Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 ^^Link not working... I have to also point out that ronn1 is continuing to misquote Ketchum by omitting the word "hominid" after the word "unknown". There is nothing impossible about two closely related hominids producing viable offspring. ronn1 seems to think that speciation has come to a halt, when nothing is further from the truth. The natural process of development doesn't stop short of 100% extinction of all life. If you want a VERY recent incident that may be explainable by speciation, I would refer you to the changes in the components of rattlesnake venom in the western US that may be the result of hybridization of two or more species of existing breeds. DUDE...so wadda think of the >>> ranging from 94,000 to 13,000 years ago.??????? Kinda shoots down your 15K hypothesis??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Hmmm, this is confusing. I don't think that the proposal thus far says that there was a mixed breeding between humans and something that originated 15,000 years ago. Humans bred with something else, further removed from modern humans than Neanderthals or Denisovan (Denise's ovums?), but still closely related enough that they could actually do it, and make babies. Something still kind of human-like, probably pretty hairy if the resulting crosses ended up as bigfoot people. But whatever that was the human women bred with, must have been around for quite some time, held over without becoming extinct by 15,000 years ago. But then, there's not a big record of non-modern human's surviving that recently. Were they rare and elusive, just like bigfoots are now? Not a lot of them maybe, not a lot of remains to last until now, to clue us in to their existence? But enough of them to interbreed with modern style humans in sufficient numbers to permanently stamp their mitochondria with human DNA? Seems like there would have had to be enough matings to get that sort of permanence in their genes. So is it possible that whatever bigfoot is, it might resemble whatever that paternal hominin was, for all intents and purposes still kind of like what it was back before the hybridizing events. Some hairy wild form of human, or hominin that was closely related enough to humans to actually breed with them (us)? That bigfoots ARE that mystery primate that somehow brought enough women into the fold to season their gene pool with our influence? But still mostly maintaining their original "primitive" hominin form? I'm just trying to find a way to paint a picture that allows human and unknown primate hybrids to make some sort of sense, that doesn't fall off into spiritual, or extraterrestrial intervention. Heck, maybe that's what it was, but that'd be asking a lot to buy into. A question for the geneticists would be how many women to primate breedings would it take to stamp bigfoot DNA with a permanent mark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Hmmm, this is confusing. I don't think that the proposal thus far says that there was a mixed breeding between humans and something that originated 15,000 years ago. Humans bred with something else, further removed from modern humans than Neanderthals or Denisovan (Denise's ovums?), but still closely related enough that they could actually do it, and make babies. Something still kind of human-like, probably pretty hairy if the resulting crosses ended up as bigfoot people. But whatever that was the human women bred with, must have been around for quite some time, held over without becoming extinct by 15,000 years ago. But then, there's not a big record of non-modern human's surviving that recently. Were they rare and elusive, just like bigfoots are now? Not a lot of them maybe, not a lot of remains to last until now, to clue us in to their existence? But enough of them to interbreed with modern style humans in sufficient numbers to permanently stamp their mitochondria with human DNA? Seems like there would have had to be enough matings to get that sort of permanence in their genes. So is it possible that whatever bigfoot is, it might resemble whatever that paternal hominin was, for all intents and purposes still kind of like what it was back before the hybridizing events. Some hairy wild form of human, or hominin that was closely related enough to humans to actually breed with them (us)? That bigfoots ARE that mystery primate that somehow brought enough women into the fold to season their gene pool with our influence? But still mostly maintaining their original "primitive" hominin form? I'm just trying to find a way to paint a picture that allows human and unknown primate hybrids to make some sort of sense, that doesn't fall off into spiritual, or extraterrestrial intervention. Heck, maybe that's what it was, but that'd be asking a lot to buy into. A question for the geneticists would be how many women to primate breedings would it take to stamp bigfoot DNA with a permanent mark? One thing is certain.. This DNA study is a >>>>>RED HERRING... AKA>> Complete cupcakes Edited December 7, 2012 by AaronD foul language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) And as Disotell said "Unknown, I can't imagine a credible version of someone saying they have unknown DNA".... "So anyone who claims their DNA sequence is unknown is full of cupcakes" "There's no unknown DNA." Edited December 7, 2012 by AaronD foul language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 And as Disotell said "Unknown, I can't imagine a credible version of someone saying they have unknown DNA".... "So anyone who claims their DNA sequence is unknown is full of cupcakes" "There's no unknown DNA." YEP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Disotell did say there is no unknown DNA. Ketchum said unknown hominin. Big difference. Edited December 7, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) 23 pairs of CHROMOSOMES... I'll man up to the correction........so then ....23 pair of chromosomes......same question; "If the unknown hominid has 23 pairs of chromosomes like humans, then it is possible." No?? Edited December 7, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Disotell did say there is no unknown DNA. Ketchum said unknown hominin. said DNA came from unknown source..same thing as *we don't know where male (complementary) DNA came from* The only thing they have is HUMAN DNA (from female..Mitochondrial))..which could have comtaminated in the samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Bob, I really respect your opinion, and your knowledge, about matters related to BF. In particular, about genetics. That prompts my question. Why couldn't the a new species be created from a single hybridization? Wiia It could under specific circumstances. Those are unlikely in my opinion. The hybrids could somehow be superior. I like the logic of disruptive selection better which is basically that they are better adapted to a non technological lifestyle so immediate dramatic improvement in a hybrid is unlikely. There are also a few other possibilities but it seems more likely to me that interbreeding would be relatively uncommon so her DNA should be dramatically diluted after several generations. A single mating is going to be diluted more as the generations pass. The genes of the offspring are essentially the genes of all the grand parents mixed up by recombining. You have 4 grand parents and 8 great grand parents. After three generations of offspring that is 1/8 modern human, 1/16 after four and so on. It should even out to the percentage that she represented in the population after several generations without selection changing the frequency. She probably improved the gene pool for some of the genes but most of the “human†features are probably maladaptive for their lifestyle. Depending on the size of the breeding population her genes could be essentially eliminated in several generations. Unless there is relatively frequent modern humans breeding with them it isn't going to dramatically change their genome minus some genes that would logically be selected for. Apparently some mitochondria like haplogroup H are selected for in modern humans. It was reported to somehow provide 50% greater survival in cases of sepsis. I like repeating that because it blows my mind that a mitochondrial haplogroup could have such an advantage and it makes a point. The point is that the mitochondria should be thought more like a group of genes that can increase because of selection or evolutionary pressure. I wouldn’t think it could increase that quickly to encompass an entire population just by selection but I also wouldn't have thought it could possibly give that much of an advantage to modern humans in some seemingly mostly unrelated condition. They could concievably maintain a non technological niche by disruptive selection and be much closer genetically. It isn’t that wild of an idea. They are apparently more adapted to a wild cryptic lifestyle than we are. They may simply evolve to fit in their particular lifestyle so essentially erase most of the “human†characteristics. _______ While I am at it I might as well add another thought. It seems like they are forcing the data, based on rumors from Stubstad, to try to get the hybridization happening in Europe when it is simpler, based on the timing of the hybridization event, that it happened in America. Edited December 7, 2012 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I'll man up to the correction........so then ....23 pair of chromosomes......same question; "If the unknown hominid has 23 pairs of genes like humans, then it is possible." No?? There is no evidence of 46 pairs...I really don't get your question.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) said DNA came from unknown source..same thing as *we don't know where male (complementary) DNA came from* The only thing they have is HUMAN DNA (from female..Mitochondrial))..which could have comtaminated in the samples. She said sasquatch "is the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens." Why do you insist on dropping the "hominin"? Edited December 7, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) It could under specific circumstances. Those are unlikely in my opinion. The hybrids could somehow be superior. I like the logic of disruptive selection better which is basically that they are better adapted to a non technological lifestyle so immediate dramatic improvement in a hybrid is unlikely. There are also a few other possibilities but it seems more likely to me that interbreeding would be relatively uncommon so her DNA should be dramatically diluted after several generations. A single mating is going to be diluted more as the generations pass. The genes of the offspring are essentially the genes of all the grand parents mixed up by recombining. You have 4 grand parents and 8 great grand parents. After three generations that 1/8 modern human, 1/16 after four and so on. It should even out to the percentage that she represented in the population after several generations without selection changing the frequency. She probably improved the gene pool for some of the genes but most of the “human†features are probably maladaptive for their lifestyle. Depending on the size of the breeding population her genes could be essentially eliminated in several generations. Unless there is relatively frequent modern humans breeding with them it isn't going to dramatically change their genome minus some genes that would logically be selected for. Apparently some mitochondria like H are selected for in modern humans. It was reported to somehow provide 50% greater survival in cases of sepsis. I like repeating that because it blows my mind that a mitochondrial haplogroup could have such an advantage and it makes a point. The point is that the mitochondria should be thought more like a group of genes that can increase because of selection or evolutionary pressure. I wouldn’t think it could increase that quickly to encompass an entire population just by selection but I also wouldn't have thought it could possibly give that much of an advantage to modern humans in some seemingly mostly unrelated condition. They could concievably maintain a non technological niche by disruptive selection and be much closer genetically. It isn’t that wild of an idea. They are apparently more adapted to a wild cryptic lifestyle than we are. They may simply evolve to fit in their particular lifestyle so essentially erase most of the “human†characteristics. _______ While I am at it I might as well add another thought. It seems like they are forcing the data, based on rumors from Stubstad, to try to get the hybridization happening in Europe when it is simpler, based on the timing of the hybridization event, that it happened in America. My take.. They branched away from us on the *tree* that has a common ancestor. I wonder if Neanders are included? In any event...there is NO WAY JOSE that they evolved from us as Ketchum would have us believe. This is just cupcakes pure and simple. Edited December 7, 2012 by AaronD foul language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 While I am at it I might as well add another thought. It seems like they are forcing the data, based on rumors from Stubstad, to try to get the hybridization happening in Europe when it is simpler, based on the timing of the hybridization event, that it happened in America. That's an interesting idea. Unfortunately it seems the prevailing view is that if Ketchum is wrong about anything, she must be wrong about everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) ^^ If the chromosome pairs are equal.........why not? Edited December 7, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 The Disotell podcast he mentions that they now believe Neander has 46 Chromosomes. This makes me put a whole lot more stock in the "Them and Us" book hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts