The Ketchum Report

[Guest Jodie]

That's just it JohnC, DNA analysis doesn't give you function of the gene, just it's nomenclature. We are 98.7% similar to a chimpanzee, 97% similar to an orangutan, but when you get down to how those genes express it is not so similar. I think 70 % of our genes in comparison to a chimp will only functions the same 70% of the time although they look so similar.

Then you have the issue of multiple genes that affect one characteristic or function, it's never linear where one gene dictates this and another gene dictates that. It is sets of genes interacting together like a symphony orchestra to create an opus.

[Branco]

One simple question from an old simple minded woodsrat: Has Dr. K or her spokesperson stated whether or not that the DNA from the multiple samples are from the same, as yet unclassified, species? (Disregarding those which can be readily identified.)

[Guest]

Here is my list of recently published papers on bigfoot/yeti stuff. The papers that specifically addressed analysis of hair samples are Wu et al. 1993, Milinkovitch et al. 2004, and Coltman and Davis 2006. I'm pretty sure I've attached these papers to an earlier post in this thread.

1. Wu, X., X. Zeng, and H. Yao. 1993. Analysis of a single strand of hair by PIXE, IXX and synchrotron radiation. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B75: 567–570.

2. Milinkovitch, M C., A. Caccone, and G. Amato. 2004. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: 1–3.

3. Lozier, J. D., P. Aniello, and M. J. Hickerson. 2009. Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modelling. Journal of Biogeography 36: 1623–1627.

4. Lockley, M., G. Roberts, and J. Y. Kim. 2008. In the footprints of our ancestors: an overview of the hominid track record. Ichnos 15: 106–125.

5. Kim, J. Y., K. S. Kim., M. G. Lockley, and N. Matthews. 2008. Hominid ichnotaxonomy: an exploration of a neglected discipline. Ichnos 15: 126–139.

6. Coltman, D. and C. Davis 2006. Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21: 60–61.

But those are all just poorly reviewed, "not credible" "fringe" sources, right Sas?

I mean, with Science still not accepting BF and all...

[Guest slimwitless]

There's an interview at Bigfoot Evidence with Java Bob Schmalzbach. If you don't know, he was in a business relationship with Richard Stubstad and Melba Ketcum in the early days of the study. That relationship went sour and Stubstad left. It's been known for some time that he's been suffering from an aggressive form of prostate cancer. I haven't heard the interview yet but the write-up claims he's on his death bed with just a few weeks to live.

Richard Stubstad took a lot of heat for expressing his views on Dr. Ketchum and the study. I don't think the full truth about what happened will be known for a long time but I always had the impression his opinions about the mtDNA (whether ultimately right or wrong) were important to the advancement of the study. I don't know if anything will come of this DNA paper. I hope so. But whatever the result, I hope the man gets his answers..

Edited March 30, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest]

About the most you get to is the species. It depends on what species she identified as to how controversial the results will be. She has even said that she is not sure how main stream science will receive her results. That doesn't sound like incontrovertible truth to me, but one more step in the right direction.

Sounds to me like it's an "apple cart upsetter", and Science hates those with a passion.

[Guest MikeG]

Science hates those with a passion, maybe......but scientists LOVE them! There isn't a scientist out there who doesn't dream of making a major breakthrough that changes our understanding of the world.

Mike

[Guest]

Which means what, exactly, Mike?

The point is that Science continues to dance the goal posts all over the field, never allowing the proponents to get the ball over the goal-line. It's a great benefit for one side (Science) to have wormed its way into becoming the only accepted authority on not only what types of evidence count, but what counts as that type of evidence.

[Guest]

Slim that was a interesting video. Thanks.

[Guest vilnoori]

That's just it JohnC, DNA analysis doesn't give you function of the gene, just it's nomenclature. We are 98.7% similar to a chimpanzee, 97% similar to an orangutan, but when you get down to how those genes express it is not so similar. I think 70 % of our genes in comparison to a chimp will only functions the same 70% of the time although they look so similar.

Then you have the issue of multiple genes that affect one characteristic or function, it's never linear where one gene dictates this and another gene dictates that. It is sets of genes interacting together like a symphony orchestra to create an opus.

Don't forget the big structural difference that most great apes have 48 chromosomes and we have 46. Essentially chromosome 2 is a fusion of chromosome 2A and 2B in the great apes--and even though the proteins coded for are the same ones, therein lies much of the difference, genetically, between humans and other great apes. This is something that can only be tested for in a fresh sample, though, because chromosomes can only be seen when the cell is in active division and the tissue is growing. So we have no idea if ancient homins had the fused chromosome 2 like we do, and we don't know at what point the chromosomes fused. It could indeed have been very late. We don't even know how many chromosomes Neanderthals had!

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

If Dr. Ketchum does have fresh tissue I do hope that a good old karyotype test is going to be one of her priorities. It would certainly put to end the whole debate about whether sasquatches belong in the homin or the non-human great ape category.

Edited March 30, 2012 by vilnoori

[Guest Peter O.]

But those are all just poorly reviewed, "not credible" "fringe" sources, right Sas?

I looked up the Yeti convergence paper from Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: 1–3 and it appears to be an April Fool's joke where some guys claimed to have sequenced Yeti DNA.

[Guest parnassus]

the milinkovitch paper actually has a message:

In 1992, Peter Matthiessen and photographer Thomas Laird were the first Westerners in over three decades to visit a remote region in the northernmost Himalaya. Located close to the boarder of Tibet, Sao Kohla is a mysterious valley outside of the main city of Lo Monthang. Here Matthiessen, Laird, and their Nepalese colleagues came upon some unusual foot prints in the snow, and were informed by locals that they were the prints of the Mehti (the local name for Yeti). Near a river at the bottom of the gorge, samples of twisted hair were recovered which were clearly identified as Mehti hair by their local guides (Matthiessen, 1995, p. 75--80). We were asked to analyze these samples, but first had to agree that any identification of a "new species" would have to be reported to the government of Nepal before publication.

it was horse.

In a similar incident:

In July 2005,

nine residents of Teslin, Yukon, witnessed through a kitchen window a large bipedal animal

moving through the brush. The next morning, they collected a tuft of coarse, dark

hair

and also observed a

footprint

measuring 43 cm in length and 11.5 cm in width. The tuft of hair was sent to Philip Merchant, a wildlife technician of the Government of Yukon Department of Environment...

and so eventually to the authors, who sequenced the DNA.

It was bison.

p.

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

Just listened to the java bob interview....

Ketchum wanted to state in the original paper she had DNA of Nephilim...

[Guest slimwitless]

I thought he said they were afraid she might do that...not that she actually tried. Stubstad elaborated on this some time ago on another blog. I've heard the topic is off limits here.

Edit to add: It's also a taboo subject (along with aliens) on her FB page.

Edited March 30, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

I cant put my finger on it but there is something not quite "scientific" about "Nephilim"

[Guest slimwitless]

Obviously. But note Java Bob's comment is very different from how Stubstad framed the issue in the comment section of Lindsay's blog. I'm paraphrasing from memory but I believe he felt Ketchum wouldn't let her religious beliefs get in the way of the science. There's a lot more to it and I don't want to get into here. Go read it for yourself. You should also keep in mind the credibility issues of the assorted players when weighing the truth of a matter.