The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

I think you misunderstand the purported review comment about "no testable hypothesis." The hypothesis of Ketchum's paper is "bigfoot is human."

You have the paper? Prove it.

Ketchum has disavowed the "BF is human" claim. That comes from Paulides/Stubstrad.

Furthermore, there is no "hypothesis" to be had in this study. The DNA didn't make itself up. It came from critters. The study is to document genetically what sort of critters.

Now, how could that be tested by her, you or me or the next Einstein? By tested I mean attempt to falsify. This is what I have said from the beginning, that the attractive feature (for believers) of the "Bigfoot is human meme" is that it cannot be tested. You can just wander about a state park and pick up a paper cup, send it in and if it has human DNA you can say it came from Bigfoot. And no one could prove you wrong in most cases. But even if the DNA was from a known felon, that wouldn't disprove the hypothesis; you could go back the next day and get another paper cup etc yada yada. So it isn't nonsense; the hypothesis is not testable.

Nice to know. Problem is, that isn't the claim and never has been. The closest to that claim that has been suggested is that BF is some sort of possible genus homo distinct from modern man that also shares markers with chimpanzees.

hmm, what's that smell coming from your direction?

The wind shifting and blowing the smell coming from the Skeptic camp back in your faces

Hmmmmm......such a need for "shots across the bow" all of a sudden, makes you really wonder doesn't it?!

Yes, I wonder why Fasano (sp?) felt the need to do this is in the first place...

That would most likley be a known species of animal. I kinda think this discovery might be held (right or wrong) to higher burden than let's say a new sub-species of bluebird!

Which would once and for all put a stake in the heart of the argument that Science is objective.

Mulder, you seem like an individual intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between Gee being open to publishing a sasquatch paper and Gee actually publishing any sasquatch paper submitted. You do realize that it's possible for someone to submit a lousy paper to him that he cannot accept, right? So we are left to conclude that you make statements like the above because . . ? Well, actually, why DO you make such statements when you know darn well that they're ill conceived? I don't get it.

It is most emphatically NOT "misinformation" from the "Skeptics" (again, why are you capitalizing this word these days?). Here are direct quotes from Gee in his column published in Nature in 2004:

Gee, H. 2004. Flores, God and Cryptozoology. Nature [online]: doi: 10.1038/news041025–2.

"The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as yetis are founded on grains of truth.

In the light of the Flores skeleton, a recent initiative⁴ to scour central Sumatra for 'orang pendek' can be viewed in a more serious light. This small, hairy, manlike creature has hitherto been known only from Malay folklore, a debatable strand of hair and a footprint. Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold."

As recently as 2010, Gee wrote the following for The Guardian:

"And if one admits H. floresiensis to the canon, what of other celebrated mythical beasts - if not necessarily Nessie, then the orang pendek of Malaysia? The yeti? The sasquatch? Bigfoot? Are all such creatures the products of delusion, conspiracy theories and hoax? Perhaps - but not necessarily. The little we know of those large mammals on the fringes of knowledge suggests that they live in remote places, are very shy, are extremely rare, and that to find them before they become extinct requires a degree of luck. So far, no hard evidence for yetis (say) has emerged. But in a world that hosts H. floresiensis and the saola, the kouprey and the red gazelle, one should keep an open mind."

Henry Gee's open mind on the subject of crypto-hominins is not misinformation spread by anyone - it's honest-to-goodness, direct quotes from the man himself. There is misinformation being spread about Henry Gee on this issue, but it seems to be coming from you. I hope you will see it within yourself to 1) apologize to the BFF for spreading this misinformation and 2) cease and desist from such comments in the future.

No, I won't. If he's so freaking open to the idea, why isn't he publishing the paper? The nature of the crits alleged to be received have nothing to do with results or methodology, so those must be sound. There is a lot of bloviating about "no testable hypothesis" and other such BS.

That is the sort of word-smithing and lawyer-speak that people engage in when they can't fight the facts (in this case, the apparent results) so they try to blow smoke up everyone's hoo-ha-s about "testable hypothesis" as a distraction.

[Guest parnassus]

Ketchum has disavowed the "BF is human" claim.

not aware of that; plz give a link.

[Guest]

Just to add to the confusion....If Nature didn't publish it, who would? Scientific American? Another journal? If no real science journal would publish it, what would be the next best thing? (National Geographic? Self publication? Drop leaflets over a geneticists convention?)

And as to Tim Fasano......anything--anything-- he publishes is highly dubious IMO. Where did this appear other than his site that didn't get it from his site? I can't figure it out from reading above ^.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Kings Canyon

[Guest]

Sorry parn, but this is misinformation. You do not know what the hypothesis is, nor do you have any of the sequences to support your contention. If the editor of nature read the abstract and handed it back, then He/she could have simply made a recomendation on the hypothesis if that was the issue.

Obviously if it is believed that the samples are from bigfoot then the fix is to say " these samples provided by bigfoot hunters are not modern human or any other extant great ape, but are closest related for these reasons". It would be testable and falsifiable within the field of phylogenetics.

I'm sure the Denisova paper probably used this hypothesis since they had far from a complete specimen as well.

The smell is your imagination.

Let me help you out SY, if I may, first we don't know what types of DNA testing they've done for sure. So or everyone who was timid and just stood by watching the debate, here's what all the hoo-haa is about. These are the DNA types that can be tested and a explaination of DNA. I'm thinking it would help if the less science-exposed had a better understanding of the arguments being made.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/extras/molgen/mutation_haplotype.html

This was a post I came across that interestingly brings up the notion of older populations of humans in North America. Since the BF debate is wrapped around Dr. Ketchum's study right now, some backround into where the current DNA stands for Homo Erectus in north america might be relevant.

Hope this is helpful.

Archaeologica.org

‪ ''Until Svante Paabo began performing autosomal analysis on the Neanderthal Genome it was unprovable whether Europeans were part Neanderthal or not since no mtDNA survived the hybridization. Paabo was able to validate that individuals outside of Africa contain from 1% to 4% Neanderthal DNA in their autosomes. Their lab did the same two-step on Denisovan DNA and came up with the unusual conclusion that some Malays are 10% Denisovan. A similar analysis has yet to be performed on Native Americans.

With regard to the last sentence above, nobody has yet explained why there are five haplogroups of mtDNA found in Native American populations and only one predominant yDNA haplogroup with its sub-group. Again, that tells me that we continue to miss a big part of the picture. With regard to autosomal DNA, there is every possibility that an older, extinct population (or populations) of hominids occupied the Americas prior to mtDNA A, B, C, D and X showing up. It certainly would explain the occasional anomalous finds that defy explanation.''

Edited December 28, 2011 by grayjay
spelling

[Guest Jodie]

Here is a research article regarding what Grayjay just posted about the NA population in both North and South America:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180678/

[Guest]

No, I won't.

So, upon being shown your error, you prefer to not do the honorable thing and admit your mistake? Got it.

If he's so freaking open to the idea, why isn't he publishing the paper? The nature of the crits alleged to be received have nothing to do with results or methodology, so those must be sound.

I do not know, but I would assume that there is some "freaking" flaw in the manuscript that precludes its publication if, in fact, reports are accurate that it has been rejected by Nature. The bolded part is interesting. Have you read the manuscript? Have you read its rejection letter from the journal? Have you read the reviews themselves? If not, on what basis do you conclude that any portion of it must be sound?

[Guest slimwitless]

not aware of that; plz give a link.

I don't believe she has avowed or disavowed the "BF is human" claim.

[Guest]

This is the first that I have heard that Ketchum has disavowed the bf is human hypothesis. If this is true, those who leaked information that the report would sugust that bf is human were providing incorrect information. Am I correct that we are all in agreement that Parn's conclusion that Bf is a human is an untestible hypothesis without a body. It seems to me that we have four possibilities.

1. Hoax.

2. Misinformation in order to increase value of video/documentary.

3. BF is a human which is an untestable hypothesis.

4. The dna samples do not match any known species including human being and known primates. The dna samples are very closely related even though they come from difference parts of the country. The DNA samples are characteric of Primates. The results could be explained by the existence of an undiscovered primate species in North America. (untestable hypothesis?)

[Guest]

This is the first that I have heard that Ketchum has disavowed the bf is human hypothesis. If this is true, those who leaked information that the report would sugust that bf is human were providing incorrect information. Am I correct that we are all in agreement that Parn's conclusion that Bf is a human is an untestible hypothesis without a body. It seems to me that we have four possibilities.

1. Hoax.

2. Misinformation in order to increase value of video/documentary.

3. BF is a human which is an untestable hypothesis.

4. The dna samples do not match any known species including human being and known primates. The dna samples are very closely related even though they come from difference parts of the country. The DNA samples are characteric of Primates. The results could be explained by the existence of an undiscovered primate species in North America. (untestable hypothesis?)

Don't forget that it was also leaked(or suggested) that custom primers had to be developed because of the difficulty in sequencing due to the use of human stock.

[southernyahoo]

This is the first that I have heard that Ketchum has disavowed the bf is human hypothesis. If this is true, those who leaked information that the report would sugust that bf is human were providing incorrect information. Am I correct that we are all in agreement that Parn's conclusion that Bf is a human is an untestible hypothesis without a body. It seems to me that we have four possibilities.

1. Hoax.

2. Misinformation in order to increase value of video/documentary.

3. BF is a human which is an untestable hypothesis.

4. The dna samples do not match any known species including human being and known primates. The dna samples are very closely related even though they come from difference parts of the country. The DNA samples are characteric of Primates. The results could be explained by the existence of an undiscovered primate species in North America. (untestable hypothesis?)

Your # 3 depends on how you qualify the word human. You still could have the hypoyhesis that it is genus homo but not modern human as we currenty define it due to some acceptable level of divergence.

[Guest Cervelo]

Would you guys and gals be in agreement that with what we currently know about DNA there is no agreement on it's interpetation as it relates to the current known human species? Or to put in Cervelo terms we don't know **** about what we thought we knew?

[Guest Jodie]

We are just beginning to learn what genes work in which way.

[bipedalist]

Just remember that nobody makes no junk jenes.....or we don't know jack about jenes......or juxtapose this jive....

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Transposons-or-Jumping-Genes-Not-Junk-DNA-1211?auTags=

[southernyahoo]

Would you guys and gals be in agreement that with what we currently know about DNA there is no agreement on it's interpetation as it relates to the current known human species? Or to put in Cervelo terms we don't know **** about what we thought we knew?

I'd say we are still learning about native human populations and their origins in America. Though, it doesn't stop science from proposing new types of humans ( members of the genus homo) can be validated with their unique DNA.

[Guest]

I don't believe she has avowed or disavowed the "BF is human" claim.

Correct. However, unlike Mulder, I do not see a divorce between Ketchum and Paulides. Paulides should know what Ketchum is concluding (he submitted samples) and he has repeatedly stated that Native Americans are correct in believing sasquatch are human tribes. The question: Is Paulides saying sasquatch are a variation of homo sapiens sapiens or a closely related subspecies?

Confusion arises by the various interpretations of the small information we have on this issue. Will the DNA show conclusively that there is evidence of a closely related human species, or will the study find modern human variation and rely on secondary evidence to "prove" this DNA exceptional?

I do not own a copy of Paulides' Tribal Bigfoot, but doesn't he offer there an explanation of what sasquatch DNA shows? Anyone have a copy and can quote from it?

Edited December 29, 2011 by Squatchdetective
Violation of Rule 1A