southernyahoo Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) This is all starting to sound like Clan of the Cave Bear.... Maybe more like Quest for Fire. 1982 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bsjJzG-vEE Edited December 11, 2012 by southernyahoo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 It was that rumor from Stubstad, at least partially verified, that made me think it was European. He said something to the effect that the haplogroup was centered in Iberia and southern France. I thought she might be trying to push it east to get it closer to the land bridge. If she also has Asian DNA that sort of cancels my suspicions. There is no reason bigfoot couldn't go back to Asia but it makes America as the site of the hybridization event less likely. Well, that is interesting. And maybe the Solutrean in America idea needs to be looked at. But this is talking about the human Eve and her ancestral origins. If she was descended from Europeans that migrated eastward into Asia then it would still work, but now we're really starting to stretch things to make it fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Maybe more like Quest for Fire. 1982 Actually looked at that clip on Saturday, thinking along the same lines....... Great movie! Hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Well, that is interesting. And maybe the Solutrean in America idea needs to be looked at. But this is talking about the human Eve and her ancestral origins. If she was descended from Europeans that migrated eastward into Asia then it would still work, but now we're really starting to stretch things to make it fit. Perhaps under that scenario it might to be able to find some older haplotypes in more remote parts of North America such as the Yukon and into Alaska. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 How would Ketchum know the actual hybrid "bride" isn't a great, great, great, great, great, etc granddaughter of a modern human female born 15,000 years ago? I'm not positing anything...just trying to wrap my brain around all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Being new to this forum, it is a very intimidating prospect to comment on this subject, and please excuse my ignorance, I'm sure this topic has been discusses at length, if not here on many other threads. Can someone explain, if the current conjectur about a recent hybridization between modern human and some relic hominid is true, wouldn't it be hard to expalin the mid-tarsal break in the foot print evidence? Does this have anything to do with the apparant split in camps, ie., Dr. Meldrum? Just reading this entire thread, and again being overwhelmed by the hard core science being discussed, all points seem valid, and it is hard to take a side. Listening to all the written and spoken words of MK, she seems like she is really sure her evidence is rock solid, almost like she's sandbagging. Again, I do not feel qualified to make an arguement one way or the other, and being unsure about peer review or scientific journals in general, it would seem that something is askew. I also have heard that the research will be released one way or another. As a life long believer, like many, I am convinced that the convergence of events over the last few years is going to yield evidence of something roaming the wild areas of North America, just not sure yet what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Glad to have you on board. You're probably best to go back in this thread, to the date where it was first announced, and read forward from there. That way, you're caught up to speed without bias. Don't worry, you won't have to go back all 386 pages,.......only about 379................just kidding . Seriously, I think 3 weeks back in dates should be about where to start... good luck. An approximate starting page would be around page 320 +/- . Edited December 12, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Can someone explain, if the current conjectur about a recent hybridization between modern human and some relic hominid is true, wouldn't it be hard to expalin the mid-tarsal break in the foot print evidence? Does this have anything to do with the apparant split in camps, ie., Dr. Meldrum? Some believe that there is no mid-tarsal break, and that Dr. Meldrum has dismissed evidence in his study of many prints that look to human. I'm not in the ape camp, the great apes are hunted almost to extinction in Africa, and they would have been more so here in the States if they existed. Edited December 12, 2012 by crabshack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 How would Ketchum know the actual hybrid "bride" isn't a great, great, great, great, great, etc granddaughter of a modern human female born 15,000 years ago? I'm not positing anything...just trying to wrap my brain around all this. They estimate the rate that mitochondria changes. She can then either compare all the samples and see how much variation exists or she could compare the most different one to the closest modern human in the gene bank. Hopefully those two would match. That would be my assumption how she did it. She probably checked against modern humans as that seems the most obvious thing to check first. I am not sure I understand the question. It doesn't matter if she is the first to have that particular haplogroup. She is apparently the first in the alleged lineage of bigfoot so that makes her the bigfoot's mitochondrial eve assuming they are all the same haplogroup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 It was about at page 300. Welcome LTBF., There is certainly a division among proponents, but there seems to be something in bigfoot for everyone. Pardon the pun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I should have said she is the first with that mitochondria sequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 How would Ketchum know the actual hybrid "bride" isn't a great, great, great, great, great, etc granddaughter of a modern human female born 15,000 years ago? I'm not positing anything...just trying to wrap my brain around all this. That is a good question, this is from Igor Burtsev's statement, The hybridization event could not have occurred more than 15000 years ago according to the mitochondrial data in some samples. This is from Melba's 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. Now a maximum date for hybridization can be determined from current research, so that question is not difficult. The only way I can reconcile the statement from the Ketchum camp is if they have a novel subclade and included an estimation for the accumulation of mutations in the mitochondria. I think at this point it's only going to be a guessing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Being new to this forum, it is a very intimidating prospect to comment on this subject, and please excuse my ignorance, I'm sure this topic has been discusses at length, if not here on many other threads. Can someone explain, if the current conjectur about a recent hybridization between modern human and some relic hominid is true, wouldn't it be hard to expalin the mid-tarsal break in the foot print evidence? Does this have anything to do with the apparant split in camps, ie., Dr. Meldrum? Just reading this entire thread, and again being overwhelmed by the hard core science being discussed, all points seem valid, and it is hard to take a side. Listening to all the written and spoken words of MK, she seems like she is really sure her evidence is rock solid, almost like she's sandbagging. Again, I do not feel qualified to make an arguement one way or the other, and being unsure about peer review or scientific journals in general, it would seem that something is askew. I also have heard that the research will be released one way or another. As a life long believer, like many, I am convinced that the convergence of events over the last few years is going to yield evidence of something roaming the wild areas of North America, just not sure yet what. It is probably a fair assessment that it is one the reasons for the divide in the two camps, ape verses hominin. Some apparently see "ape" characteristics like the mid-tarsal break or joint and assume that it must be some convergently evolved ape or some ape that independently evolved other human features like bipedalism rather than just a hominin that grew larger. There is a great deal of variation in hominin feet by the way. Homo floresiensis is said to have very large flat feet and apparently lacks an arch. We have the joint but it is tied up in tendons. That doesn't mean that some other hominin that doesn't normally live on hard flat ground is going to adapt the same way. It suggests that either the mid tarsal joint theory is flawed or some hominin adapted to its different lifestyle by not having a ridged arch like in modern humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 How would Ketchum know the actual hybrid "bride" isn't a great, great, great, great, great, etc granddaughter of a modern human female born 15,000 years ago? I'm not positing anything...just trying to wrap my brain around all this. Let's check the Genbank... I think you are on to somethink.... But wait, I think you meant " of a modern human female's gggggrandmother etc, born 15,000 years ago Just saying... Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) She is apparently the first in the alleged lineage of bigfoot so that makes her the bigfoot's mitochondrial eve assuming they are all the same haplogroup. Right. But that doesn't necessarily mean she had an amorous relationship with another species. Theoretically, it could be any of her female descendants who ran off with the Homo Whatsit in a fit of teenage rebellion. Assuming an unbroken maternal link. Right? Edited December 12, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts