Guest VioletX Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Question- why can't they be genetically close to humans but still be apes? How do we know where the line is? Orangutangs and chimps are genetically close to humans and still apes, Bigfoot could just be CLOSER to humans but still apes... maybe everyone is right? Maybe the ARE very, very, close to humans genetically, but just haven't evolved the higher thinking and are thus just very smart apes? or some that are ape,lol and some that are human/hybrid? Would that please everyone? 8>D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Question- why can't they be genetically close to humans but still be apes? How do we know where the line is? When you can't find a single deviation that is not known in humans, and when it's best match aligns with some human haplogroup. They would be a great ape like us, but if there are no known mutations that are only found in the other non-human apes then they are pure human. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Question- why can't they be genetically close to humans but still be apes? How do we know where the line is? Orangutangs and chimps are genetically close to humans and still apes, Bigfoot could just be CLOSER to humans but still apes... maybe everyone is right? Maybe the ARE very, very, close to humans genetically, but just haven't evolved the higher thinking and are thus just very smart apes? Assuming no flaws in Ketchum's testing and claims - then with mtDNA testing human it would be hard to argue that these are apes genetically. Also, Ketchum has said the nuclear DNA is 'non-ape'. Doesn't mean that BF can't run around acting like an ape. Hell, I do it every now and then, just to kill the boredom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 A few pages back I posted an Application called "Sasquatch the Tribe revealed." I was hoping someone who understands this whole DNA thing could chime in and tell me how this compares to what she is saying now. Also, if someone could explain this to me, I would appreciate it. "Also discussed is how testing has ruled out ape cross and any ancient contributor and that Sasquatch is indeed a modern human with some genetic mutations accounting for their physical appearance. * POINT OF REFERENCE: This quote above is from the application - NOT her recent release.. Just thought I should make that clear. The "ruled out ape cross" --- what exactly does that mean? May sound like a silly question - but I know others are wondering too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Well, I do know she has said they scrapped all of that due to additional findings, so I doubt there is much use in trying to parse it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I read some older articles in a plain old google search for 'sasquatch DNA" and was reminded from one I read of Sykes' timeline. He was to take samples to Nov. Then analyze. Put the paper out for review in December. December is tomorrow. I'm not saying it'll publish tomorrow but 30 more days if this Ketchum thing falls through again. Of course I speculate the Igor leak was on purpose and this is the end of the line for her. Never pass peer review so this is all. All guessing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I am pretty dumb about the science, but note she said "genetic mutations". This is a past writing, but does that put the upcoming study with those key words back into play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Well, I do know she has said they scrapped all of that due to additional findings, so I doubt there is much use in trying to parse it out. Well, I don't know what the similarities and differences are between this and the released info this week - so if someone could tell me (and make it simple to understand) I would really appreciate it. Nothing personal - I and others are simply trying to understand all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I'd be willing to bet those filings were made before the genomes were mapped. I say that because I heard through the grapevine last November that complete genome sequencing was only then just getting underway. Supposedly the testing was at the behest of the journal. It wasn't too terribly long after that that I first heard they had sequenced the genomes of three separate BF individuals (well before that information appeared here or on Lindsay's blog). That bit now appears to be true so I have no reason to doubt the November timeline. With all that said, I assume they were able to divine a lot more from the full genome sequence than either the mtDNA or the nuDNA testing on specific genes (which we know a little about from the late Richard Stubstad). If that timeline turns out to be accurate, the full genome testing was completed long after those filings *and* the rumored "hand back" of the paper by Nature. Long story short: Things change. Edited November 30, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 What do we do if Sykes comes back with a non confirming result? Strange currents in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 What do we do if Sykes comes back with a non confirming result? Strange currents in the air. One possibility is that there is more than one species of wild North American hominoid. I'm not expecting identical findings....although, OK, that might not be the reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 ^^ I'm not going to be surprised if this is the case; however, I'm not going to be surprised if the maternal DNA is human consistently either JMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 For the longest time now, I think of this situation LINK, whenever I think about this work being done by Melba. Why? Well - just read the article. Here is a little snippet - the full article discuss a new study which has now cast serious doubt on the work done by Daryl Bem. Folks - this has just started for Melba - and if you think this community is hard on her - you ain't seen nothing yet. I would suggest we all pace ourselves - this is gonna be a long and ugly process that won't end even IF her paper is published. it is going to publish, and you can't compare the two studies, one is physical and the other psychological. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Author R.W. Ridley - the progenitor (sorry, couldn't resist) of this thread, has posted his take on these developments. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I'd be willing to bet those filings were made before the genomes were mapped. Yeah, and it didn't seem to change her conclusions when they were mapped. What she must have seen and knew from certain genes predicted what the whole nuclear genome would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts