Guest slimwitless Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 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"... She did say unknown sequence but she also said, "This sample did test very clearly on the human panel of markers. That makes it a primate and it makes it a large primate." I'm not sure what human panel of markers means but keep in mind she's also talking about a purported "Yeti" sample. Thank you, Netflix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 What is the earliest possible hominid that is a viable breeding possibilty for the progenitor? For a lay person it always seems that the dates continue to move foward for the extinction of our homonid ancestors. Is it even possible for a much, much, older species to have survived and we just don't have the fossil record? I know there is a wide range of descriptions for Bigfoot, but if the P/G film is the real deal and the hybridization theory is on, it does not look like what I would imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Meldrum further demonstrated that the PG film was accompanied by photos of the trackway left by the creature. The photos showed a mid-tarsal break. Hillsides are found in lots of places, including mountains. The main idea is the consistency between the anatomy and the function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 For all the scientist posting on this thread I appologize for going backwords. I think I have evolved just reading this material. Can an mDNA test not differentiate from a human living today and a 15,000 year old HSS? Did Ketchum see something different in the mDNA results that pushed her to go foward or was it the circumstances under which the samples were collected or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I had to dig back into the archives for this quote from Salley Ramey. 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. Someone said it, was it Stubstad that said the three mtDNA he analyzed didn't end up in the study at all? Of course Dr. Ketchum did say there were other samples she felt were viable but were also not included in this particular study so maybe I've got it confused. At any rate, I don't recall the Iberian angle coming from Dr. Ketchum from anything she said recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) What is the earliest possible hominid that is a viable breeding possibilty for the progenitor? For a lay person it always seems that the dates continue to move foward for the extinction of our homonid ancestors. Is it even possible for a much, much, older species to have survived and we just don't have the fossil record? I know there is a wide range of descriptions for Bigfoot, but if the P/G film is the real deal and the hybridization theory is on, it does not look like what I would imagine. Homo Floresiensis or the Hobbits were just found recently. Even the guy pushing for them to included in the genus Homo now admits they were likely more primitive than erectus. That means that it had a last common ancestor with modern humans likely before 2 million years ago and there is no definitive fossil evidence of their ancestors in Asia even though they obviously had to live there for the ancestors of floresienses to make it to an isolated island in Indonesia. We keep finding new fossils and more recent fossils of hominids that were presumed to be extinct. It is silly to use the most recent date on a fossil as the date they went extinct or to assume we found all the species. It is very common though even with paleontologists. Most professionals in the field surely realize it isn't necessarily or even likely true but most of them act like it is true anyway.According to Stubstad he found a very unusual mtDNA sequence that matched another one in another part of the country. That might have been why she got started. He parted ways with Dr. Ketchum soon after that and didn't know much about her new findings. She stated on a recent radio interview that the TV show Destination Truth and The North American Bigfoot Search, Dave Paulides sent in samples about 5 years ago and she got something she didn't expect but didn't elaborate what that was on the radio interview. It might or might not be what Stubstad was talking about. I think he was doing some kind of statistical analysis for her about that time. Theoretically it could differentiate something that branched off 15,000 years ago but it would be based on certain assumptions so it probably isn't going to be extremely accurate. There is so much variety in human mitochondria it would be hard to find the closest modern human since they only have representative samples. Not all modern humans have been sequenced. I doubt you could prove you had mtDNA from a 15,000 year old modern human. It isn't that long ago genetically speaking. It might just be some isolated group that was never sequenced. It wouldn't be much different for that or a bigfoot 15,000 years later except that you would apparently have a population of them that matched the same mtDNA. You could probably correctly assume that you have a representative sample of all the major human haplogroups or variations. It is still uncertain/unclear if there is more than one distinct modern human mitochondrial lineage in the study by the way. Edited December 12, 2012 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Someone said it, was it Stubstad that said the three mtDNA he analyzed didn't end up in the study at all? Of course Dr. Ketchum did say there were other samples she felt were viable but were also not included in this particular study so maybe I've got it confused. At any rate, I don't recall the Iberian angle coming from Dr. Ketchum from anything she said recently. Back when Stubstad revealed the mtDNA was human, a few skeptics here said that meant all she had was human DNA and therefore she didn't understand not every human sequence was in Genbank. I remember some arguing (including myself) that we didn't even know whether Stubstad's samples were in the study so it was pointless to make that argument. I don't recall anyone officially saying his samples weren't in the study but I could be wrong. I don't think anybody knew for sure including Richard Stubstad. To me, Sally's comment from many months ago suggests at least one of those samples was included. Along these lines, Burtsev said the following in his "leak": "Origin of this Hominin was probably Middle Eastern/Eastern Europe and Europe originally though other geographic areas are not excluded." FWIW Edited December 12, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Thanks, BobZenor, again not having any expertise in this area, but trying to get my head around the competing theories is tough. I have no idea how to evaluate the DNA evidence, but just going back a few years before any talk of the Ketchum studies was out it seemed that it least some were in the camp of Bigfoot being a remnant Gigantopithicus. Is this idea dead now? I have not seen any discussion on this theory lately. Again, from a person with only limited knowledge of genetics/biology could it even be remotely possible that if the hybrid theory is correct, could that be a possible link between the competing camps. In reading on this forum and else where it would not seem likely for breeding to take place, but I believe we could have coexisted. If some think Giganto survived and is Bigfoot, could it also be possible that Giganto is the novel DNA. I don't want to be laughed of this forum, but just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I, personally, have not liked the Giganto idea for a very long time. Krantz was the major proponent of that idea...But I remember reading that they think Giganto was a slow, almost sedentary, bamboo eater. Not a likely candidate for a speedy, stealthy sasquatch. Not my idea, either way...But it seems unlikely to me. Even so, I have always sort of preconceived sasquatch as 'ape' not 'human...So this is a real world turned upside down moment for me, and, I suspect, for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I agree about giganto not being a likely candidate for those exact reasons, but again probably in vein, just to want to believe the DNA evidence, I would like someone to say that a human Giganto cross is impossible. It would certainly seem so, but it would allow for the traits to make since, I like the idea of a novel homonid, Native Americans have been in that camp all along, but for me also a world turned upside down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Thanks, BobZenor, again not having any expertise in this area, but trying to get my head around the competing theories is tough. I have no idea how to evaluate the DNA evidence, but just going back a few years before any talk of the Ketchum studies was out it seemed that it least some were in the camp of Bigfoot being a remnant Gigantopithicus. Is this idea dead now? I have not seen any discussion on this theory lately. Again, from a person with only limited knowledge of genetics/biology could it even be remotely possible that if the hybrid theory is correct, could that be a possible link between the competing camps. In reading on this forum and else where it would not seem likely for breeding to take place, but I believe we could have coexisted. If some think Giganto survived and is Bigfoot, could it also be possible that Giganto is the novel DNA. I don't want to be laughed of this forum, but just a thought. I have been pushing the erectus or assumed erectus which is basically an unknown or misidentified fossil as the ancestor of sasquatch since I joined the old forum in 2004. The idea of gigantopithecus is certainly not dead but I have been one of the most outspoken opponents of giganto as a logical sasquatch ancestor for a very long time. I thought the logic behind it was very weak. I think Krantz should have revised his theory when he must have been made aware of the evidence that they were much more distantly related. Instead him and others pushed the convergent evolution theory. That is that they are something much more distant that convergently or independently evolved. I never liked the logic of that at all. The MT break for example has alternative explanations. Hominids like erectus were apemen so people supposing that they knew how "ape" they were seemed completely unfounded in their assumptions to me. When Krantz first started his giganto hypothesis he thought they were the closest living relative to modern humans. Other apparently later fossils indicated that they were more likely related to orangutans. Teeth are very hard to identify. Many oranutan teeth have been classified as erectus especially when they are worn. I am not 100 percent certain that giganto isn't closer related than the fossil evidence suggests but I seriously doubt it. There is much more evidence now so I doubt they are closer to us than about the divergence of orangutans or 12 million years. There are examples of animals producing hybrids that are separated genetically by millions of years but I never heard of one more than about 5 million years. She did say something to the effect that she didn't know what the hominid was or how close it was. Giganto is not likely at all to be genetically compatible even if it were much closer than suspected. Who knows though. Stranger things have probably happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 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. Thanks Bob. That helps a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I'm not in the ape camp, the great apes are hunted almost to extinction in Africa, Not all of them...still plenty of lowland gorillas (over 120,000). In fact that number includes a population of ~50-60,000 discovered just a few years ago that no one even suspected was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 BobZ...Do I also remember that the dentition of the Gigantopithecus indicates that they were bamboo eaters, therefore unlikely to travel like us, and perhaps even NOT bipedal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 BobZ...Do I also remember that the dentition of the Gigantopithecus indicates that they were bamboo eaters, therefore unlikely to travel like us, and perhaps even NOT bipedal? The dentition issue is still up for debate. There was evidence for both dedicated herbivore AND omnivore wear on the teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts