Guest Cervelo Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Z, Exactly they bred with us and became monster morons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) I thought that the entire neanderthal DNA was sequenced, including the mtDNA. Denisovan DNA has also been sequenced. These are the two known homo DNA sequences other than HSS that have been done. These have been ruled out as paternal origin of sasquatch nDNA, and Dr. Ketchum noted the paternal nDNA is older than either neanderthal or denisovan (in her press release). I'm not sure I follow your argument, can you clarify? They have, but the DNA Melba sequenced had human mtDNA, no matching mtDNA for either Neandertal or Denisovans. The nuclear DNA was human plus something unknown, but Melba did not find the 4-6% of the remnant DNA through previous hybridization or something left over from a common ancestor we all three had in our nuclear DNA. It would be strange to not find that in the unknown ( mosaic version of nuclear DNA that the hybrid had) if it was close enough genetically to breed with us. It should or would have inherited it either from the human mother, the unknown, or some combination there of would be present. What I'm trying to say is that the unknown would have to be HOMO in order to breed with human and common genes of anscestory should be inherited from both parents, she did not find that in the hybrid nuclear DNA. Edited December 10, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Getting a bit personal there Mulder aren't we? Nope. Just continuing to point out your utter failure to proffer any evidence for your claims about Ketchum. Most people seem to have given up, but not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Dude... wanna splain genetics and DNA sequencing to us? It's WAYYY OUT...THERE but I'm all ears Wayyy out.. THERE ? NOPE, Just a click away, http://www.2shared.com/document/wUKOQvxA/Genetics_For_Dummies.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Most people seem to have given up, but not me. You're an unstoppable rebel force. Get em tiger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 What I'm trying to say is that the unknown would have to be HOMO in order to breed with human and common genes of anscestory should be inherited from both parents, she did not find that in the hybrid nuclear DNA. I'm guessing it would depend on where in the genome the 2-4 % of Neanderthal resides in the genome. If it's spread through out and then you mixed the unknown homin in you might not find a trace of that. It might matter how we interpret the statement too. If it was meant that the unknown portion of the mosaic was compared to Neanderthal nuDNA in the same regions and did not match, then that might explain the statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I would say that Melba's interpretation of what her data means is strictly one woman's opinion at this point. If that were true we would have heard from the co-authers by now. No dissent, no one jumping ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Was there another type of human that could breed with man as well as other hominids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I would say that Melba's interpretation of what her data means is strictly one woman's opinion at this point. Pretty much. Afterall, it's her lab and results. I don't think other labs will differ from the results. The protocol is likely nationally appoved and accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 First post here, though I've been lurking off and on for some time. My background is in archaeology and I would probably classify myself as an open-minded skeptic or maybe a skeptical proponent. I've been following the Ketchum DNA study tangentially over the past year, though my interest began to wane as her Facebook comments about seeing families of BFs, etc. began to come out. With the big release a couple of weeks ago my interest was renewed and I decided to come here and dig a little deeper into the backstory. So I've spent the last few days reading this entire thread. Wow, what a slog! But there have been some very interesting discussion here over the last year and a half and it's been a fascinating soap opera at the very least. One of the concerns I have about this study are the rumors that Ketchum's interpretation of the data may have been influenced by ideological or metaphysical concepts outside of those data. Or at least, ideas of alternative history and biology. If there was any hint of this in her article that would certainly explain its continuous rejection. Even if she backed away from such things in rewrites, the well may have already been poisoned with editors and reviewers. Even she was not explicit, but had conclusions that were informed by such ideas rather than the data this would be serious problem.I hope that this is not the case, but there has been a lot smoke along these lines. At the very least there seem to be problems with her conclusions as outlined in the press release according to those knowledgeable in DNA mapping and she certainly would have been better off just presenting the results and keeping the interpretation limited and very conservative.If even her basic statements about the nDNA results are correct and not a result of degradation or some other flaw then that would have been huge by itself without need for further speculation to get published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Oh no you didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Now my understanding of DNA mapping is rudimentary at best, and I very much appreciate CTfoot and others who have shared their valuable expertise. Just for sake of speculation, I'd like to play around with the limited information we have about MK's conclusions or at least what I think she is saying her conclusions are, because it seems like her comments are being misunderstood or misconstrued by a number of people. So correct me if I'm wrong: There was a mating event between a hominin with unrecorded DNA (not necessarily unknown or undocumented---only a handful (3?) of homimins have sequenced genomes for comparison) and a modern human female sometime around (after?) 15000 BP. This event produced a viable female hybrid whose female descendents carried the modern human mtDNA all those generation s and some of those descendents are the source of the DNA she tested. CTfoot, is this scenario impossible or extremely unlikely, and if so why? You seem to be indicating that this is the case. Taking her scenario at face value for the sake of discussion, we should be able to speculate about the nature of this hominin progenitor. It's further from modern humans than Denisovans or Neanderthals but still close enough to produce a viable hybrid offspring. Presumably modern humans were able to sometimes mate successfully with both Denisovans and Neanderthals (and possibly another archaic human in Africa) since some of us still carry their DNA, so if MK's scenario is correct then her interbreeding event was probably very similar to these others only taking place around 15000 BP rather than 30000 or 40000 BP. This by itself doesn't seem impossible given what we've learned in the last couple of years about our sexual interaction (willing or otherwise) with our hominin cousins. As for the timing, Floresiensis existed up until at least 15,000 BP (an unlikely candidate for our progenitor but who knows) so other hominins might have as well--15000 BP no longer seems as improbable as it would have a decade ago. It's not clear exactly what Red Deer Man is yet but they could be a fairly recent archaic human as well. But realistically this proposed hominin progenitor couldn't have been much different morphologically from Neanderthal, Denisovan, or their likely predecessor Heidelbergensis. Somewhere in their range. The further back you go---H. antecessor, ergaster, erectus---the less likely viable offspring would be. CTfoot, I'm unclear why you think Heidelbergensis would be eliminated from consideration based on MK's comments. It would seem to me that if her interpreatation is correct (big if at this point) then Heidelbergensis would be the most likely candidate. The big problem to my mind is how you get from this mating event with a hominin that had to be fairly close to us morphologically (though maybe hairier) to the modern descriptions of an 7-8" BF. Did it evolve to become taller over the last 15,000 years? Lose its tool and fire use? It hardly seems likely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Hi Theagenes! Someone give Theagenes a +1 for reading the thread. One thought I had...people are saying that Ketchem's analysis may be skewed towards her beliefs, it makes me wonder that if she was saying "ape", people would be saying the same thing. Can't win if you ask me ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Hi Theagenes! Someone give Theagenes a +1 for reading the thread. One thought I had...people are saying that Ketchem's analysis may be skewed towards her beliefs, it makes me wonder that if she was saying "ape", people would be saying the same thing. Can't win if you ask me ; ) Maybe, but I think she created that impression from some of the comments she's made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I'm guessing it would depend on where in the genome the 2-4 % of Neanderthal resides in the genome. If it's spread through out and then you mixed the unknown homin in you might not find a trace of that. It might matter how we interpret the statement too. If it was meant that the unknown portion of the mosaic was compared to Neanderthal nuDNA in the same regions and did not match, then that might explain the statement Yes but we all had a common ancestor if the mix can't be explained by a previous hybridization so whatever the unknown was would have the same kind of residual genes for lack of a better way to put it. If it isn't homo it would not have been able to mix so those genes should be on both sides. I'ld have to go back and read to see where they found them in humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts