southernyahoo Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 what Holdmybeer said. --- I could take samples from my kids and wife, and in 48 hours I could fly to 6 states and 2 foreign countries, get more samples from my brother and his family, and mail all the samples from 8 mailbox locations to Texas. Presto. 12 related modern humans with unusual but similar DNA. Costs me a thou, against a hoped-for return of millions. Or I could just do it all by mail using friends in various states who would agree to act as surrogate submitters. Sorry, but that's on the table. Please don't act shocked or suggest it couldn't be done or that no one would do such a thing. That's one very big reason why modern human DNA won't cut it without a body. p. Parn, the popular conception of bigfoot is that it is some sort Non-human Monster, and that mordern human DNA just simply wouldn't fool any DNA scientist as being from bigfoot. So the expense of thousands to perpetrate your conspiracy theory just doesn't wash with your own arguments, which are quite symantical. If bigfoot had fully modern human DNA and was laying on the table it still wouldn't be bigfoot. You are still arguing DNA only and default assumptions, while ignoring that morphology is inseperably connected to the DNA which does affect assumptions or more appropriately hypotheses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Let's hope there are some primary differences, otherwise the distinction between modern human and bigfoot would be nothing more than the activation or inactivation of certain genes. If this were the case we might someday see some crazed doctor running through the woods injecting bigfoot with some gene therapy designed to make their hair fall out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shoot1 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Let's hope there are some primary differences, otherwise the distinction between modern human and bigfoot would be nothing more than the activation or inactivation of certain genes. If this were the case we might someday see some crazed doctor running through the woods injecting bigfoot with some gene therapy designed to make their hair fall out. ...or, more likely, eventually be able to buy underground injectable peptides that will activate those genes in human athletes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) Parn, the popular conception of bigfoot is that it is some sort Non-human Monster, and that mordern human DNA just simply wouldn't fool any DNA scientist as being from bigfoot. So the expense of thousands to perpetrate your conspiracy theory just doesn't wash with your own arguments, which are quite symantical. If bigfoot had fully modern human DNA and was laying on the table it still wouldn't be bigfoot. You are still arguing DNA only and default assumptions, while ignoring that morphology is inseperably connected to the DNA which does affect assumptions or more appropriately hypotheses. SY: Could I ask that you rephrase your post; I can't understand what you are saying. There has never been a post or a word from either Dr. Ketchum nor Sally nor Paulides (whose website still contains the statement that inquiries to her should be sent through him) that she has other than modern human DNA, and there have been several statements that she has just that. I challenge you to show anything different. My post describes how someone could take DNA from a related group of modern humans who share an uncommon gene pool and are not in GenBank. Then to make it seem as though these related individuals were a population scattered across the country, they just have to mail in the samples from various locations, an easy thing to do. By this method, Dr. Ketchum would be fooled into thinking she had found the bigfoot family genetic markers. I would again remind you that the investment would be minimal compared with the payoff; and minimal compared to the amount of money and time already sunk into this project. You would agree with that, wouldn't you? Sorry that I can't figure out your post. Are you saying that it wouldn't fool the experts? If you are saying that, then I tend to agree; a polymorphism that isn't in GenBank isn't going to convince the experts that the popular bigfoot is a modern human. But it might get it published in a lesser journal. On a related note, Richard Stubstad posted this at the blog of he who cannot be linked to (this does not reflect my thinking or that of the management): Hi all ! A new thread I happened to find here … My guess re. Ketchum’s long overdue paper is that she can’t help herself with vaguely tenable hypotheses, along with tenable DNA facts (mito and nuclear sequences). The idea of changing the order of the authors is a good one; I suggested this too, towards the end of 2010. She said “no way, Joseâ€. It won’t matter if it’s Paabo & Green themselves; she won’t ever let this one go as second or third fiddler, even if it means ultimate failure. The ego point made by Lindsay is well taken and absolutely accurate (not to mention potentially big bucks). Richard Edited May 15, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 There has never been a post or a word from either Dr. Ketchum nor Sally nor Paulides (whose website still contains the statement that inquiries to her should be sent through him) that she has other than modern human DNA, and there have been several statements that she has just that. I challenge you to show anything different. Dr. Ketchum has explicitly used the term "new species". I know that doesn't meet your criteria, but it also doesn't sound very modern human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Parn, Your memory is very short. Ketchum made a statement hours after the news broke about her movie copyright. If you recall (and we all do) you jumped all over it claiming victory about your speculation that she had "only" modern human DNA. Do you not recall her statement posted hours after the news broke? Here, let me take care of your light work so you can get back to cherry picking your information. To address the recent hype and misstatements concerning my paper, please be advised that the information pulled off the US Copyright website for a 2010 preregistration for a proposed media project is not an accurate summary of our scientific testing and data and does not reflect the current conclusions of our scientific paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Parnassus, Are you claiming that someone collected hair,blood, tissue, and fingernail samples from a group of related individuals at location A. and then mailed them to Dr. Ketchum from various locations around the country and then talked Erickson and crew, Southern Yahoo, Derick Randals, and a number of others into claiming ownership of these samples? Are you really claiming that is what happened here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 wait wait wait, people are still talking as if "modern human" DNA is a possibility? As if that would satisfy anything? If the DNA results are anywhere near modern human, then you can forget about the reality of the study, and start focusing on who was hoaxed, when and where they were hoaxed, and hope the results don't get into the mainstream press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 SY: Could I ask that you rephrase your post; I can't understand what you are saying. There has never been a post or a word from either Dr. Ketchum nor Sally nor Paulides (whose website still contains the statement that inquiries to her should be sent through him) that she has other than modern human DNA, and there have been several statements that she has just that. I challenge you to show anything different. My post describes how someone could take DNA from a related group of modern humans who share an uncommon gene pool and are not in GenBank. Then to make it seem as though these related individuals were a population scattered across the country, they just have to mail in the samples from various locations, an easy thing to do. By this method, Dr. Ketchum would be fooled into thinking she had found the bigfoot family genetic markers. I would again remind you that the investment would be minimal compared with the payoff; and minimal compared to the amount of money and time already sunk into this project. You would agree with that, wouldn't you? Sorry that I can't figure out your post. Are you saying that it wouldn't fool the experts? If you are saying that, then I tend to agree; a polymorphism that isn't in GenBank isn't going to convince the experts that the popular bigfoot is a modern human. But it might get it published in a lesser journal. On a related note, Richard Stubstad posted this at the blog of he who cannot be linked to (this does not reflect my thinking or that of the management): The likelyhood that Dr. Ketchum has something other than fully modern human DNA is very high IMO Parn. Dr. Ketchum has said the copyright apps were premature , and that she has proof in the form of overwhelming data. You've completely ignored the statement about the curve ball bigfoot threw her team. I understand you don't wish to speculate about what that means, because it contradicts your agenda, but these are her words that you claim you haven't heard. Now, I'm sure you'll get right back on the Modern human DNA train, but you haven't atcually seen and analyized any data. With any new hominin, there is a certainty it will fall most similar to some other known hominin and this is how we place a new species on the phylogenetic tree. The probability, IMO, is very high right out of the box that it will fall very close to some human group if not some other ape since chimps are 97% human and 95% alignable in their genes yet they are considered a seperate genus. Some scientists have argued to place chimps in the genus homo but it was ridiculed because it brings up a plethera of other issues. We agree that there is no new species without sufficient divergence in the DNA. We don't agree that it is good science to draw a hasty assumption , just because you see a close similarity to modern human, particularly if there is any indication in the morphology that you are looking at something different, and further study is warranted. Your scenario about human samples being sent in, will fail to account for the provenance provided with them. It is a lame attempt to discredit the researchers who independently provided them. You would have to come up with a better one that includes a sophisticated team of hoaxers that fabricated real hair with "new hominin" DNA then surrupticiously planted the samples where certain researchers would find it as they hike in the woods or investigate recent sightings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 There has never been a post or a word from either Dr. Ketchum nor Sally nor Paulides (whose website still contains the statement that inquiries to her should be sent through him) that she has other than modern human DNA, and there have been several statements that she has just that. I challenge you to show anything different. I think your challenge to be shown anything different has already been answered in advance many times before in this thread (see rockiessquatching post #5272 above for the latest reiteration of that). On the other hand, I challenge you to show any new evidence that indicates the only thing they have is human DNA. I think going on and on about "only human DNA" is disingenuous in this debate, and you are attempting to state this as some kind of fact based on old copyright filings that have already been refuted by Ketchum herself immediately after the copyrights were raised in public forum. It may be that you clinging to the hopes that Ketchum only has human DNA in order to support your theory of hoaxing or contaminated human DNA. However, it is obvious this is old and repeatedly debunked news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I think your challenge to be shown anything different has already been answered in advance many times before in this thread (see rockiessquatching post #5272 above for the latest reiteration of that). On the other hand, I challenge you to show any new evidence that indicates the only thing they have is human DNA. I think going on and on about "only human DNA" is disingenuous in this debate, and you are attempting to state this as some kind of fact based on old copyright filings that have already been refuted by Ketchum herself immediately after the copyrights were raised in public forum. It may be that you clinging to the hopes that Ketchum only has human DNA in order to support your theory of hoaxing or contaminated human DNA. However, it is obvious this is old and repeatedly debunked news. BF, I assume you are not referring to post 5272. If you are actually referring to post 5271, (I could say "clinging to" lol) then nowhere in that post is it stated that they have anything but modern human DNA. That is what I stated, and that is a true statement. It has not been debunked, not by you, not by the post 5271, or by any post here or elsewhere, that I know of. All they have ever shown, between her and Stubstad, is modern human DNA; that is a fact, and that has not been debunked, not by you, not by post 5271, nor nor any other post here or elsewhere, that I know of. Neither has Paulides changed his tune. My statements are true. The quote in post 5271 does not change that fact. You cannot say that they have other than modern human DNA, because they have never said it. Well, of course, you can SAY whatever you like; it's a free country; but imho you would be making an unsubstantiated claim. p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Its just an ongoing play on words, Neanderthal, and several others had "modern DNA". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 They said once they had Modern Human DNA on a website not released to the public but unearthed by a blogger, and when that info, again not meant for public release, goes wide spread, they indicate that people should NOT look at that as reflective of the current research, but you say bull to that and want to stick with the not-for-public-release statement and completely ignore the admonishment to disregard that information as old and non-relevant. That sums it up, right? Your agenda couldn't be clearer. Also, how are these people who fooled Ketchum by sending in all of these samples from around the country (samples from friends and relatives) supposed to recoup their investment again? Costs me a thou, against a hoped-for return of millions. If it isn't Dr. Ketchum doing the hoaxing (you don't seem to be able to come right on out and say that, although it's implied), then how would an anonymous hoaxer stand to gain any money at all? If any money is to be made, it would seem to be the team leading the study, not individual submitters.Maybe I'm missing something in this extremely well thought out Macguffin of yours. Perhaps Chinese Lanterns? Or Venus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 As I said previously, Parn's words will be here in-perpetuity, to be judged against the actuality. I for one won't be getting hot under the collar about his predictable posts pre-release, but will expect that one or other of us will be in "smug-mode" once the report is released. I also said, half a lifetime ago it seems, that I wouldn't want some of you guys on any jury that was trying me. No, I'd rather be tried by people who made their minds up AFTER hearing the evidence. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 BF, I assume you are not referring to post 5272. If you are actually referring to post 5271, (I could say "clinging to" lol) then nowhere in that post is it stated that they have anything but modern human DNA. That is what I stated, and that is a true statement. It has not been debunked, not by you, not by the post 5271, or by any post here or elsewhere, that I know of. All they have ever shown, between her and Stubstad, is modern human DNA; that is a fact, and that has not been debunked, not by you, not by post 5271, nor nor any other post here or elsewhere, that I know of. Neither has Paulides changed his tune. My statements are true. The quote in post 5271 does not change that fact. You cannot say that they have other than modern human DNA, because they have never said it. Well, of course, you can SAY whatever you like; it's a free country; but imho you would be making an unsubstantiated claim. p. I stand corrected regarding post 5272, it should have been post 5271. I'm not sure how one goes about "debunking" something that never existed in the first place other than in the minds of folks that are trying desperately to cling to the human DNA hoax theory. I'm not sure how you could infer that you have made "a true statement", unless you have information that hasn't been made public. Perhaps you could post a complete summary of the evidence you have that they only have human DNA, preferably something that doesn't include evidence that has already been debunked or denied by those within the research effort (like Dr. Ketchum herself).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts