Guest Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 There's some evidence that Hsn feet/footprints are not wholly dissimilar to those attributed to BF: http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/more-on-texas-bigfoot.html Interesting also is some evidence of potentially late-surviving Neanderthals: http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/two-possible-late-surviving.html I'm not really arguing the case, I'm just curious that's all. I think I shaved with Occam's razor this morning as I found myself wondering "well, if mr Neanderthal survived until 24,000 years ago, or maybe until just 12,000 years ago, is it too crazy to think that some pockets of life still exist?" It might be nice to have a thread to weigh up the relative merits of the contenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 This is an odd term... I've never heard it before. What does it mean? Tim B. I'm sure ScienceCritic meant to write "that Melba". Unless, unless! There is a foundation called "The Melba" now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) Unfortunately at this time no. Footprints are the closest. Until I see one myself I will remain skeptical. Not hear one, or think I saw one, or hear wood knocks, or see stick formations, but see one. So, all the professional people out there that witnessed tracks, caste them, etc... are not good enough because YOU didn't see them ? I think they know a lot more about tracks and their field skills than your giving them credit for. Why do Skeptics have to see it themselves, or it's fake or didn't happen. As long as I live, I'll never understand the logic behind that mindset. Edited August 31, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Yep..... How about that catch phrase...... The Melba Short for ..................... The Melba Ketchum report The Melba Ketchum forum. . BTW this forum. The Melba Ketchum group with many, many PHDs on board... That's right.... The Melba...... How "bout"that BTW, I thought spell checking was against the forum rules.... But notice that each of my posts has at least "one" misspelled word." you might say "I'm" just checking.. This one is "bout" ...... That in the South is short for about . Just saying, I ain't perfect.. Now let's have a good time while we wait....... Keep up the good work..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Interesting also is some evidence of potentially late-surviving Neanderthals: http://frontiersofzo...-surviving.html I'm not really arguing the case, I'm just curious that's all. I think I shaved with Occam's razor this morning as I found myself wondering "well, if mr Neanderthal survived until 24,000 years ago, or maybe until just 12,000 years ago, is it too crazy to think that some pockets of life still exist?" It might be nice to have a thread to weigh up the relative merits of the contenders. Are Other Hominins (Hominoids) Alive Today? is a thread devoted to discussing this very issue that you are thinking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Thanks BFS. An update on genome sequencing from the Denisova cave dweller from the BBC today (taken from Science journal): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19423147 All v interesting, but in particular the extract below: "To me the most exciting thing is having a good genome from our very closest extinct relatives which we can now compare ourselves to. "It's a catalogue of what makes everyone on the planet unique compared with our closest extinct relatives." The most detailed genetic analysis yet of the Denisovans also confirms that they bred with the ancestors of some people alive today, the researchers said. It shows that about 3% of the genomes of people living today in Papua New Guinea come from Denisovans, with a trace of their DNA lingering in the Han and Dai people from mainland China. He told BBC News: "To me the most exciting thing is having a good genome from our very closest extinct relatives which we can now compare ourselves to. "It's a catalogue of what makes everyone on the planet unique compared with our closest extinct relatives." The most detailed genetic analysis yet of the Denisovans also confirms that they bred with the ancestors of some people alive today, the researchers said. It shows that about 3% of the genomes of people living today in Papua New Guinea come from Denisovans, with a trace of their DNA lingering in the Han and Dai people from mainland China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Yes, that article about the complete Denisovan genome sequence (or more complete) is interesting in that it shows that Denisovans mated with both HSS and HSN. Seems like there was a fair amount of cross breeding going on within the genus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Of course, no lesser authority than that paragon of reliability, Robert Lindsay, has confidently suggested that the DNA Melba Ketchum has isolated in her study matches that of DNA already identified from our extinct ancestors. To my knowledge, only Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA has ever been sequenced so that narrows it down a bit. Some very subdued mutterings from those with samples in the study have also hinted at this possibility. Of course, the Sasquatch does not physically resemble anything like what Neanderthals were meant to looked like: even if they were much hairier than supposed this still wouldn't explain the size, so quite a bit of 'niche evolution' would've happened in the last few thousand years to arrive at what people see running around in the woods today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Did you just use "Robert Lindsay" and "paragon" in the same sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 *whew* At least the sarcasm made it through cyberspace! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I suppose the only other option is a convergently evolved ape with no trace of it in the fossil record. I tend to go with a diverged hominid from a known ancestor, because it is slightly more palatable to science within it's current paradigm, and agree's with much of the physical evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Journal editors are not stupid about the ordering of the things they publish. Today's publication, in Science, of a re-sequencing of the Denisovan genome could presage a forthcoming hominid type publication of the sort that this thread discusses. Perhaps, the Ketchum report itself. Stay tuned for the next few weeks. http://cosmiclog.nbc...man-genome?lite Interesting what Paabo says the genes can tell him.The researchers also drew up a catalog of more than 100,000 genetic differences that apparently arose between modern humans and the now-extinct Denisovans and Neanderthals in the past 100,000 years or so. About 260 of the changes affect protein function, Pääbo said. "It's quite interesting to me to note that eight of them have to do with brain function and brain development — the connectivity in the brain, how synapses between nerve cells function. And some of them have to do with genes that, for example, can cause autism when these genes are mutated," he said. "I think this is perhaps in the long term, to me, the most fascinating thing about this: what it will tell us in the future about what makes us special in the world, relative to Denisovans and Neanderthals." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted August 31, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 31, 2012 And this has to do with Bigfoot in what way? or even in the Ketchum Report unless that : A: Bigfoot is a missing link to man B: Bigfoot is a species all of it's own, in which case we have no reason to even think about the other species that have evolve into man. I am going with B. that Bigfoot in one way is in its own catagory but is in some way connected to man in a primal way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Of course, the Sasquatch does not physically resemble anything like what Neanderthals were meant to looked like: even if they were much hairier than supposed this still wouldn't explain the size, so quite a bit of 'niche evolution' would've happened in the last few thousand years to arrive at what people see running around in the woods today. This is where we need to be careful. It doesn't take much for humans to exhibit size variance as a consequence of certain environmental, nutritional or selective conditions. I've pointed out recently in a separate thread that the average height of the Dutch has increased by quite a few inches over the course of just 150 years, with a notable spike since the Second World War. Another interesting fact is that in the 1700s and 1800s, Europeans living in North America were much taller than non-migratory Europeans. Assuming the average height of BF is 7 feet - just a guess - that might make him on average 18%-20% taller than a human. Not a huge discrepancy, particularly when there is at least one human living on the planet today who measures over 8 feet in height. But, to reiterate, my basic point is that the average height of hominins many thousands of years ago is not necessarily indicative of their stature today (assuming they have survived to this day, of course!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Interesting article indeed! Wasnt it also Dr. Ketchum who stated she had developed a new way to analyze DNA? I see Dr. Pääbo has also touted a new technique for studying ancient DNA. hmmmm All these new changes.... just love to see this forward momentum in Science today. Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts