The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

^Interesting...

[Guest]

If the mtDNA is of the oldest type, is it possible it could represent a female line (but with the same mtDNA) not extinguished at the 75,000ypb? Say a modern human survived that global shrinking of our species, but outside Africa, and then interbred with those hominids also surviving (perhaps H. erectus or such ) ? Or would the known mutation rate of mtDNA morphed them into a new mtDNA line? I don't think we have DNA from humans older than 30,000ypb? We have Neanderthal and Denisova....but we don't know what the DNA of humans pre "Eve" is....? At one point I thought I might try and polish my ancient genetic knowledge, but I gave up! It is phenomenal the growth in the field this decade and I am struggling just to stay abreast of the most overarching concepts...

Reading everyone's comments, it seems to me Igor was in the know, in that releasing on his blog was condoned or could have gone ignored if an innocent mistake.. It is just a blog/FB page of a Russian Bfer, hardly mainstream leaking..and w/o Ketchum following up would not have made it past here or BE. Her Press release seems to be struggling to gain traction (and may have been extinguished by Doubtful News and Reddit) So, it seems intended on some level, and his statements about publishing, etc seem to indicate they do have a Journal, but perhaps not of the peer-review we associate with those like Nature? The poster who questioned the release on Igor's FB page even seemed somewhat staged to me, but who can tell from these online posts really. What I found odd about that post is the poster claimed Igor a "Hero" for leaking..humm, a very different term than used for others ...and this same poster then shows up with an article on BE addressed to Chicken Little...so, it seemed like that poster was already on the inside and asking Igor on his FB as a public way to soften the public scolding Ketchum "had" to give? ..lol, I have gotten so suspicious of everything/one since dealing with BFers...not a good thing, or so it feels anyway.

p.s. what I noticed in mainstream? They picked up on her name..."catch-em" and also Melba "toast," so many citizens thought the press release was a joke of some kind. But many had very sharp questions, not un-JFRE like...a Texas hunting forum had two members quite knowledgeable going at it while the rest of the room were silent in disbelief....

I finally watched Finding Bigfoot! LOL and was pleased (it was supposed to reveal DNA..that was classic bait and switch TV programming...but we all are used to that!) and see how it is a hit with the 12 and under crowd (no insult intended) as they managed to teach some tracking and show some wildlife and a little technology and so on (good videography, pleasant landscapes) .and very simple reasoning kids can follow...so a bit of critical thinking practice. None of the "Bill Nye" silliness reallly, or the base personalities of many of these reality shows. But, I do think kids are a bit more sophisticated these days....they notice when someone says "kayaks for stealth" then gets in and immediately starts whooping loudly..hehehe (not to mention the IR lights extending from rods) anyway.. pleasant surprise...and..tada, if the Ketchum news was revealed to claim a first , no worries there!

Edited November 26, 2012 by apehuman

[Guest slimwitless]

The producer of Finding Bigfoot tweeted a link to the Ketchum press release last night.

[Guest]

My note above could have been a little more accurate.

"however Africans sub-Saharan Africans are the exception in that they show no Neanderthal DNA."

I should have also added that Melanesians show larger traces of Denisovan DNA.

Just how these variances came to be is moot, with more than one school of thought. It's a very interesting area.

[southernyahoo]

Mulder:

In taxonomy, non-ape to me means anything that is not gibbon, chimp, orang, gorilla, nor human (archaic or modern).

It COULD be from other primates such as baboon or spider monkey.

I guess we could all use some extra clarity on what she meant by non-ape.

I think non-ape means not genus pan, pongo or gorilla or any of the other primates besides potentially homo since the mito definately is.

[Guest]

I think non-ape means not genus pan, pongo or gorilla or any of the other primates besides potentially homo since the mito definately is.

I would agree, but I still don't understand why Ketchum is ambiguous in her language when these kind of distinctions are so important.

In the old days we talked about hominids, now it's hominins, it's kind of frustrating that the whole scene isn't tighter in its use of taxa / nomenclature.

[Guest]

OK I went back and reread Stubstad's info http://www.footprint...d_Stubstad��and that helped. Interesting stuff really and so many potential sticking points I suppose on methods and analysis.

On taxonomy...anyone know exactly how one earns the right to name a species? It seems in the past certain species were named and then changed due to other's work. Also, as to the "discovery" race, doesn't it really matter more how many citations a particular paper receives over time from peers? Who history remembers?

And, given the legal implications, the taxonomic designation seems to be very important...if we followed just biology I think Chimps would end up in Homo? I think Goodall has argued that..., how will we manage to separate Sasquatch from us (and the genus Homo) for our benefit? That seems a bit jaded, but entirely possible.......

Edited November 26, 2012 by apehuman

[Guest]

Maybe she feared others would get to come out with their data first and just wanted her name associated with as being the finder of bf DNA. As in "Dr. Melba Ketchum was the first scientist to sequence DNA of the species commonly known as "bigfoot" in future textbooks (hahaha, as if they teach science, but you KWIM). I am just waiting now to see how this all plays out. I expect it to come out, be bungled on purpose and quietly disappear.

[Guest VioletX]

Thanks for seeing the big picture Bill : )

I had thought that Obsi's post was good, but then there was some discussion about the key words and I was no longer quite as certain it was really something valid.

[Guest]

I would agree, but I still don't understand why Ketchum is ambiguous in her language when these kind of distinctions are so important.

In the old days we talked about hominids, now it's hominins, it's kind of frustrating that the whole scene isn't tighter in its use of taxa / nomenclature.

Yeah, it's a bit frustrating about the ambiguous language, though you can tell she's trying to be precise. "Hominid" any more is imprecise because some old fashion anthropologists still use it to mean just "hominin" while others mean it to mean all apes including humans. Aaarrrggghhh.

However "hominin" has a very precise meaning: all of the critters in the human clade (Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Ardipethicus and maybe some others) since the last common ancestor with chimps. No classic "apes."

Ketchum says, ". . . there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences."

"Archaic hominin" appears to mean just non-H. sapiens that have been sequenced, i.e. Neandertal and Denisovan, and that's all.

So I'm assuming she's still talking about a hominin (since she says it isn't an ape; and I'm reasonably sure we're not going to be talking about spider monkeys), just not Neandertal or Denisovan.

Which tracks with the RL rumor that the non-modern nuclear genes have a last common ancestor with ours going back about 2.3 million years (still comfortably nested within the hominins, yet just different enough to make something as distinct as a Sasquatch, maybe).

Maybe she feared others would get to come out with their data first and just wanted her name associated with as being the finder of bf DNA.

Nothing puts a burner under the butt like some competitor hot on your heals. Yeah, this announcement feels a bit like a place holder to get priority, and, you know, that's not a bad thing.

Full sequencing of three individuals and multiple lab triple checking help to explain the long time. We had speculated earlier in this thread on the possibility that the study was necessarily getting bigger and bigger. I'm a bit more optimistic than you are, madison, on the possibility of publishing. We'll see.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Mostly correct, however Africans are the exception in that they show no Neanderthal DNA.

Instead what has been found is that there is another archaic hominid present in modern African DNA, a cousin of Neanderthal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/cousins-of-neanderthals-left-dna-in-africa-scientists-report.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Interestingly we don't have any apparent finds of bones or other traces evidence of this unknown species, but we have evidence in the form of the DNA in modern humans. It seems that there was likely ongoing interbreeding among hominid species until modern times (and possibly in modern times as well).

[Guest DWA]

OK I went back and reread Stubstad's info http://www.footprint...d_Stubstad��and that helped. Interesting stuff really and so many potential sticking points I suppose on methods and analysis.

On taxonomy...anyone know exactly how one earns the right to name a species? It seems in the past certain species were named and then changed due to other's work. Also, as to the "discovery" race, doesn't it really matter more how many citations a particular paper receives over time from peers? Who history remembers?

And, given the legal implications, the taxonomic designation seems to be very important...if we followed just biology I think Chimps would end up in Homo? I think Goodall has argued that..., how will we manage to separate Sasquatch from us (and the genus Homo) for our benefit? That seems a bit jaded, but entirely possible.......

If they put chimps in Homo, we can consider taxonomy dead. Sorry, Jared Diamond.

Can't speak to Bigfoot, although I sure wouldn't put the Patterson figure in Homo based on appearance alone.

This cuts to the crux, at least to me, of why this DNA finding is meaningless without a body. Believe it or not - and the "% of genes similar" numbers show this pretty conclusively - there's more to differences than genetic percentage match.

Edited November 26, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

I would agree, but I still don't understand why Ketchum is ambiguous in her language when these kind of distinctions are so important.

In the old days we talked about hominids, now it's hominins, it's kind of frustrating that the whole scene isn't tighter in its use of taxa / nomenclature.

You also have to account for academic intertia. Not everyone is exactly up to date on the latest twists and turns in taxonomyic nomenclature.

[Guest]

Which tracks with the RL rumor that the non-modern nuclear genes have a last common ancestor with ours going back about 2.3 million years (still comfortably nested within the hominins, yet just different enough to make something as distinct as a Sasquatch, maybe).

Most interesting, as that date just happens to tally with the earliest fossil found for Boisei - which I suggested elsewhere might not be a bad fit for our hairy friend (cf. robust stature, saggital crest ...). Looks like I might have to visit RL's site to learn more ... urgh.

Instead what has been found is that there is another archaic hominid present in modern African DNA, a cousin of Neanderthal:

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

Interestingly we don't have any apparent finds of bones or other traces evidence of this unknown species, but we have evidence in the form of the DNA in modern humans. It seems that there was likely ongoing interbreeding among hominid species until modern times (and possibly in modern times as well).

Yep, I saw that report and was fascinated by it. Makes you wonder what else is out there to be discovered.

[Guest poignant]

I think non-ape means not genus pan, pongo or gorilla or any of the other primates besides potentially homo since the mito definately is.

Then the clearer statement from Ketchum could have been non-primate, since non-ape can easily include any of the old or new world monkeys. In any case like Bill said... sometimes people over-read and split hairs.

Waiting for Tuesday and beyond...