Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest parnassus

It is the SNP's that Paabo uses in his comparisons of modern human , neanderthal and denisova to distinguish the species genetically and track how they interbred and contributed SNP's to various modern human populations. If it is possible to know that these archaic genomes are not modern humans based on the data then the same can be done with an extant non modern sapiens today. To say bigfoot can't be hiding in the DNA "would" be intellectually dishonest.

SY:

this is exactly the generalization/rationalization that I expect to hear. This is why DNA is such a refuge for bigfoot apologists. The deep dark secrets of DNA...(cue the music)...can never be plumbed....Thanks for putting it out there. And for the humorous attempt to use the Mulder rhetoric of kind of namecalling without doing it in a way that will get censored. It's an LOL. But whatever you feel the need to do is OK with me. Doesn't change the facts...

The fact is that, at least on the mtDNA that Richard is describing, the mtDNA is modern human. It's not me who's said that. It's him. Capiche? How many times does Richard have to say that??? 50? 146? three hundred forty leven? Pleez pleez tell me you don't think Richard is lying/dishonest/"intellectually dishonest". LOL. Plz tell me you know what "feral human" means. I didn't write that. Pleez pleez tell me you don't think Ketchum is intellectually dishonest.

p.

"Feral Human" eh? I don't know what anyone ELSE is seeing out there, but that's no human.

attaboy!!

Edited by parnassus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha, so it looks like Meldrum is gonna play along with the "Bigfoot is Human" idea, or at least abandon the "Ape" meme (recall the North American Ape Project???) that he has used until now). I would describe that as intellectual cowardice/dishonesty but definitely a good marketing move. So yes, he will have to re-write Legend Meets Science. It would hype sales, to boot.

Shorter version:

WeGotDNAfromRandomPeopleWhoWanderedThroughTheWoodsOrGotTheirButtsCaughtonBarbWire.com

I don't see anything in any of the Facebook links showing Meldrum changing his beliefs/theories as to what Sasquatch is, could you please provide some quotes or direction to that so we can see where you came to this conclusion? Pretty strong to suggest he is intellectually dishonest, a coward and some kind of financial con-man. Changing venues because he has signed on to this TV show doesn't necessarily mean he has sold his soul or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SY:

this is exactly the generalization/rationalization that I expect to hear. This is why DNA is such a refuge for bigfoot apologists. The deep dark secrets of DNA...(cue the music)...can never be plumbed....Thanks for putting it out there. And for the humorous attempt to use the Mulder rhetoric of kind of namecalling without doing it in a way that will get censored. It's an LOL. But whatever you feel the need to do is OK with me. Doesn't change the facts...

The fact is that, at least on the mtDNA that Richard is describing, the mtDNA is modern human. It's not me who's said that. It's him. Capiche? How many times does Richard have to say that??? 50? 146? three hundred forty leven? Pleez pleez tell me you don't think Richard is lying/dishonest/"intellectually dishonest". LOL. Plz tell me you know what "feral human" means. I didn't write that. Pleez pleez tell me you don't think Ketchum is intellectually dishonest.

p.

attaboy!!

That fact is that the SNP's are used as a unit of measure of divergence. The divergence that you yourself acknowledge has to be there to declare a discovery. Since the mito's don't mutate nearly as much as the nuDNA , it is foolish to think the mitos tell the whole story, particularly with our history of having interbred with other hominids in the past. Dr. Ketchum appears to be amassing the SNP's for the paper, how many times would that have to be demonstrated, 50? 146? three hundred forty leven? You know I can't affirm any specific data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RedRatSnake

"Feral Human" eh? I don't know what anyone ELSE is seeing out there, but that's no human.

For at least 50 yrs it's been some sort of Ape, with this DNA comes a wind of change, now it's human, i aint buying it.

Good to see your sticking to your guns ~ GUY

Tim ~ :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitochondrial DNA does mutate more rapidly than nuDNA, that was Stubstad's point in saying the mtDNA was from the ice age and hasn't been seen since then in modern humans. It resembled that sequence the closest so he made that conclusion based on the mtDNA mutation rates, or so I understand based on what he said, because it wasn't an exact match. But that doesn't really make sense either since it should have changed more than Stubstad indicated since the first injection during the Franco Cambrian age IMO based on what I've read.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060204

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the ape vs human argument is misplaced. I think the gap between human and ape is overstated. I would recommending reading the "third ape" and "almost chimpanzee". The ides is that humans, organtangs, chimpanzees, gorillas are all part of the ape family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha, so it looks like Meldrum is gonna play along with the "Bigfoot is Human" idea, or at least abandon the "Ape" meme (recall the North American Ape Project???) that he has used until now). I would describe that as intellectual cowardice/dishonesty but definitely a good marketing move. So yes, he will have to re-write Legend Meets Science. It would hype sales, to boot.

Never one to pass up a pot-shot at Meldrum I see. "Intellectual cowardice"..are you joking? How could anyone know where bigfoot's DNA would place them between ape and man before confirming you've got any? At least Meldrum is willing to adjust his paradigm. How about you? Aren't you working backwards from a conclusion? You obviously assume there is no bigfoot, so it's a safe bet to conclude "modern human" DNA, regardless what the data may suggest. But unless you've seen the data AND you knew what to do with it, isn't that the epitome of intellectual dishonesty?

Shorter version:

WeGotDNAfromRandomPeopleWhoWanderedThroughTheWoodsOrGotTheirButtsCaughtonBarbWire.com

Even Shorter:

WeGotDNAthatParnAssumesIsModernHumanSoThereNeenerNeener.com

Edited by Gigantofootecus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RedRatSnake

Two things i got going on in my brain right now about this DNA, One is some of the better known folks in this are changing their opinion this early in the game so they can keep with the in crowd or look like their in the loop, that's ok cause no one likes to be left out.

Another is if some are changing from Ape too Human, perhaps those folks really never knew what it was in the first place and have been sneaking a little BS in all these years, in that case i don't see them dodging any ridacule too easily, after

all the campaign for it being an Ape was pretty strong.

Tim ~ :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

Or, three: recent research into possible language, vocalizations, long term memory and imitative capacity have, in combination with dna previews, convinced people (including some scientists and major players) that heretofore were resistant to being convinced that this being has skill sets that do not mesh with ape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOLOL- Nothing makes sense from either the human or the ape perspective from what little has been leaked about the DNA. It's an "other".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RedRatSnake

Jodie

You just named the title of the movie we here on the BFF now need to make.

" OTHER "

It can be a Horror, Sci fi, Mystery, Drama, Comedy love story

Tim ~ :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mutation rate for mitochondria is probably faster because they lack some of the sophisticated correction machinery that exists for our nuclear chromosomes. Most of the errors are fixed in the nuclear DNA by specialized enzymes. They don't use nuclear DNA as much for tracking populations because of how quickly nuclear DNA changes because of genetic recombination. The only exception is the Y-chromosome. That remains essentially the same so we can track paternal lineages. The rest of our nuclear genome gets mixed up from all our ancestors. One of your chromosome 20, just a random example, would be the combination of all your previous ancestors' chromosome number 20. There would be no practical way to know for sure which part came from which ancestor. Nuclear DNA does change much faster.

If you had a hybrid in the past like Neanderthal or Denisovans, you get genetic material spread throughout the chromosomes. I believe they deduced they were ancestors by elimination. There were specific sequences that were present in only certain non-African populations. The way you see that is because it also existed in the Neanderthals and/or the Denisovans and only a subset of modern humans that also lived in the same region. We probably don't have that subset to compare anything to since we apparently hypothetically added to their population and I doubt there is enough bigfoot samples to do that kind of analysis. Probably 99% of the genes are essentially the same even if it is very distantly related and NOT what most wouldn't consider human. The "proof" might be a collection of genes that has no modern human counterpart. That would be hard to prove that way since not all modern humans have all their genes analyzed. You are trying to prove a negative. Hopefully they would have some discriminative evidence with the Y-chromosome or possibly some genes like the pigment genes described. It would still only probably only suggest some interpretation rather than being proof. The Y-chromosome would likely be very strong evidence if they had that. Something else might be there that isn't immediately apparent. I sure wouldn't have expected them to find out that some of us have Denisova genes by excluding a subset of our population. It is kind of hard to have that level of abstraction of thought to see that coming beforehand. It is just too complicated to know what sort of proof might be there.

Human doesn't have a precise meaning and it can mean any hominid. That is common usage by many. Feral usually is applied to domesticated animals that went wild so it might not be the best way to describe them. Neither term is very well defined so it is probably not the best way to describe them. They are logically apes but that isn't really saying much since it includes us.

Preferring the convergently evolved because it is more distant doesn't really make much sense if you end up with the same creature either way. It is just much simpler to assume radiation of some earlier hominid than trying to convergently evolve one from a more distant ape. They are all apes so preferring one over the other seems to come down to how some see evolution not pertaining to humans as it does to other animals. Otherwise it is a logical slam dunk for radiation of a more recent common ancestor being the simplest explanation. That explanation involves what some will call a human. It is really meaningless semantics from a scientific point of view if you call it a human or not.

Edited by BobZenor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mutation rate for mitochondria is probably faster because they lack some of the sophisticated correction machinery that exists for our nuclear chromosomes. Most of the errors are fixed in the nuclear DNA by specialized enzymes. They don't use nuclear DNA as much for tracking populations because of how quickly nuclear DNA changes because of genetic recombination. The only exception is the Y-chromosome. That remains essentially the same so we can track paternal lineages. The rest of our nuclear genome gets mixed up from all our ancestors. One of your chromosome 20, just a random example, would be the combination of all your previous ancestors' chromosome number 20. There would be no practical way to know for sure which part came from which ancestor. Nuclear DNA does change much faster.

Thanks for the clarification Bob, my use of the word mutation was probably misplaced, recombination and or dilution would probably better explain how the nuDNA changes quicker. I also argree on the semantics. I'm curious what the standard deviation or threshold for the outer edge of range of variation in humans would be. I think that line has to be drawn somewhere. Surely the various human populations and studies of same should have established this by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...