bipedalist Posted December 10, 2012 BFF Patron Posted December 10, 2012 Wow Ed Smith weighs in well La-Ti-Da!
Guest spurfoot Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 rocklesssquatching, here is a universal truth for you: "Truth is the most abhorred quantity on the planet."
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Funny how ideas strike out of the blue. Ed Smith's mention of "precursors" got me to thinking about how Melba mentioned she needed to design specific primers to sequence squatch DNA. That doesn't make sense. All current generation genome sequencers use "adapter ligation" technology. That means a "generic" adapter is attached to each DNA fragment and the sequencing is "primed" from the adapter. There is no need for primers specific to each species. We can sequence DNA from any critter, plant or microbe. The technology has been around for 5-6 years. I can't think of anyone who uses the old primer method - its time consuming and expensive by comparison. Just about every major genome lab uses the new method. Just more food for thought. Genes
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Maybe, except for the hairiness, height, lack of lithic technology and fire use. And the fact that they're in North America. Don't forget the well-developed sagittal crest Do we really know how hairy Heidelberg Man, Neanderthal, or Denisovan were? The question does seem to be open. They probably weren't nearly as hairy as chimps, gorillas and orangutans.
Guest Theagenes Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Do we really know how hairy Heidelberg Man, Neanderthal, or Denisovan were? The question does seem to be open. I also think environmental changes (evolution) would need to be taken into account if HM is postulated as the paternal side of bigfoot. We have some idea. H. erectus seems to have been the first hominin to not have full body hair though this is not consensus and is based on DNA studies of pubic lice. Yeah, google that one---it's fun. But, let's say you have a hominin population in an arctic or sub-arctic environment, that doesn't have the knowledge of how to tan skins like Neanderthal. Would they develop thick body hair again? As for height we do know that some populations of Heidelberg Man were over 7' tall for a while in South Africa: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/833/ Not that wasn't the normal, but it does indicate that hominin height can increase significantly (or decrease) due to environmental condition. Again arctic conditions might do this as larger animals lose body heat slower. Just brainstorming here and throwing out some ideas. I didn't think you were referring to a specific 5'10 hominin like Heidelberg Man. I thought you were wondering why any hybrid union with hss wouldn't be more like us. BTW, how do we know how hairy any of these guys were? It's my opinion as an anonymous Internet poster that if there's anything to this phenomenon, it's that this species was pressured into a primative and reclusive lifestyle so as not to meet the same fate as every other hominin that dared to cross our path. On the hairy question see above. But yes, if there is a relect hominin surviving today meeting the description of BF, then that's exactly what would have happened. Environmental pressures and having to compete with modern humans would have caused these characteristics, not the occasionally interspecies sexual encounter. That was the point I was trying to make I guess.
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Bigger doesn't have to mean taller. Neanderthals were shorter in modern humans but were more robust.
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Funny how ideas strike out of the blue. Ed Smith's mention of "precursors" got me to thinking about how Melba mentioned she needed to design specific primers to sequence squatch DNA. That doesn't make sense. All current generation genome sequencers use "adapter ligation" technology. That means a "generic" adapter is attached to each DNA fragment and the sequencing is "primed" from the adapter. There is no need for primers specific to each species. We can sequence DNA from any critter, plant or microbe. The technology has been around for 5-6 years. I can't think of anyone who uses the old primer method - its time consuming and expensive by comparison. Just about every major genome lab uses the new method. Just more food for thought. Genes Thanks for that!
Guest spurfoot Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Cotter and rocklesssquatching, all I know is that I posted rockless observations on facebook (without attribution) and was immediately accused of all kinds of things by my feminist niece. Likewise, just look at what is happening to Ketchum. Corollaries: only liars are elected to public office; the most popular people are either liars or delusional; science is abhorred by the touchy-feely types.
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Don't forget the well-developed sagittal crest They probably weren't nearly as hairy as chimps, gorillas and orangutans. How in the world can you make that statement with any kind of certainty?
southernyahoo Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Funny how ideas strike out of the blue. Ed Smith's mention of "precursors" got me to thinking about how Melba mentioned she needed to design specific primers to sequence squatch DNA. That doesn't make sense. All current generation genome sequencers use "adapter ligation" technology. That means a "generic" adapter is attached to each DNA fragment and the sequencing is "primed" from the adapter. There is no need for primers specific to each species. We can sequence DNA from any critter, plant or microbe. The technology has been around for 5-6 years. I can't think of anyone who uses the old primer method - its time consuming and expensive by comparison. Just about every major genome lab uses the new method. Just more food for thought. Genes Ah thanks Genes, I've been waiting for this to come up, I think Melba did some old school primer developement to get some of her early nuDNA sequences on some targeted genes. Then used "next generation" tech to get the whole genomes. Are primers and precursors the same thing technically?
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) (Yes..we know it's an *UNKNOWN* in above ^ Just *Cupcakes* 'n Giggles.... here is an interesting thread on this topic: http://forums.randi....=130698&page=76 Edited December 10, 2012 by ronn1
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 How in the world can you make that statement with any kind of certainty? What, you think its crazy to think that? We have a good idea of when humans lost their coats and was long before Neanderthals.
Guest Theagenes Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Bigger doesn't have to mean taller. Neanderthals were shorter in modern humans but were more robust. That's right, it doesn't have to be height. The other advantage to increased size is a lower metabolism requiring less fuel/weight than smaller animals. You mentioned the sagittal crest, and that's more difficult to reconcile with a hominin that could have mated with modern humans as you have to back to Paranthropus for that.
southernyahoo Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 re sagital crest, if there is one, and in line with a path of adaptation, could it develope from chewing roots? Could it just be an elongated cranium?
Recommended Posts