The Ketchum Report

[Guest COGrizzly]

...Which leads one to switch from cable to Directv...(I just had to)

[Guest BFSleuth]

.... don't wake up in a forum ditch, switch to Directtv....

[Guest MikeG]

And what changed? Or has anything really changed but the language? If she converted 100% human DNA into Bigfoot DNA, might she also have converted 100% human DNA into DNA of feral hominins?

I think that a lot of people are missing the fact that we have two types of DNA in every cell. All animals do. We have mitochondrial DNA, and nuclear DNA.

Mitochondria are a sort-of parasite, living in each of our cells, and in a symbiotic relationship with the host. No animal can live without them, but they can be considered a seperate living being. The DNA of mitochondria change at a different rate from that of the host, and relatively independantly of the host. They pass down through the generations, and eventually change as the hosts evolve over millenia. Mitochondrial DNA is a set of instructions for building mitochondria, not for building a human, an aardvark, a salamander or a sasquatch.

Nuclear DNA is the instruction set for building a human. It has no direct bearing on the mitochondria. If you have human DNA, then you have a human. Aardvark DNA gives you an aardvark.

Richard Stubstad, who did some early work for the Ketchum study, reported that the "100% modern human" thing was from studying Mitochondrial DNA. In some ways, this can be likened to the idea that you can determine which species lived in a burrow or a nest by studying the fleas it left behind. Their early findings were done solely, according to Stubstad, on mitochondrial DNA, or "the fleas". They studied "the fleas", and decided that the host must have been human.

Apparently, they then turned their attention to the nuclear DNA, and it was presumably then that they discovered that they had been misled by the mitochondrial DNA. The nuclear DNA, remember, is the set of instructions for building a host body, and that is, after-all, what we are actually interested in here........not the metaphorical fleas it carries around.

So, those clinging to the "100% modern human" thing are concerning themselves with the mitochondrial DNA results........the fleas........whereas the important results, the real results, are the nuclear DNA results. It is in those that our answers lie.

Mike

[Guest]

The "fleas" analogy does not work. The mitochondrial DNA is deeply relevant to the identity of the creature being studied, because it contains a record of the maternal line, back through history. If an animal has mitochondrial DNA that is 100% human, this means that it has a 100% human (female) ancestor.

Here's what clarified the issue for me, so it might help others too:

"Whenever an egg cell is fertilized, nuclear chromosomes from a

sperm cell enter the egg and combine with the egg's nuclear DNA,

producing a mixture of both parents' genetic code. The mtDNA

from the sperm cell, however, is left behind, outside of the egg

cell. So the fertilized egg contains a mixture of the father and

mother's nuclear DNA and an exact copy of the mother's mtDNA,

but none of the father's mtDNA. The result is that mtDNA is

passed on only along the maternal line. This means that all of the

mtDNA in the cells of a person's body are copies of his or her

mother's mtDNA, and all of the mother's mtDNA is a copy of her

mother's, and so on. No matter how far back you go, mtDNA is always

inherited only from the mother." (Rick Groleau, managing editor of NOVA Online)

Edited May 16, 2012 by Christopher Noel

[Guest MikeG]

It comes down the maternal line, but with its own DNA. This doesn't change at the same rate as the host DNA, and so the analogy, although clumsy, does work. It contains a record of the maternal line, as you say, but of the maternal line's mitochondria. As we speciate, our DNA doesn't speciate at the same rate, and so you could well get the situation of having "human" mitochondrial DNA in non-human descendant, or a non-human ancestor having the mitochondrial DNA as in a human.

Indeed, whilst it doesn't happen as far as I know, there doesn't seem to be any fundamental reason why you couldn't have, say, horse or aardvark or wildebeeste mitochondrial DNA in a pig or a goat or a human. I say again, mitochondria can be considered to be a parasite or passenger, hosted by whatever organism will have it. To really understand what the host is, you need to look at its nuclear DNA.

Mike

[Guest]

So just to be clear, you're saying that the maternal contributor of the mtDNA does not have to be of the same species, or even the same family, as the "host"? Can you help me understand how, say, a female pig could have successfully mated with a male human, such that this human's descendants now carry the mtDNA of their curly-tailed matriarch? Or, if it's not a case of cross-breeding you are suggesting, how else would a radically different kind of mtDNA (from a creature having a non-essential, only a "parasitical," relationship to you) wind up inside your cells?

Am I not right in thinking that if Ketchum et alia have indeed found Sasquatch mitochondria to contain 100% modern human DNA, this means that at some point in the past, 100% modern human females mated with another kind of primate--a species closely enough related to human to produce non-sterile offspring--and that the children these (probably thousands of) strange bedfellows are what we know today as Sasquatch?

Mulder, can you weigh in here? I just want to be sure I have a firm grasp on this matter before the study comes out.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Christopher Noel

[southernyahoo]

I'd say you don't just want to see the maternal line but also the paternal line "male lineage" in the "Y" chromosome passed down male to male.

[salubrious]

Which leads to frustration, which leads to warning level increases..

All I can tell you is that you might want to see one (not having done so already); if it happens, you may not think its such a great idea. But whatever you thought about BF before that time goes right out the window. Not seeing them is not such a bad thing.

[Guest MikeG]

........if it's not a case of cross-breeding you are suggesting, how else would a radically different kind of mtDNA (from a creature having a non-essential, only a "parasitical," relationship to you) wind up inside your cells?

Am I not right in thinking that if Ketchum et alia have indeed found Sasquatch mitochondria to contain 100% modern human DNA, this means that at some point in the past, 100% modern human females mated with another kind of primate--a species closely enough related to human to produce non-sterile offspring--and that the children these (probably thousands of) strange bedfellows are what we know today as Sasquatch?

No Chris, you're completely mis-understanding me. I wasn't saying that another animal's mitochondrial could end up in our cells, I was saying that our mitochondria and that of all other animals is fundamentally inter-changeable in theory. That can't happen in practice. Before I confuse you too much.........

Let me quote directly from Prof Richard Dawkins, geneticist, from his book River out of Eden: (Page 51 onwards)

"Mitochondria......originally in ancient evolutionary history, were bacteria.......Two billion years ago the remote ancestors of mitochondria were free living bacteria. Together with bacteria of other kinds, they took up residence inside larger cells. The resulting community of bacteria became the large "eukaryotic" cell we call our own. ........... Mitochondria have their own DNA....(which) does not particiapte in sexual mixing, either with the main "nuclear" DNA of the body, or with the DNA of any other mitochondria. Mitochondria.....reproduce simply by dividing. Each "daughter" gets an identical copy of the original chromosone......Mitochonria is blessedly celibate. We get our mitochondria from our mother only, because sperms are too small to contain (any). Mitochondria constitute an independant record of the past, uncontaminated by the main nuclear DNA. (It) is not immune to mutation-to random errors in copying. Indeed, it mutates at a higher rate than our "own" DNA. There will be a few differences between your mitochondrial DNA and mine, and the number of differences will be a measure of how far back our (female) ancestors diverged. ...........It is known how fast mitochondrial DNA evolves........"

...and so on.

So, I wasn't talking about cross breeding between various mammals. I was saying that Mitochondria is hosted by all animals, and that there isn't anything fundamentally different between the mitochondria that any of us carry. They just sit inside our cells carrying on making energy for us from the food we eat. They do this independantly of the host, and they do it in every host. However, like anything that remains in a seperate environment from their peers, they change slowly over time.

Mitochondria that we have has changed slightly, so that it is recognisably different from that in, say, a giraffe. But the differences between giraffe mitochondrial DNA and human mitochondrial DNA are trivial (after all, the mtDNA only has to build mitochondria, which, as we've seen, can be virtually the same in any host). The differences between Nuclear DNA between a giraffe and a human are of an entirely different order, being the difference between a set of instructions to build a giraffe, and those required to build a human.

Mitochondrial DNA is hugely useful for all sorts of things, but if you are wanting to find the differences between a giraffe and an aadvark and a hippo, then the Nuclear DNA is the stuff you need to be looking at. We have DNA inside us which determines how we are made, and another entirely independant set of DNA which determines how a "captured" bacteria we host is made. Which one fundamentally is going to provide the most useful information about us?

Mike

[Guest]

So the presence of 100% human DNA in Sasquatch cells will not mean that Sasquatch have a 100% human ancestor? Can you explain how?

Edited May 16, 2012 by Christopher Noel

[Guest MikeG]

I just did!

And do be careful about just saying "human DNA". What does that mean? Do you mean mtDNA?

Mike

[Guest]

Yes, I meant mtDNA. I don't see where you explained how it can be the case that Sasquatch can have 100% human mtDNA and yet not have a human ancestor. How else would they have picked up this mtDNA? Can you clarify this in one simple sentence? "Trivial" as mtDNA may be compared to nuclear DNA, does it not still represent an absolutely reliable sign post to ancestry? I am not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand; and obviously, this issue is vital to our interpretation of the Ketchum results.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Christopher Noel

[Guest]

I agree that the admonition should apply equally to everyone, whether a proponent or a skeptic. With the lack of evidence (ie. the published paper) it seems all we have to talk about is speculation about what the study might or could contain, from a number of parties in this forum and from other outside sources. It is the speculation that is really driving this thread.

That's a fair point.

Wow. There goes the Ponigae Gigantopithecus theory. lol

Assuming that that had anything to do with the paper as it comes out. IIRC, a number of copyright claims were filed that were "base covering" before the final results settled down and became clear.

That's sad. Not just for the paper's chances, but because the senior researchers have devoted big portions of their lives to search for the Squatch and collect the samples in the first place.

Is there any evidence independent of Stubstred (sp?) that she said that?

[Guest MikeG]

Yes, I meant mtDNA. I don't see where you explained how it can be the case that Sasquatch can have 100% human mtDNA and yet not have a human ancestor. How else would they have picked up this mtDNA? Can you clarify this in one simple sentence? "Trivial" as mtDNA may be compared to nuclear DNA, does it not still represent an absolutely reliable sign post to ancestry? I am not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand; and obviously, this issue is vital to our interpretation of the Ketchum results.

OK, let's look at that.

You and I are related, but we may not have a common ancestor for a few hundred or thousand years. Therefore, our mtDNA will be different (see Dawkins, above, on mutation rates).

Both of us will have quite different mtDNA from eskimoes and Australian aborigines (assuming you aren't from either group). Both of us will also have mtDNA that is different from our ancestors of say 200,000 years ago, but nonetheless, all of the above (eskimoes, aboriginals, you, me and everyone reading this) are modern humans. Hss

As we are all modern humans, and as we all have varying mtDNA (of course nuDNA is even more varied), it is only sensible to talk about modern human mtDNA as a range. There are a range of variations of mtDNA within which all modern humans have fallen. Obviously.

That's why I said "what do you mean by modern human DNA?".

Just say we speciated from a common ancestor with our putative hairy friend, say 200,000 years ago........just for argument's sake. The precursor sasquatch and the ancient modern human would have started off with virtually identical mtDNA. We carried on evolving seperately......remember, natural selection works on nuDNA most directly, and quite indirectly on the asexual mtDNA. So the mtDNA inside the two species goes ticking along, mutating in both species at a very set and predictable rate for 200,000 years. Now, there will be a range for the "modern human mtDNA" as we have just seen, but there would also be a range for sasquatch mtDNA, too. I can see no reason whatsoever that these two ranges couldn't overlap by a large amount.

And that without any interbreeding.

Should we have interbred, as we did with all the other hominims we have shared the planet with over the past few hundred thousand years (Neanderthal, Denisovan's etc.), then the mtNDA clock for both species is reset each time.

-

Now, that is plenty too much biology this afternoon from an architect. Why not wait for a biologist to come along and fill in the gaps? Saskeptic will have a passing knowledge of genetics, no doubt, and I am sure there are others. They will pick out my errors........but I am pretty confident that the general thrust of this is about right. Otherwise, I've wasted my time reading all those science books every evening for the last 20 years........

Mike

[Guest]

Let's revisit this: http://bigfooteviden...e-revealed.html

Folks here are saying this document is not important because Dr. Ketchum has stated her study superseded her early appraisal of the evidence.

So, according to advocate interpretation of what has transpired, Dr. Ketchum originally believed the evidence pointed to a modern tribe of 100% human whose phenotype has been appreciably altered by certain genetic mutations, but eventually, with deeper analysis, the DNA pitched a "curve-ball" and Dr. Ketchum and company now have the real truth, Bigfoot are a new species of feral hominins.

Now, the question needs to be asked: why was Dr. Ketchum apparently willing to go with a 100% human Bigfoot initially? Was it because she found consistent mutations in the samples and also accepted such things as the California kills story and the Kentucky habituation videos at face value? Or was it because her case was "interesting" enough for her to think she could finesse Bigfoot as 100% human? Or was she predetermined to find Bigfoot in the samples?

And what changed? Or has anything really changed but the language? If she converted 100% human DNA into Bigfoot DNA, might she also have converted 100% human DNA into DNA of feral hominins? I'm not implying fraud. I'm thinking more in terms of emphasis or moving the data in the direction of a more Bigfoot friendly outcome, verbally and conceptually.

I might be naive, but I don't see fraud here. If the report does not advance the case for Bigfoot, it may be because the data is ambiguous enough to be interesting, but not strong enough to hold up, and the hoped for outcome strengthened the interesting part and was blind to the weak part.

The simplest answer is the simplest answer: she spoke about the findings as she understood them at the time (assuming the report of what she said is accurate), but new data led her to modify her conclusions.

Why Skeptics feel the need to come up with ever more convoluted rationalizations to defend a "no bf" hypothesis is beyond me.