The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

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.

Or, when the chimps and gorillas split from hominids, there was another branch that split also...

Three branches not just 2 ......

[Guest]

I believe it was Dr. Ketchum that initially said that mtDNA samples that Stubstad discussed were not in the study so I was a bit surprised when she recently claimed that the samples she did use had human mtDNA that went back 15,000 years. I don't recall that she said where they originated from though so you guys might be connecting the two and drawing the wrong conclusion about the source of the mtDNA being Iberian in origin.

Yes, if there is an unbroken chain of ancestory from mother to daughter then that 15,000 year old mtDNA could very well exist but it doesn't mean that was the last hybridization event. To have the level of mosaicism that Dr. Ketchum referred to you would have to have a more recent occurrence in the last 1-2000 years based on what I've read. As for the scenario you laid out, Theagenes, the NA were here as early as 25K so the human haplotype probably would not be relegated to just one type assuming the proposed tendency to interbreed wasn't as rare as new theories indicate. I'm with BFSleuth on that one, it doesn't seem likely. You are right to suggest that they compare it to NA samples and not all of those are in GenBank.

As Slim points out she didn't say all of the mtDNA was alike, all she said was that 15,000 years was as far back as it went. She might have some that show the 1-2000 years that I'm guessing at. From reading up on dating mtDNA, a mutation occurrs every 10 generations, so the age can be calculated back by the mutation rate. As testing has improved and more samples become available in general, I'm thinking that is why your time frames jumped in the other studies.

[Guest]

Thanks for the responses. I have been fascinated with the subject for 30 years. It is great to find this forum.

Edited December 12, 2012 by LTBF

[chelefoot]

Theagenes said:

"That was the biggest hurdle for me as well, until it dawned on me that the Bering Strait land bridge could be the answer. it may have created a sort of genetic "bottle neck." If we assume the hybridization event took place in the Old World and only a small group of BFs crossed over to N. America. And within this group or clan, all the females had the human mtDNA, then all of their descendents would too. If they no longer had contact with the BFs that stayed in the Old World and no longer had contact with "regular" non-human-mtDNA BF females, then it might make sense."

This makes me wonder....

So is there a possibility that the unknown primate still exists? Maybe like somewhere is the Himalayas?

Why did Josh Gates sample that MK tested show as unknown? Rather than modern Human? She tested the mtDNA, not the nuDNA correct?

I don't know, just asking. I don't think I've ever used DNA in a sentence. This is all new to me!

[Guest BFSleuth]

Maybe a European woman travels to North America and meets up with a bigfoot progenitor that crossed the land bridge from Asia, kind of an East meets West, love at first sight sort of thing. But then how do you isolate that group so only the European mtDNA is sustained?

Puzzling...

[southernyahoo]

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?

It might seem difficult to maintain an unbroken maternal link but remember there was no birth control and we seemed to evolve from only seven daughters of eve. If you figure one generation might have many off spring with the same mito it could spread wide and fast.

[Guest slimwitless]

I believe it was Dr. Ketchum that initially said that mtDNA samples that Stubstad discussed were not in the study so I was a bit surprised when she recently claimed that the samples she did use had human mtDNA that went back 15,000 years. I don't recall that she said where they originated from though so you guys might be connecting the two and drawing the wrong conclusion about the source of the mtDNA being Iberian in origin.

I had to dig back into the archives for this quote from Salley Ramey.

Sally here - I will confirm ONLY what has already been confirmed in the public domain as samples SUBMITTED to Melba: tissue reported to be from the shooting incident; a toenail; blood from two incidents in New Mexico and hair. We cannot comment further.

It's possible that may not be the same toenail Stubstad calls "Sample #1" and the 15,000 years may be a happy coincidence but I'm guessing not.

[Guest]

Another issue that has me curious about the whole Beringia thing is that there have been reports of Bigfoot swimming in open bodies of water so why not shortly after the land mass began to be re flooded? I am not familiar on how quickly the glacial melt happened, but what about a winter ice crossing before the sea grew to its current size?

[Guest Theagenes]

Thanks for the responses. I have been fascinated with the subject for 30 years. It is great to find this forum.

Trying to post on your phone? Welcome LTBF. Now I'm not the only noob.

CT, thanks for that. I wouldn't put too much stock in either MK's 15K date which probably has a pretty large margin of error like other DNA-based dates or in any definitive date for humans in the New World. I tend to favor an early date for the latter too, but there isn't much physical evidence for it yet. But still, you're right that there were likely modern humans already in the Americas.

So what about the idea that you had a small group of BFs, in which all the females were descended matrilineally from the hybrid uniion, entering into the New World and getting cut off from other members of their species back in Asia. So all the BF females and their descendents in NA would have the mtDNA. Even with the occasionally later interbreeding they should still all have the human mtDNA right?

Theagenes said:

"That was the biggest hurdle for me as well, until it dawned on me that the Bering Strait land bridge could be the answer. it may have created a sort of genetic "bottle neck." If we assume the hybridization event took place in the Old World and only a small group of BFs crossed over to N. America. And within this group or clan, all the females had the human mtDNA, then all of their descendents would too. If they no longer had contact with the BFs that stayed in the Old World and no longer had contact with "regular" non-human-mtDNA BF females, then it might make sense."

This makes me wonder....

So is there a possibility that the unknown primate still exists? Maybe like somewhere is the Himalayas?

Most of the yeti reports seem to me to be more ape-like, but who knows. The yeren and almas are also possible candidates.

Why did Josh Gates sample that MK tested show as unknown? Rather than modern Human? She tested the mtDNA, not the nuDNA correct?

I don't know, just asking. I don't think I've ever used DNA in a sentence. This is all new to me!

She apparently started with mtDNA, but then sequenced three complete nDNA genomes and it was the nDNA that indicating unknown homin. But remember that doesn't mean it's a hominin that's unknown from the fossil record. We've only sequenced three hominin genomes for comparison: modern human, Neanderthal, and Denisovan. I believe they are trying to do Floresensis next.

And a lot of this is new to me too, but I'm learning a lot here.

[BobZenor]

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?

She still should have to have had sex with bigfoot to be the mitochondrial Eve even if she had the same mitochondria. That is rather assumed in the definition but it is more like an analogy and something that is probably not actually defined to that level. The Eve analogy originally is that one female had a mutation that was passed down to all in the population or she was ancestor to all of them. It doesn't fit quite as perfectly with a hybrid since she doesn't have to be the one that had the mutation that created that haplogroup. Her hypothetical non hybrid daughter could also be eve also I suppose. It doesn't really change anything genetically except that it would add more human DNA.

[Guest]

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.

My expectation is that after all this is settled, it will be concluded that there is only a very small amount of homo sapiens DNA within the nuclear DNA of the sasquatch, even though (because of the way mitochondrial DNA is passed generation to generation) the mitochondrial DNA is homo sapiens of about 15,000 years ago. The post-"hybrid" sasquatch is probably physically identical, or nearly so, to the pre-"hybrid" animal. Although it may technically be correct to call the post-hybrid sasquatch a "hybrid," that term is confusing because it gives the incorrect impression that the hybrid animal must be some quite obvious (visually) cross between two species. But that is very unlikely to be the case. See the article I posted here:

http://bigfootforums...520#entry667447

So IF the pre-hybrid animal had a mid-tarsal break in the foot, the post-hybrid animal also has it.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Oak

[chelefoot]

She apparently started with mtDNA, but then sequenced three complete nDNA genomes and it was the nDNA that indicating unknown homin. But remember that doesn't mean it's a hominin that's unknown from the fossil record. We've only sequenced three hominin genomes for comparison: modern human, Neanderthal, and Denisovan. I believe they are trying to do Floresensis next.

Right. But I was just thinking back to when she tested Josh Gates sample from Destination Truth and found it to be unknown. That particular testing was only of the mtDNA....I think. I don't see why it didn't turn out to be modern human rather than "unknown"...

Of course there is probably not an answer...assuming I'm remembering it correctly and am not getting things all mixed up! I usually just quietly read, and learn. But this stuff is as BFSleuth says, "Puzzling". I'm sure we will continue to have more and more questions even after the paper is published!

[Guest mitchw]

Meldrum argued in Legend Meets Science that the mid-tarsal break makes evolutionary sense for a very heavy bi-ped which also goes up hillsides. The compliant gate of BF as seen in the PG film and trackway records are also consistent with the mid-tarsal form. (sorry about the underlined text, the software here doesn't like my tablet)

[Guest crabshack]

Meldrum argued in Legend Meets Science that the mid-tarsal break makes evolutionary sense for a very heavy bi-ped which also goes up hillsides.

I know what he believes, he may not be correct. Until someone purchases one a pair of Nikes we just will not know will we?

Besides not all sasquatches live in the high mtns. of the sierras or the pacific north west.

[Guest]

So what about the idea that you had a small group of BFs, in which all the females were descended matrilineally from the hybrid uniion, entering into the New World and getting cut off from other members of their species back in Asia. So all the BF females and their descendents in NA would have the mtDNA. Even with the occasionally later interbreeding they should still all have the human mtDNA right?

Yes, they should all have the same human mtDNA in that scenario, just not sure how the occassional injection of human genetic material would affect the nuclear recombination. It might explain the variance in reports but eventually the hybrid would be bred out if the intermingling continued with any regular frequency.

Chances are that it didn't happen often since the two mtDNA samples that were the same were over a thousand miles apart. For it to be the same individual or closely related, you have to assume that bigfoot has a huge range which isn't unlikely considering ancient modern humans had ranges anywhere from 350-400 square miles.

Considering that bigfoot is reported to go where it is physically impossible for humans to go without equipment this would indicate to me that geographical landmarks, like mountain ranges, wasn't an obstacle to their expansion. In that case, I wouldn't think you would need a huge population of bigfoot to maintain the line.