Guest Theagenes Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 What, you think its crazy to think that? We have a good idea of when humans lost their coats and was long before Neanderthals. Yes, again due to DNA studies of lice: http://www.trueorigins.us/#/human-lice-human-history/4540119488 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? I don't know, but maybe. Or another diet that requires strong jaw muscles. It would be a case of a vestigial trait becoming pronounced again. We thing we can say is that hominins are very adaptable---at least until we came around and pushed out the competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Thanks for the clarification Theagenes. It's my understanding that the further you go back past 200,000K the less likely you are going to have something that will be able to successfully mate with the homo species. The only thing I heard Melba say that was missing was Neandertal and Denisovan genes, I don't recall her saying anything one way or the other about any other possibility. That leaves us with the problem of the "unknown" that she mentioned, does this mean that the unknown doesn't necessarily have to be of the homo species even if you disregard the fact that there is no fossil record that indicates anything else like that would have lived 15,000 years? I've focused on the homo species, I haven't looked at the other branches. If the more recent theories think hybridization occurred more frequently than we thought in the past is it limited to our own species? How far removed does a type have to be before it's not considered belonging to our species anymore? After I read your post I went back and reread some of the material I read previously and it does say that genetic differences are thought to be very subtle even going back as far as ergaster. Edited December 10, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Doesn't look like he has a podcast of his show but they do have what they call an audio vault which I think allows you to pick a time and listen to it. Never tried it and today's content is not up yet, but when it is up just look for Dec 10 between 11:30 and noon, she was on during that time. Link below. Hope that helps, enjoy. http://www.qr77.com/news/audiovault/ "Audio for a specific hour will not be available until 20 minutes following its broadcast." Thanks for linking this. I listened to it she seemed very confident and one certainly didn't get the impression she wasn't being truthful. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Thanks for the clarification Theagenes. It's my understanding that the further you go back past 200,000K the less likely you are going to have something that will be able to successfully mate with the homo species. The only thing I heard Melba say that was missing was Neandertal and Denisovan genes, I don't recall her saying anything one way or the other about any other possibility. That leaves us with the problem of the "unknown" that she mentioned, does this mean that the unknown doesn't necessarily have to be of the homo species even if you disregard the fact that there is no fossil record that indicates anything else like that would have lived 15,000 years? I've focused on the homo species, I haven't looked at the other branches. If the more recent theories think hybridization occurred more frequently than we thought in the past is it limited to our own species? How far removed does a type have to be before it's not considered belonging to our species anymore? After I read your post I went back and reread some of the material I read previously and it does say that genetic differences are thought to be very subtle even going back as far as ergaster. H. ergaster is going pretty far back, but heck until the last couple of years we no real evidence that we had mated with any archaic humans so who knows. But that's why I was thinking H. heidelbergensis (or an as-yet undiscovered isolated descendent of Heidelberg similar to Neandethal and Denisovan) would be the most likely candidate to fit MK's unknown. It's far enough away from us to fit her criteria, but close enough that it reasonably could bred with us (and maybe did in north Africa). It's hard to imagine getting much further away than that genetically and still being able to produce viable offspring. On human speciation, some people would say that Neanderthal is a subspecies of H. sapiens. It depends on your approach to taxonomy and whether DNA is more important than morphology. Speaking of what we can learn from hominin lice, check out this article and consider what implications it may or may not have for MK's hypothesis. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041004/lice.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Even if her paper is rejected for wild conclusions or anything like that, I feel pretty confident at this point that the DNA does show something really weird, which gives me hope that Sykes will find the same thing! That is why I asked some time ago about the possibility of sample submitters being able to take their results to Sykes for review and possible use. It would be a shame to waste good data on overreaching claims. I'll just add that my impression of Mr. Smith thus far is to keep a healthy dose of salt handy. Reading through his record of claims over the years there's been plenty of tremendous breakthroughs, including live specimen captures, etc. etc. that for some reason haven't materialized with major press releases or other announcements... other than his forum. One thing I don't understand about his claims...they used Ketchum's precursors and got the same results that she did (which would confirm her findings?) Then they used some OTHER set of precursors and got "reasonable matched results"? What does that mean, "reasonable matched results"? Matched to what, the original Ketchum findings? Wouldn't that also be a confirmation of her findings (same result with two different precursor sets)? Or is he alleging that the "modified" precursors resulted in some entirely NON-confirming result of some sort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Speaking of what we can learn from hominin lice, check out this article and consider what implications it may or may not have for MK's hypothesis. http://dsc.discovery...41004/lice.html Ok, now that has my attention. Two related press releases issued by the University of Utah and the University of Florida explain that humans inflicted with head lice today can harbor two genetically distinct types. The first, found worldwide, evolved on our Homo sapiens ancestors. The second, only found in the Americas, evolved on another species of human that researchers believe was Homo erectus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 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 5-6 years would be about the time she supposedly was starting the work, wouldn't it? Maybe she didn't have access to them at that time and didn't want to go back to Square 1 by the time she got hold of them, so she continued on with older methods. By the way, since you seem to know a bit about the "nuts n bolts" of genetic work: isn't it true that for awhile it was dodgy to try to sequence DNA form gorilla and chimp hair as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 11, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 11, 2012 Bill Dranginis was following the lice lead some time ago but I think he got bumfuzzled (who knows maybe cost got in the way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Every now and then this thread brings out new ideas that are really educational. I'd like to thank Theagenes, CTFoot, and GeneRus especially for discussion of lice and precursor technology. [ image removed to comply with forum rule against posting an image multiple times] (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 The image in question is good for some laughs, but should be recognized as being an "upside down" representation of what Dr. Ketchum is proposing... not that any of the "critical thinkers" seem to get the fact that the joke's on them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Listened to *interview*... Nothing new. I find it interesting that she was *invited* to view a BF. Never elaborated on what see saw though. Well folks..at least we know something is (or isn't) going be released before the end of the year. Ya'all know my take. If it gets published in an accepted bonified Journal with proper peer review having taken place, I will humbly eat crow here on the boards. I think the chances of this happening are NIHIL. If it doesn't..I'm sure there will be those that will find some argument relating to *Conspiracy*...Bias...etc etc. IMHO .... A flock of crows ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 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? Roots or........ People Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Every now and then this thread brings out new ideas that are really educational. I'd like to thank Theagenes, CTFoot, and GeneRus especially for discussion of lice and precursor technology. Couldn't agree more BFSleuth! Thanks Theagenes, CTFoot and GeneRus for the insightful discussion. Little did I know my evening would involve reading up on precursor technology and lice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 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 Your kind of food is most delicious even though some will choke on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 There's more to a menstrual cycle than just the discharge of blood. I was referring to the follicular and ovulation phases, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. My apologies if that was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 IMHO .... A flock of crows ...... Dream on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts