Guest Tontar Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Enough about my family but perhaps all this helps some understand how it is that BF could have human mtDNA and not be human at all. Yes, good discussions, it has helped me understand. But your last comment reminds me of "Little Big Man", where the People were the NA's, and they didn't see the white man as "people". So, looking at it from the Chief's point of view you could have human mtDNA and not be "people". ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 So shouting "cupcakes" and using red type passes for debate now? As a Ketchum thread reader from day one I'm almost missing the days of that chap with the crazy "DNA mailed from different parts of the country" theory. Almost... If I read it correctly, T Disotell refers to that theory in his critique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Thats a pretty cool family story Scout. The only thing about the mtDNA is that it would have to pass through about 700 generations to get to the present day. Someone could get a calculator out and almost guesstimate a base population with that if you counted two surviving children each having two surviving children, etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Yes, good discussions, it has helped me understand. But your last comment reminds me of "Little Big Man", where the People were the NA's, and they didn't see the white man as "people". So, looking at it from the Chief's point of view you could have human mtDNA and not be "people". ;-) LOL, yes that is a true statement. I read the book 'Little Big Man' many years ago, it's a good book. Every once in a while I still quote from it. Glad all that helped. Blessings! Thats a pretty cool family story Scout. The only thing about the mtDNA is that it would have to pass through about 700 generations to get to the present day. Someone could get a calculator out and almost guesstimate a base population with that if you counted two surviving children each having two surviving children, etc.... That number would make you not want to go out into the woods at night.... I'd sit down and figure it out but it's almost 5 on friday.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 7, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 7, 2012 Honestly guys IMHO you've got a troll in here so please don't feed him cupcakes.... Okay? Surely you jest? Well it's time for de-troll boss, de-troll boss! Speaking of which...... There, that ought to do it. Seriously, "A" troll, I've counted close to six in the last six weeks easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 10 days are up. Paulides was obviously given misleading information or just pulled the timeline out of thin area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Maybe Melba is getting her results from this concept, the MCRA (most common recent ancestor). Here is what Wiki has to say about it: The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, with an estimate of the human MRCA living about 2,000 to 5,000 years ago, that is, estimating the IAP to be about three times as distant as the MRCA.[3] As the human genome consists of roughly 232 base pairs, the genetic contribution of a single ancestor through a single line may be flushed out of an individual's genome completely after 32 generations, or roughly 1,000 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point Think about it, blue eyes first appeared 10,000 years ago so all blue eyed people have that one common ancestor. 16.6% of the total population on earth will have blue eyes, do you think there are that many sasquatch? Unless of course she means the last common human ancestor inherited their mtDNA from someone 15,000 years ago, to have mosaicism the way she describes then the last hybridization event would have to have occurred sooner than that, at least in the last 1000 years according to Wiki. I still don't think it's biologically possible because of the autoimmune respone human females have to foreign proteins after conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html This is not really relevant to the discussion I guess, I just thought it was amazing, speaking of descendents. .5 percent of the male population of the world has this guy Genghis as their Grand dad (x) Edited December 7, 2012 by people booger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 On the 15,000 year figure, I assumed that this must have been established from the number of nucleotides in the purported BF mtDNA that differ from present-day human mtDNA. If this is a DNA study, I don't see that it would be based on anything else. Is this a fair assessment? BobZ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Maybe Melba is getting her results from this concept, the MCRA (most common recent ancestor). Here is what Wiki has to say about it: The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, with an estimate of the human MRCA living about 2,000 to 5,000 years ago, that is, estimating the IAP to be about three times as distant as the MRCA.[3] As the human genome consists of roughly 232 base pairs, the genetic contribution of a single ancestor through a single line may be flushed out of an individual's genome completely after 32 generations, or roughly 1,000 years. http://en.wikipedia....ancestors_point Think about it, blue eyes first appeared 10,000 years ago so all blue eyed people have that one common ancestor. 16.6% of the total population on earth will have blue eyes, do you think there are that many sasquatch? Unless of course she means the last common human ancestor inherited their mtDNA from someone 15,000 years ago, to have mosaicism the way she describes then the last hybridization event would have to have occurred sooner than that, at least in the last 1000 years according to Wiki. I still don't think it's biologically possible because of the autoimmune respone human females have to foreign proteins after conception. Disotell coments here: http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/12/dna-experts-view-of-the-ketchum-bigfoot-dna-claim/ A team of scientists can verify that their 5-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called “Bigfoot†or “Sasquatch,†living in North America. Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species. The fact that this extraordinary claim was not accompanied by a paper and supporting data was a giant red flag for Disotell. The positing of an unknown primate existing 15,000 years ago is not plausible. 15,000 years ago, humans were “usâ€. This is a very short span of time, evolutionarily. There is no evidence that another primate that we have not discovered was living at the time in order to mate with human females. In addition, the mention of a “non-human sequence†is confusing. If it’s non-human or unknown, what does it most closely match? If it matches close to bear, bacteria, plants, whatever, that would give us a better idea about a reasonable interpretation. The use of “unknown†does not make sense in terms of science. Its use sparked the mention of so-called “angel†DNA further decreasing the capacity of onlookers to take this seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Yes I listened to that a few times, I was trying to use the socratic method to illustrate how this doesn't make any sense even if you are willing to entertain the notion of an unidentified primate that exists in order to mate with a human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 7, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) http://www.scienceda...tzqaaE.facebook Granted howler monkey, but maybe hominins next! Verifies phenotypic admixtures of great morphological diversity from the hybridized genomes of primates. Edited December 7, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 10 days are up. Paulides was obviously given misleading information or just pulled the timeline out of thin area. Wel I guess the next dreaded date to look forward toooooo is that taboo date two weeks from today.. Yep.. Dec 21 ......... Surely not ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 This seems vaguely relevant: Did different species of early humans interbreed and produce offspring of mixed ancestry? I think this one is interesting too. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110905160918.htm "We think there were probably thousands of interbreeding events," Hammer said. "It happened relatively extensively and regularly." "Anatomically modern humans were not so unique that they remained separate," he added. "They have always exchanged genes with their more morphologically diverged neighbors. This is quite common in nature, and it turns out we're not so unusual after all." The positing of an unknown primate existing 15,000 years ago is not plausible. 15,000 years ago, humans were “usâ€. This is a very short span of time, evolutionarily. There is no evidence that another primate that we have not discovered was living at the time in order to mate with human females. In addition, the mention of a “non-human sequence†is confusing. If it’s non-human or unknown, what does it most closely match? If it matches close to bear, bacteria, plants, whatever, that would give us a better idea about a reasonable interpretation. The use of “unknown†does not make sense in terms of science. Its use sparked the mention of so-called “angel†DNA further decreasing the capacity of onlookers to take this seriously I think in time, someone will send Disotell a sample, and say, "sequence this at X locus" then get back with me asap. That would probably disambiguate the term "unknown" at least a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 8, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) ...I think in time, someone will send Disotell a sample, and say, "sequence this at X locus" then get back with me asap. That would probably disambiguate the term "unknown" at least a little. That would be both disingenuous and disambiguous SY, lol. Edited December 8, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts