The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

Gee, what a angry post. Think I'll just mosey on down to Campfire Chat and get some coffee and grub.

it was a reply to a nastier post.

[southernyahoo]

good source for added into on above too

Quirks and Quarks show download, scroll down to Human Hybrids, save to file or click to listen options

http://www.cbc.ca/qu...ctober-22-2011/

Denisovans and Neanderthals said to be closely-related though distant cousins, explosion of gene/dna, revolutionary breakthroughs on the horizon

This was an interesting quote:

]Dr. David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard's Medical School, compared the Denisovan DNA to that of living humans. He was shocked to discover that the Denisovans lived so recently, and he calls them "the genome in search of an archaeology." He also points out that this is the first time in the four million years of human history that we've been the only humans on the planet..

[Guest]

Parnassus - It must really be tough to be right all the time lol. That's "War and Peace" you've read between those lines. Yes, it seems that she hit a wall, but maybe it's not as catstrophic to her case as you make it out to be. Perhaps is has not been completely rejected but she has been invited to revise and resubmit?

She hit (past tense) a wall, but they're beyond it now and apparently the results are so phenominal that they are having to really dot I's and cross T's to give the Parnassus-es out there absolutely no wiggle room to deny the final result.

At least that's how I read her statement.

Actually, the statements have a direct relationship. In fact, all these statements by you have a direct relationship:

• The story that the journal is Nature is false. That is not a joke nor is it speculation.
  
• I will tell you this much and no more: A manuscript can be submitted to only one journal at a time.
  
• I am only willing to share what I have already said. It's not speculation.
  

I'm not sure what your definition of hint is, but I have to tell you flat out, those are hints.

"Being a Skeptic means never having to say you're sorry", as the saying goes...

[bipedalist]

Dr. David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard's Medical School, compared the Denisovan DNA to that of living humans. He was shocked to discover that the Denisovans lived so recently, and he calls them "the genome in search of an archaeology." He also points out that this is the first time in the four million years of human history that we've been the only humans on the planet..

Yeah, I liked that one, might be a tad premature if all the chickens come home to roost.

Perhaps there's another "genome in search of an archaeology" besides the Denisovans (we hope).

[Guest]

You aren't going to get more matches in DNA much beyond random for two convergently evolved animals. IOW DNA isn't going to be more alike just because the animals look alike. If the time passes, some genetic material is going to change by random mutations and most genes aren't going to have the same mutations to get the same features.

That would imply that more than one gene can bestow a trait (say the proper hip for bipedalism). That would seem to contradict everything we currently accept about how genes work (that there is a specific gene for each trait, and any animal possessing said trait will have that gene).

There must have been some mixing of the genes from the various populations over time. How much is the big question. If it was frequent between ours and their ancestors, they could conceivably be pretty close to us genetically and still maintain the wild adapted phenotype genes. They could maintain their wildman/apeman features by weeding out non beneficial more human genes by natural selection.

That would seem to validate some of the contentions made in "Them and Us" about the relationship between Neandertals and modern men.

[BobZenor]

That would imply that more than one gene can bestow a trait (say the proper hip for bipedalism). That would seem to contradict everything we currently accept about how genes work (that there is a specific gene for each trait, and any animal possessing said trait will have that gene).

That was part of my point to say that there is more than one gene for different features. It isn't really contradictory but I didn't really phrase it very well. I guess I was trying not be overly long in the explanation and I said a few things that could be taken wrong. We share many genes with chimps that are exactly the same. You have to ignore all of those as being human because they aren't diagnostic. There are whole sections of DNA that will mutate randomly and sequencing those regions would allow them to see if it were human based on the non coding regions. Those would be more diagnostic regions for calling something human. They are still going to have independent changes on the vast majority of the genes even if they do evolve many of the same features. The genes for getting longer legs for example probably has 10 different ways to get there. You could vary when it started growing, ended growing, how fast it grew, what hormone made it grow... It isn't likely going to be exactly the same. That was the point there and I was just pointing out that a convergently evolved animal like Giganto would be easy to distinquish from a modern human (assuming they were related to Orangs). I was mostly thinking of genes that they would use diagnostically or non coding regions that would most likely be uniquely human. Functional genes are a confusing example there because they do tend to be preserved so wouldn't be as useful as proof. If you find those human non coding regions on a bigfoot, like they are rumored to with the mtDNA, you have a different proof standard. You have to prove that this animal with human DNA isn't a human. It is more complicated. They would want to find DNA/genes like those on the Y-chromosome that don't recombine or something diagnostic to make a better proof. This is confusing to explain the rather simple point and I hope I said it in a way that made sense. It is just about logic and not really genetics and how having human DNA changes the game from a logical point of view. I was just trying to explain what I think the curve ball likely was. The standard probably got tougher because it had obviously human DNA. The reason it would be obviously human would be because of the infinitesimally low odds of having the same sequences on non coding regions.

Edited November 6, 2011 by BobZenor

[Guest]

Considering what is now understood on how genes work, the idea of specific genes being responsible for specific traits, is in need of modification. Much of what was considered "junk DNA" is now believed to be part of the instruction set telling a protein production mechanism to turn on, or turn off, or produce more or produce less, and as such the gene is not mutated so much as modified in its operation to varying extent. Similarly the definition of species being a discrete population which doesn't create viable offspring is being replaced with a model where hybridization is far more common with far more porous genetic boundaries than were previously thought to be the case to the point where hybridized species seem to be the norm rather than the exception. From the standpoint of an organism's genes and the idea of its being successful based on how much of that genetic material is retained/sustained within the biosphere, the neandertals and denisovans are more successful now than they ever were, even if their distinct populations are seemingly absent.

I wonder, because I don't know, whether current DNA analysis techniques are capable of resolving whether the junk DNA associated with a particular trait is known, or whether it's in the 'on' or 'off' relationship with these instructions we see as traits. If not, and if BF were examples of relic hominins, would these current analyses be able to discern that? Can they discern one modern human 'race' from another? A nordic human from a mediterranean human? A japanese person from a nilotic person? A BF from me? Cheers

[Guest parnassus]

Why not?

Bruce Banner was a human.

Oh wait...

[Guest Thepattywagon]

Is there any particular reason everyone's posting in BOLD?

Hurts my sensitive eyes!

Guess it's the only option on this page. Mine's in bold too.. Hmmm.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Thepattywagon

[georgerm]

She shouldn't be having problems with DNA that distantly removed unless there is a lot of more modern human DNA in the mix. That implies hybrids over the years............

There were likely several in the last two million years if that leak/rumor is true. There must have been some mixing of the genes from the various populations over time.............

This is unclear. Are you saying humans bred with BFs? If so this creates a hybrid but wouldn't the hybrid be sterile? If so, then human genes would not be passed on or mixed in with BFs.

[bipedalist]

SY started the bold thingy a few posts back, I cut and paste his bold and then it cloned itself, but you can blame it on SY ty.

[southernyahoo]

Yeah leave it to me to jack things up!!! LOL

I found this to be an interesting lecture and good primer for this question of Human DNA.

I give you Dr. Catherine S. Pollard PHD published in Scientific American What makes us human

http://fora.tv/2009/10/03/Dr_Katherine_Pollard_What_Makes_Us_Human#fullprogram

[bipedalist]

Thanks for that, she says the rearrangements are more important than the single genes and nucleotides present....at least mapping between chimp/human (comparative genomics).

[Guest]

That would imply that more than one gene can bestow a trait (say the proper hip for bipedalism). That would seem to contradict everything we currently accept about how genes work (that there is a specific gene for each trait, and any animal possessing said trait will have that gene).

I'm not real sure what you are referring to in regard to one gene bestowing a trait, and anything other than that contradict everything we currently accept about how genes work. I may be misinterpreting what you meant, but not all inherited traits in humans are Mendelian (one gene controlling a trait, such a blood type). Many of our inherited traits are Polygenic, which means that many genes at two or more different loci control that particular trait, such as eye color. Polygenic traits account for most of the phenotypic variation seen in humans.

This is unclear. Are you saying humans bred with BFs? If so this creates a hybrid but wouldn't the hybrid be sterile? If so, then human genes would not be passed on or mixed in with BFs.

Not all hybrids are infertile. It depends on the type of hybrid: intra-specific- same species but different subspecies, inter-specific- same genus but different species, etc. Some examples of fertile hybrids are beefalo (American bison/domestic cow), coydogs and wolf/dog hybrids, king snake/corn snake cross, red kite/black kite, American croc/Cuban croc, Saltwater croc, Siamese croc, and Killer bees/European honey bees.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Surveyor

[Guest]

I'm not real sure what you are referring to in regard to one gene bestowing a trait, and anything other than that contradict everything we currently accept about how genes work. I may be misinterpreting what you meant, but not all inherited traits in humans are Mendelian (one gene controlling a trait, such a blood type). Many of our inherited traits are Polygenic, which means that many genes at two or more different loci control that particular trait, such as eye color. Polygenic traits account for most of the phenotypic variation seen in humans.

I was taught in my science courses that any feature has a specific gene or set of genes that determines it's presence. The analogy often used was that of a blueprint. Any given part (say, a motor mount bracket for a specific car engine), has precise specifications as to the metal it is constructed of, it's dimensions, etc. So if any two engineers were to blueprint that bracket, their blueprints would have to be identical in order to properly produce that bracket.

Admittedly it's been years since I've read much on genetics. If what you say is correct, then I may be out of date.

Not all hybrids are infertile. It depends on the type of hybrid: intra-specific- same species but different subspecies, inter-specific- same genus but different species, etc. Some examples of fertile hybrids are beefalo (American bison/domestic cow), coydogs and wolf/dog hybrids, king snake/corn snake cross, red kite/black kite, American croc/Cuban croc, Saltwater croc, Siamese croc, and Killer bees/European honey bees.

You forgot Tigons and Ligers.

And, not to be pedantic, but the bee example would be "Killer" bee (African honey bee/European honey bee), though there was (at least last I heard) some question as to whether or not the "Killer" bee is a true hybrid, or a case of African honey bee aggressiveness being a dominant trait.