Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Mulder, Did you even bother to listen to Disotell's podcast on this subject? He gets into exactly what you are asking about. 15,000 years ago in evolutionary time is really not long ago. You can breed a new type of dog in only a decade or two with enough breeding events. It really doesn't take that long. And we have no idea how long the interbreeding between HSS and Hominid X would have been going on prior to that. Just that the mtDNA sequence goes back that far. DUDE...so wadda think of the >>> ranging from 94,000 to 13,000 years ago.??????? Kinda shoots down your 15K hypothesis??? Your argument was that we (HSS) were the sole hominid alive 15,000 years ago. I proved that was demonstrably wrong. So, where we have at least ONE documented non HSS hominid alive 15,000 years ago, why not another? You forget (or are ignoring) the fact that every single species that ever lived was a "young" species at one point in its development. So why are you fixated on the idea that BF being a "young" species is a theory-killer? Are you claiming that there is some arbitrary point where speciation just stops and that's the end of natural development? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Yes...but she suggested that BF originated 15K years ago..preposterous. Why can't you comprehend what she really said? The hybridization event occurred about 15,000 years ago. The pre-hybridization animal (a homonid) diverged from the homo sapiens line sometime before the neanderthals and denisovans did -- i.e. a long time ago. They were still, however, close enough to homo sapiens that the two "species" could interbreed. The mitochondria DNA is passed down through females, so the current, post hybrid, sasquatch has human mitocondria DNA. (Mitochondria is not contained in the nucleus of a cell, where the nuclear DNA resides. It is contained in particles of mitochondria, which float around separately in the cell.) Tontar's post above (665018) about dog breeding is interesting. "f that half bred litter goes back to the German Shepherd farm and only breeds back to German Shepherds, it will, over time, lose all that it gained from the Pit Bull." Similarly, it is possible that there was one hybridizing event 15,000 years ago, between one pre-hybrid male sasquatch and one human female, and ever since then the sasquatches have been mating only with each other. There is almost nothing left, in their nuclear DNA, of homo sapiens, yet the mitochondria is carrying forth great great gramma's (the human's) mitochondria DNA virtually intact. And as for contamination: yes, that is a possibility, but Ketchum has already addressed that allegation. --------------- ETA the parenthetical sentence about mitochondria. ETA 2 - the sentence on contamination. Edited December 7, 2012 by Oak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) One thing is certain.. This DNA study is a >>>>>RED HERRING... AKA>> Complete cupcakes Proof? 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." "unknown" = un-previously documented. Which is now not the case, given that is has been sequenced. Disotell did say there is no unknown DNA. Ketchum said unknown hominin. Big difference. Yep. See above. 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"? Because that's the only way his argument from credulity/ridicule fallacy has a chance of working. 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. Why? You still haven't/won't answer that. 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. I've never had the chance to read the whole book, but the sample chapters up on the website and the various video presentations by the author are very well reasoned and convincing. NP theory is a very valid candidate to explain the peculiarities of HSS development. Edited December 7, 2012 by AaronD edited foul language in quoted material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 This is published a lot on the net, what Bryan Sykes said about his own research material, he is testing only mitochondrial DNA, which you can get from a hair shaft [no root needed] which is covered in "keratin – a kind of biological plastic" that protects the DNA from con- tamination and degradation. From this, I surmised that Ketchum's mitochondrial DNA was equally reliable, the original stuff, and it was the BF mother's DNA. If I didn't miss a beat and garble what Sykes and Ketchum said, then BF's mom is modern (HSS) human without a doubt. It is the daddy BF that's eluded authorities and refused to contribute to any gene bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Proof? "unknown" = un-previously documented. Which is now not the case, given that is has been sequenced. Yep. See above. Because that's the only way his argument from credulity/ridicule fallacy has a chance of working. Why? You still haven't/won't answer that. I've never had the chance to read the whole book, but the sample chapters up on the website and the various video presentations by the author are very well reasoned and convincing. NP theory is a very valid candidate to explain the peculiarities of HSS development. Proof? "unknown" = un-previously documented. Which is now not the case, given that is has been sequenced. Yep. See above. Because that's the only way his argument from credulity/ridicule fallacy has a chance of working. Why? You still haven't/won't answer that. I've never had the chance to read the whole book, but the sample chapters up on the website and the various video presentations by the author are very well reasoned and convincing. NP theory is a very valid candidate to explain the peculiarities of HSS development. Mulder>>>> Let's see what comes of this cupcake in a month or two. YEP>>>>NADA>>>ZIP. Sorry, but the DNA here is NOWHERE. This is published a lot on the net, what Bryan Sykes said about his own research material, he is testing only mitochondrial DNA, which you can get from a hair shaft [no root needed] which is covered in "keratin – a kind of biological plastic" that protects the DNA from con- tamination and degradation. From this, I surmised that Ketchum's mitochondrial DNA was equally reliable, the original stuff, and it was the BF mother's DNA. If I didn't miss a beat and garble what Sykes and Ketchum said, then BF's mom is modern (HSS) human without a doubt. It is the daddy BF that's eluded authorities and refused to contribute to any gene bank. All the above is cupcakes>>>sorry Edited December 7, 2012 by AaronD edit foul language abreviation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 IF MITOCHONDRIAL DNA resides in the center of the hair strand, is it not protected from outside contamination to a good extent, aside from sloppy lab work? Or barring that scenario can the hair not be biologically sterilized on the outside and then tested on the inner parts? I.m sorta confused as I think even I could get a clean sample from the inside of hair. I mean it appears to me that any sample of any size could be sliced as to remove contaminated outer layers with the microscopically sharp bladed instruments professionals would have at their disposal. Just asking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Why can't you comprehend what she really said? The hybridization event occurred about 15,000 years ago. The pre-hybridization animal (a homonid) diverged from the homo sapiens line sometime before the neanderthals and denisovans did -- i.e. a long time ago. They were still, however, close enough to homo sapiens that the two "species" could interbreed. The mitochondria DNA is passed down through females, so the current, post hybrid, sasquatch has human mitocondria DNA. (Mitochondria is not contained in the nucleus of a cell, where the nuclear DNA resides. It is contained in particles of mitochondria, which float around separately in the cell.) Tontar's post above (665018) about dog breeding is interesting. "f that half bred litter goes back to the German Shepherd farm and only breeds back to German Shepherds, it will, over time, lose all that it gained from the Pit Bull." Similarly, it is possible that there was one hybridizing event 15,000 years ago, between one pre-hybrid male sasquatch and one human female, and ever since then the sasquatches have been mating only with each other. There is almost nothing left, in their nuclear DNA, of homo sapiens, yet the mitochondria is carrying forth great great gramma's (the human's) mitochondria DNA virtually intact. And as for contamination: yes, that is a possibility, but Ketchum has already addressed that allegation. --------------- ETA the parenthetical sentence about mitochondria. ETA 2 - the sentence on contamination. Hello??? She said BF was *born* 15K years ago...wanna debate that? All aside..let's see where all this goes>>>NO WHERE!! Edited December 7, 2012 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Hello??? She said BF was *born* 15K years ago...wanna debate that? All aside..let's see where all this goes>>>NO WHERE!! OK, see you in two months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 OK, see you in two months. I'm here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Mulder>>>> Let's see what comes of this cupcake in a month or two. YEP>>>>NADA>>>ZIP. Sorry, but the DNA here is NOWHERE. All the above is cupcakes>>>sorry Proof? Edited December 7, 2012 by AaronD foul language in quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Get along and wait patiently for data, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Something genetically more distant than Neandertal and Denisovans would have an incredibly hard time producing a fetus, maintaining a fetus, and producing viable young simply because we are the only primate that develops pre-ecclampsia(PE) and eclampsia during pregnancy according to one of my sister's research journals that she gave me to read when we were discussing this situation. I'll see if there is a citation anywhere online for this article, ahh here it is: Moreover, it is believed that paternal genes also play an important role in the development of PE. This is evidenced by the increased risk of PE in women with pregnancies of men who have previously been involved in pregnancies complicated with PE [22, 23]. This is of special importance since genomic imprinting results in involvement of paternal genes in the control of invasion and placental growth, whereas maternal genes inhibit it and are responsible for the adaptive immune response of pregnancy [24]. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jp/2012/632732/ So I can't see normal placental development occuring between a distant unknown hominin when this remains an issue 5-10% of the time in our own species related to how our immune system works. It more than likely didn't work with the Neandertal and Denisovans considering how little common DNA that we share, being at most 6% in the Denisovans. If interbreeding occured with modern humans the lack of success in producing young was probably related to this syndrome if conception occurred at all IMO. Also, we seem to have a unique genetic component that produces this dangerous condition even though the greater apes also evolved to have the same kind of placental implantation that we did: Comparative studies show that human beings are the only hominid species without a C1-specific activating receptor (Moesta et al. 2010). While it is beyond doubt that preeclampsia can occur in the chimpanzee (Stout & Lemon 1969), it has largely been overlooked. An intriguing possibility is that the incidence of the disease is indeed lower in chimpanzees because they have evolved a set of KIRs that minimizes the risk. http://www.reproduct.../141/4/391.full Edited December 7, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Remind me to just skip the posts that come up between 10 and 6am eastern. Bicker, bicker, bicker about something and quote each others long statements then at the end add a one word comment. My eyes hurt from reading. Is there any situation in life when y'all defer and can say "I don't know?". Or must you be right in every situation? Did I read a comment from Ms. Forestpeople that this shook be over "soon?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted December 7, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted December 7, 2012 Hello??? She said BF was *born* 15K years ago...wanna debate that? All aside..let's see where all this goes>>>NO WHERE!! How incredibly condescending and insulting.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Here are more research articles explaining the evolutionary advantage of deep trophoblastic placental implantation for the HSS species. Maybe Bob Zenor will enjoy reading these, if no one else does. The price that mankind has had to pay to adapt to the pre-eclampsia risk is a low fecundability rate and therefore loss of oestrus, possibly a step in the deviation between apes and hominids. Further, pre-eclampsia risk may be a contributing factor leading to the rejection of systematic polyandry in human societies and have influenced prohibition of incest. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12896815 Consequently, a new biological hypothesis is proposed to account for the unexplained disappearance of H. neanderthalensis some 30000 years ago related to the possible appearance of preeclampsia as a factor affecting the survival of the species. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12896818 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts