in primates even if the motivation is there. It can only occur artificially.

And the only reason those mules are largely infertile is the different chromosome number of the parent donkey and horse. When the mule makes its gametes, its mom and dad's chromosomes almost always don't sort properly, and that is strictly because of the different chromosome number, nothing else. On the very rare occasion of accidental proper sorting, those sperm and eggs make perfectly healthy foals, though I'm guessing still infertile.

It's not that simple, it starts there but depending on other genetic factors such as sex, it will make a difference in whether fertility is present or not in mules. In the case of a male mule, they make inactive sperm, only half of a female mules eggs are viable. You can have two humans with the same chromosome count that are infertile due to genetic incompatibility for numerous reasons, it depends on how the chromosome combination affects insertions and deletions and if it affects the germ line.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument. If our LCA with Sasquatch was about 16 million years ago (i.e. Sasq in the Orang/Giganto clade), then, yeah, I'd think a successful interbreeding with fertile young to be alot less likely, and as a first approximation that would be because the chromosome number would not match and the biochemistry may be too different.

If you mean the biochemistry as in restrictor and promoter enzymes then I can't disagree with you, but once again, the chromosome count here may not be the big issue assuming it is anywhere near human in regards to bigfoot.

For the more closely related gorilla and chimps, with our LCA time about the same as the donkey and horse, presumably the biochemistry of mating with a modern human could be possible BUT the result would be an infertile "mule" unable to extend its line purely because of the different chromosome number.

It can not happen because the sperm will not naturally penetrate the human egg.

So, you see, the scenario of rare interbreeding with fertile young between two hominins with a LCA two and a half million years ago (and the same chromosome number) is, in itself, a perfectly plausible possibility.

Not really, neanderthal and denisnovans yes, but not the scenario you are talking about. If I am wrong then please show me the research. I could not find any confirming what you are saying in regards to primate hybridization with humans, even though I am certain I did not need to look, things have changed since the 1940's, I could be wrong.

You are absolutely correct in your second sentence, but incorrect in your first. I never said chromosome number had anything to do with what is actually on them gene-wise or had any effect on the viability of a fetus (beyond whether it will be fertile or not when mature) or has anything at all to do with mDNA.

I apologize.

Maybe some of the confusion is when I speculated about Sasq. nDNA and modern mDNA in one individual, and how the preponderance of modern mDNA in the samples implied a lot of modern nuclear DNA in Sasq. also, all things being equal.

We are so far into this conversation it's a moot point now, but if both are modern, like Parn says, what exactly does that mean other than you have human people walking around in the woods, assuming any of the rumors about the genetics are true.

That's a fair point. Supposedly, according to at least one or two NA stories I vaguely remember, the newborns weren't all that much bigger than normal modern newborns. Take that for what it's worth.

I haven't heard any accounts of baby and mother dying in child birth because the baby was too large, but maybe those were because the women were still captive and died without their families knowing. Who knows?

If the child is too large to emerge, before c-sections were an option, the child would be terminated and extracted in the same manner that a late trimester abortion is accomplished in an effort to save the mother. However, the mother usually died of hemorrhaging or as a result of an infection after delivery if she managed to survive.This also gets into all of things that can go wrong in a normal pregnancy, much less in a situation where hybridization has occurred, just with blood type incompatibilities alone assuming the reproductive process got that far. I just see this from a different perspective than everyone else, obviously, the whole hybrid human/bigfoot thing just seems impossible to me.

Sorry guys, I have not managed the multiquote when it gets this long.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Jodie

[BobZenor]

...Based on footprint morphology alone I would expect sasquatches to be closer to Neanderthals or Homo heidelbergensis (a form of Homo erectus) than anything else. According to the East African Laetoli tracks even Homo habilis and Indonesian Homo floresiensis who are presumed to have diverged from the human lineage a mere 2 million years ago had a radically different foot morphology than modern humans, with a very small flat foot, a larger divergence than normal between the big toe and the rest of the toes, and the smaller toes all being considerably longer than the big toe--carried somewhat curled when walking.

Neanderthal footprints seem to show the greatest similarity to bigfoot tracks, with distinct "pea-like" toes and a very pronounced width.

http://en.wikipedia...._Foot_Print.jpg

Floresiensis has a very large flat foot for its size. They should be relatively smaller in a smaller creature but they are relatively larger and don't have an arch. That Neanderthal is very different from any modern human foot I ever saw. It makes me think the foot can probably change basic morphology pretty easily. There does seem to be some resemblance to the foot of a sasquatch with the "peas in a pod".

http://www.nature.co...ature07989.html

...Here we show that LB1's foot is exceptionally long relative to the femur and tibia, proportions never before documented in hominins but seen in some African apes. Although the metatarsal robusticity sequence is human-like and the hallux is fully adducted, other intrinsic proportions and pedal features are more ape-like. The postcranial anatomy of H. floresiensis is that of a biped^{1, 2, 3}, but the unique lower-limb proportions and surprising combination of derived and primitive pedal morphologies suggest kinematic and biomechanical differences from modern human gait. Therefore, LB1 offers the most complete glimpse of a bipedal hominin foot that lacks the full suite of derived features characteristic of modern humans and whose mosaic design may be primitive for the genus Homo. These new findings raise the possibility that the ancestor of H. floresiensis was not Homo erectus but instead some other, more primitive, hominin whose dispersal into southeast Asia is still undocumented.

_____

Hi Jodie. That's mostly true, until you start getting close (perfect matches aren't always necessary for the biochemistry to work) in progesterone gradients, binders ,receptors and activators on the sperm surface and zona pellucida of the egg and I'm sure a ton of other things I have no clue about. The main thing is the biochemistry of the two is close enough for the process to work. And you typically get that in closely related species where their biochemistry hasn't diverged too far.

This is not true of the primates , which I assume bigfoot is, it didn't work in WWII when they tried to make the super warriors and the reason given is because the sperm would not penetrate the egg. The chromosome number and genetic similarity are not the big factor, what I was told is that the enzymes and proteins that tell the DNA when to start and stop are different. I think only about 70% of a chimp and a human's share any similarity there, hence, no humanzee's. The further out the chromosome number match the less likely you will get anything but a close chromosome match does not mean hybridization will work either.

....

I hope I quoted that correctly.

I have heard of gelada hybridization before. I wasn't just trying to find a mistake by the way.

http://en.wikipedia....Primate#Hybrids

Primate hybrids usually arise in captivity,^[45] but there have also been examples in the wild.^[46][47] Hybridization occurs where two species' range overlap to form hybrid zones; hybrids may be created by humans when animals are placed in zoos or due to environmental pressures such as predation.^[46] Intergeneric hybridizations, hybrids of different genera, have also been found in the wild. Although they belong to genera that have been distinct for several million years, interbreeding still occurs between the gelada and the Hamadryas baboon.^[48]

The biochemistry of the fertilization process is extremely complex. The sperm have to spend a long time in the female to dissolve off the front half. They have to attach to certain markers. Then they have to penetrate a layer surrounding the egg with a special enzyme filled lysosome. Then it becomes impenetrable when the first sperm makes it through. I rather doubt they could say back in WWII if they were viable or not. Sorry but my mind isn't working well enough to find the link I read a few days ago on the fertilization process. It is amazing that fertilization ever works when you see all things that have to happen.

Edited March 7, 2012 by BobZenor

[indiefoot]

Can a human foot develop a mid tarsal flex of sorts if it is started early. If a young human spent a lot of time in trees.

[BobZenor]

We already have it. It is just tied up in tendons. The tendons act as a sort of spring. When the tendons get stretched, you get flat feet and it causes problems because our foot isn't built for that. I would think something like a flexible foot could evolve pretty quickly given all that.

Edited March 7, 2012 by BobZenor

[Guest parnassus]

.....

That's a fair point. Supposedly, according to at least one or two NA stories I vaguely remember, the newborns weren't all that much bigger than normal modern newborns. Take that for what it's worth.

I haven't heard any accounts of baby and mother dying in child birth because the baby was too large, but maybe those were because the women were still captive and died without their families knowing. Who knows?

Any one on the BFF really up on these stories? I've gotten pretty interested in them lately and would love to see a compilation.

Yes, please someone tell us who had bigfoot's baby. (BTW, would-be mothers can sign up here.)

Coincidentally, they were all 7-8 feet tall. Dang....

I don't think so. Can you show that they all were? It's my impression that the "wild men" stories didn't emphasize great size; rather, just being "wild." and of course they were generally not going to the barber, so 'hairy' goes along with being "wild.'

how would you describe this Homo sapiens sapiens to your local reporter?

p.

Edited March 7, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest Jodie]

That's OK Bob, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. The only combination I've heard of were the chimeras of different monkeys that were artificially created. They still looked like a regular monkey but they had cells from other ape species added during invitro fertilization.

I couldn't do a search at work on this topic because of the weird links it pulled up, so had to wait until I got home. I did see some research where a human sperm was introduced to a gibbon egg and it managed to penetrate, however, nothing happened after that.

[Guest CT Seeker]

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.

Very interesting. I have to say that if her study doesn't conclude with results that are at least conclusive on some level, I may put aside my more active interest in this subject and watch from the sidelines as it were...My recent suspension from the site for being inuslted by a skeptic(weird, eh?) and then something else inoccuous on my part, gave me time to think. This study in an undiscovered great ape/human off-shoot is mostly spinning its wheels so maybe it is time to let it lay and if anything pops up in the news with any credibility then of course I will be interested. In the meantime, I certainly won't give people a hard time for being into it--even if their reasons strike me as less than informed.

[Guest Biggie]

Jodie you can highlight the quoted text and choose a gray color to help separate the quote from the reply, or you could just click the quote button to give it a standard quote wrap without a specific user name and time stamp being included.

[Guest Jodie]

Very interesting. I have to say that if her study doesn't conclude with results that are at least conclusive on some level, I may put aside my more active interest in this subject and watch from the sidelines as it were...My recent suspension from the site for being inuslted by a skeptic(weird, eh?) and then something else inoccuous on my part, gave me time to think. This study in an undiscovered great ape/human off-shoot is mostly spinning its wheels so maybe it is time to let it lay and if anything pops up in the news with any credibility then of course I will be interested. In the meantime, I certainly won't give people a hard time for being into it--even if their reasons strike me as less than informed.

Ok this is just practicing the multiquote.

Jodie you can highlight the quoted text and choose a gray color to help separate the quote from the reply, or you could just click the quote button to give it a standard quote wrap without a specific user name and time stamp being included.

Yay, I did it.

[indiefoot]

I don't think so. Can you show that they all were? It's my impression that the "wild men" stories didn't emphasize great size; rather, just being "wild." and of course they were generally not going to the barber, so 'hairy' goes along with being "wild.'

I used humor to point out the weakness of your claim. Your description may well be accurate for some accounts as mine is accurate for some also. If you want to debate the use of "all" then take a peek at "Continuum Fallacy" first.

how would you describe this Homo sapiens sapiens to your local reporter?

p.

Pirate?

[Wheellug]

Interesting article, DNA for lowland gorillas is a 98% match to human. A complete genome study was done.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46656691/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.T1fWmTGXv_M

[Guest Biggie]

Ok this is just practicing the multiquote.

Yay, I did it.

Go Jodie go go go! ner ner ner ner nit