Guest vilnoori Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The biblical term nephilim is a bit general. While most people take it to mean the hybrid offspring of fallen angels and humans as described in Genesis 6, it is also used in the sense simply of giants. "The great ones" is another possible translation. In Greek Titan would be a comparable term. So really it is not that bad to call an extraordinarily tall, large homin a titan. Some large dino's are called titan in their latin names. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I am confident that Dr. Ketchum believes in accumulated gradual change and also occasional punctuated saltation change in generations, and selective reproduction of such with each generation. The paper will be objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I cant put my finger on it but there is something not quite "scientific" about "Nephilim" Perhaps we should just call him Dr. Nephilim ... maybe add some important looking string of letters to the end of the name... then wallah! We have a scientist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Sounds to me like it's an "apple cart upsetter", and Science hates those with a passion. Mulder you keep saying stuff like that but I think individuals in the field will have to call it like they see it, and I'm pretty sure they won't all agree on the conclusions. No matter the research, they never do when you first introduce something new, if this is something new. Did you not read the research articles SY and I posted on the same topic about DNA barcoding with different conclusions? No one is moving hurdles, it just depends on what hurdles in the race you want to establish as the finish line IMO. 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.evolution...hromosome_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. I don't think anything she got was fresh based on the rumor mill, but you are right, it would definitely be a priority. Of course if she is having encounters with the sasquatch then she may have had her own opportunity. She point blank told me she had seen them but couldn't describe them because they were all different just as humans are. I personally think the gorillas and chimps all look different too, but I guess that isn't relevant. Gosh and I am sorry for my incoherent post this morning, that's what I get for rushing this morning trying to get out the door. Edited March 30, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 But those are all just poorly reviewed, "not credible" "fringe" sources, right Sas? No, those are legitimate, peer-reviewed journals of science that published articles on analysis of putative bigfoot/yeti evidence. I know you love to spout that no journal would publish on bigfoot because you think that spreading such a notion helps your anti-science agenda. That notion is, however, wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm sure it would be different if it was a positive. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 No, those are legitimate, peer-reviewed journals of science that published articles on analysis of putative bigfoot/yeti evidence. I know you love to spout that no journal would publish on bigfoot because you think that spreading such a notion helps your anti-science agenda. That notion is, however, wrong. Coltmans article on the yeti is pure mockery. Maybe his point was that the sample wasn't taken from the creature directly, but he wouldn't have tested it if he didn't think yeti DNA would be distinguishable from bison. 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. Well it looks like we do know the function of some genes. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-makes-us-human 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. It seems science is looking at the junk between the genes that switches them on or off. That junk aint junk apparently, so watch out for this. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111025122615.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 SY, DNA analysis looking for markers, as in barcoding, does not tell you the function of the gene. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26818/ Ultimately, one wishes to determine how genes—and the proteins they encode—function in the intact organism. Although it may sound counterintuitive, one of the most direct ways to find out what a gene does is to see what happens to the organism when that gene is missing. Studying mutant organisms that have acquired changes or deletions in their nucleotide sequences is a time-honored practice in biology. Working backward from the phenotype—the appearance or behavior of the individual—one then determines the organism's genotype, the form of the gene responsible for that characteristic (Panel 8-1). There are two answers to the question of how we study human genes. First, because genes and gene functions have been so highly conserved throughout evolution, the study of less complex model organisms reveals critical information about similar genes and processes in humans. The corresponding human genes can then be studied further in cultured human cells. Second, many mutations that are not lethal—tissue-specific defects in lysosomes or in cell-surface receptors, for example—have arisen spontaneously in the human population. Analyses of the phenotypes of the affected individuals, together with studies of their cultured cells, have provided many unique insights into important human cell functions. Although such mutations are rare, they are very efficiently discovered because of a unique human property: the mutant individuals call attention to themselves by seeking special medical care. In this case, all you can do is guess at the affect the mutations in the new sequence will have if there is nothing else in the database that matches exactly. You can't do this without a type specimen to get the full picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Just listened to the java bob interview.... Ketchum wanted to state in the original paper she had DNA of Nephilim... Yes, because someone who may or may not have had a business relationship go sour w/Ketchum making unsubstantiated claims is such a credible source... Unless you have some proof of his claim's accuracy...? Not holding my breath. I am confident that Dr. Ketchum believes in accumulated gradual change and also occasional punctuated saltation change in generations, and selective reproduction of such with each generation. The paper will be objective. Even if she didn't. The science of the paper is the important thing, not her personal beliefs. To say otherwise is just poo-flinging. No, those are legitimate, peer-reviewed journals of science that published articles on analysis of putative bigfoot/yeti evidence. I know you love to spout that no journal would publish on bigfoot because you think that spreading such a notion helps your anti-science agenda. That notion is, however, wrong. What is "wrong" is your assertion that I have an "anti-science" agenda. My agenda is anti-bias in science. When Science ignores Dr Meldrums taxionomy paper, Dr Fahrenbach's track size distribution paper, the learned optinions of Drs Swindler, Schaller, etc, the forensic hair examinations of Tom Moore and Pinker, etc (all well qualified professionals in their fields), it is demonstrating bias. For you to turn around and tout a handful of papers that either buttress the Skeptic case or are generally insufficently respected as otherwise but ignore all that scientific opinion listed above to me demonstrates your bias quite clearly. I'm sure it would be different if it was a positive. Tim B. Indeed it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 DNA sequence can predict gene function, since it predicts the amino acid sequence, and specific stretches of amino acids are often associated with specific protein functions a lot can actually be inferred, albeit indirectly,regarding a genes function based on its nucleotide composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted March 31, 2012 Admin Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) John, you are correct, but the prediction is based on a comparative statistical analysis of a known DNA sample which has been sequenced in its entirety from an extant animal. I'm not sure if you realize that the DNA genome sequence of any animal is extraordinarily huge, we're talking terabytes here. It takes years of computing power and painstaking work to sequence an entire DNA genome. The "fast DNA tests" do not compare the entire genome, but "known primers" (small snippets) based on previously sequenced DNA. These are basically short common sequences among DNA samples. So the prediction is valid only for already coded DNA. In fact, scientists have created the 1000 human genome project just so that they can classify human beings based on a broad database of diverse human DNA. (i.e. asian, caucasian, african, aglo, etc) No such database exists for BF. As I understand it, Ketchum's paper is trying to establish a unique "primer" which identifies a BF creature. The problem is that they have samples of purported BF DNA, yet there is no complete BF genome sequence to compare it to because there is no type specimen; and even there was, its DNA hasn't been sequenced. So a unique primer belonging only to BF has to be established without the benefit of a complete BF DNA sequence, an extraordinary difficult task (if not impossible IMO) and bound to be subjective in its conclusions. I hope they have some measure of success, but it is very difficult to see how it could be achieved objectively. Edited March 31, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 You can build the primer. I hear its repetitive, and time consuming, but not the huge obstacle it is purported to be. You could take a modern Human primer and try it, it will either work, or not, there won't be any in between. If the rumors the DNA came back with in the Human range, then you are looking for a uniqueness, or mutation, that statistically establish's the existence of a big, hairy, strong type of Human. It is not nearly so far fetched as it sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted March 31, 2012 Admin Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) You could take a modern Human primer and try it, it will either work, or not, there won't be any in between. I agree. If the rumors the DNA came back with in the Human range This is where you are confused, there is no "range". As you stated above, it either is or it is not. Edited March 31, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) It would be great if certain people actually read the papers I have shared, because at least one is a "positive" paper. In other news, there might not be any better illustration of the "moving the goal posts fallacy than this: "Journals won't publish Bigfoot papers!" (shown Bigfoot papers) "Journals won't publish positive Bigfoot papers!" (shown that too) Can we be done with this assertion that science won't address Bigfoot now? Edited March 31, 2012 by MikeG Unnecessary comment removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 This is where you are confused, there is no "range". As you stated above, it either is or it is not. No, I think this is fundamentally wrong. Without a range, there could be no variation and we would all be clones. There has to be a range to allow for all the variations that define us as individuals, yet still human. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts