Guest poignant Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Orangutans (and perhaps by extension Gigantopithecus) are energetically conservative due to the low amount of calories in their diet and I find it unlikely that their metabolism matches what we have observed regarding BF behavior and antics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 12, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 12, 2012 Re: the Iberian connection I recall some older discussion about some new finds in the Pyrenee's . I'm wondering how this quote from some of the Denisovan research could cross-over and enter into discussion about Sasquatch dna in the Ketchum paper (or unknown, novel hybrid-hominid dna however it is described) The researchers were able to triangulate, using the Denisovan genome as well as the genetic codes for Neanderthals and modern humans, to come up with an unexpected result: Present-day east Asians and Native Americans appear to have more in common genetically with the Neanderthals than present-day Europeans, even though Europe was thought to be the main hangout for Neanderthals hundreds of thousands of years ago. http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/30/13570175-new-technique-clears-up-mysteries-in-extinct-denisovan-human-genome?lite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianmk Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Here is some more food for thought .. This is on Yahoo news today. Hopefully I posted this link correctly. http://news.yahoo.co...-143531341.html Why Human-Neanderthal Sex Is Tricky to Prove Edited December 12, 2012 by brianmk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 What ever the Big Guy is ...and yes I know they exist.... he didnt evolve into any thing.... he is today what he has always been....just been around along long time.....there is so much science says they know about the history of mankind....but really they mostly are just speculating about what they "think" might have been.....IMO its their (the scientist) main hang up on the existence of Omah, Sasquatch Big Foot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 What ever the Big Guy is ...and yes I know they exist.... he didnt evolve into any thing.... he is today what he has always been....just been around along long time.....there is so much science says they know about the history of mankind....but really they mostly are just speculating about what they "think" might have been.....IMO its their (the scientist) main hang up on the existence of Omah, Sasquatch Big Foot He most certainly evolved from something. If in fact BF exists then they and we have a common ancestor somewhere back there. No species is what it has always been even HSS isn't what it was at one time. We are changing, and not necessarily for the good. (our brains are shrinking and we're physically weaker) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Replication is the corner stone of scientific method, and until Ketchum's, or Syke's work are replicated (especially if anything novel is used in process or analysis) it will still be just "theory" in the world view. Will it spark follow up and replication to make it part of the lexion of science or society? Not clear. With only those studies and witness testimony it would take a herculean effort on the part of those accepting the data to move our Government to acknowledge it. So, seems even with the news, proof and response remains far in the future, and with things like HD video, if not a specimen. And that is assuming Justin's contribution doesn't include one. Think we know enough, and will get enough funding, to achieve HD video within a reasonable time? Will there be any official reaction without so moving agencies to acknowledge? I hope so, I hope someone within Government has been waiting for this chance to do something besides what appears to be a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of policy. Also, I think Dr. Ketchum has no choice but to call for immediate protection if she has faith in her data, and I was pleased she did so, even though the order of announcements seems quite tipsy. p.s. personally I favor H.erectus (or H.hiederbegensis) (sp?) as the contributing line, primarily b/c it was such a successful and widespread species over such a very long time and I think remains are found in modern human camps (whether eaten or not another question) and was clearly in Asia at a time when Ice was far reaching and land bridges existed. And before modern humans were in eastern Asia. The NA all seem to say, they were here when we arrived, and if 15000ypb proves to be accurate would almost match up with our perceived entrance to NA as moderns...and immediate cross mating... I can see the H.erectus and H.sapien line also isolated by that 75,00ybp volcanic event, perhaps the H.erectus did okay while the perhaps now hairless humans did not, except on the coast of Africa? I also favor this line b/c BFs ability to whistle and mimic is unique to genus homo (none of that wimpy ape stuff, we're talking gray parrot quality and volume!) as well as all the other "like us" evidence. The eyes are a bit problematic for me though, but within evolutionary theory (I think they see near IR and have some freaky eye-shine). Also the apparent lack of material culture and morphology differences seem to indicate something more distant than Neanderthal or Denisova. It doesn't solve the Yeti question, but I don't think her samples address that...we may find some world wide variation this study won't show (the 109 she refers to in radio interview). Sykes is casting a wider net in that regard, and she said she is beginning to. Edited December 12, 2012 by apehuman 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. Quote While yet another sasquatch turned out to be – just barely – within human ranges, the mitochondrial sequencing didn’t even come close to resembling either Sample 1 or 2, which as stated previously, were both of sub-glacial European origin with a common mitochondrial Eve who lived in the region some 15,000 years or more ago (likely range: 10,000 - 30,000 years)—see Attachment 1. 1) Stubstad Alrighty then...I came across this which in a sideways ways gives an understanding of some of what's been released by Dr.K '' G Horvat - 27 Sep 2006 17:44 GMT mtDNA sequences can remain virtually unchanged for 10,000 - 15,000 years as indicated by the similar sequences in Asian and Native American populations. Have any of the authors you refered to defined "Celtic DNA" especially Celtic mtDNAs (which I am more familiar with)?'' and this little gem...... ''I put very little stock in Y chromosomal studies unless the mixing event was fairly recent or into a fairly robust population that did not undergo a subsequent constriction. HLA is the most useful because of the effective ploidy, even so according to what I am seeing and the literature at least one haplotype was under past positive current negative selection in the 'celtic' and 'nordic' countries.'' This would explain the reticence of Dr.K to label the baby-daddy anything other than ''unknown'', altho the site I pulled this from isn't BF related, it gives a good overview of genetics in Europe, and some of Sykes previous works. It's been alluded to by Stubstad the mother's lineage is from the basque region, thus bringing the Solutrean into play. Partner this with the Eastern Artic's documentation of a giant race of humans being run out by the Inuit Migration to the east and we'd be finally asking some of the ''right questions'' regarding BF's history. Unless Sykes has widened his scope of his study, comparing the two is apples and oranges. He's extracting DNA from hair samples only. Unfortunately this isn't going to yield anything close in data or material that we're looking for. http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/archaeology/3064/Bryan-Sykes-Blood-of-the-Isles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 He most certainly evolved from something. If in fact BF exists then they and we have a common ancestor somewhere back there. No species is what it has always been even HSS isn't what it was at one time. We are changing, and not necessarily for the good. (our brains are shrinking and we're physically weaker) Thx for your thoughts; apreciated; I dont want to and dont plan to get off topic or violate rules so ill just leave it at this....species do adapt to enviorments that can change thier appearence over time .....but they are still the "same" species.... once a bird always a bird....I dont believe in evolution...... from one species turning into a total different species I.E. Dogs dont evolve to cats....But i Respect eveyone opinions on here on the forums and have been following the thread from the begining... just wanted to interject the "other" possibility as to the origins as diswcovered in the Data Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I.E. Dogs dont evolve to cats.... Nobody claims they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Quote While yet another sasquatch turned out to be – just barely – within human ranges, the mitochondrial sequencing didn’t even come close to resembling either Sample 1 or 2, which as stated previously, were both of sub-glacial European origin with a common mitochondrial Eve who lived in the region some 15,000 years or more ago (likely range: 10,000 - 30,000 years)—see Attachment 1. 1) Stubstad Alrighty then...I came across this which in a sideways ways gives an understanding of some of what's been released by Dr.K '' G Horvat - 27 Sep 2006 17:44 GMT mtDNA sequences can remain virtually unchanged for 10,000 - 15,000 years as indicated by the similar sequences in Asian and Native American populations. Have any of the authors you refered to defined "Celtic DNA" especially Celtic mtDNAs (which I am more familiar with)?'' and this little gem...... ''I put very little stock in Y chromosomal studies unless the mixing event was fairly recent or into a fairly robust population that did not undergo a subsequent constriction. HLA is the most useful because of the effective ploidy, even so according to what I am seeing and the literature at least one haplotype was under past positive current negative selection in the 'celtic' and 'nordic' countries.'' This would explain the reticence of Dr.K to label the baby-daddy anything other than ''unknown'', altho the site I pulled this from isn't BF related, it gives a good overview of genetics in Europe, and some of Sykes previous works. It's been alluded to by Stubstad the mother's lineage is from the basque region, thus bringing the Solutrean into play. Partner this with the Eastern Artic's documentation of a giant race of humans being run out by the Inuit Migration to the east and we'd be finally asking some of the ''right questions'' regarding BF's history. Unless Sykes has widened his scope of his study, comparing the two is apples and oranges. He's extracting DNA from hair samples only. Unfortunately this isn't going to yield anything close in data or material that we're looking for. http://www.historykb...od-of-the-Isles Interesting, I found this link that indentifies haplogroups by specific mutations. We generally know from where and when these haplogoups emerged so this will be an interesting piece of the puzzle. http://www.familytreedna.com/mtDNA-Haplogroup-Mutations.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Glad this thread is back on track....Wanted to say THANK YOU to all who are bringing us new information and knowledge about the state of DNA technology, theory, and other studies that bear on the subject. Last night, the girlfriend came in, saw me deeply engrossed, and asked what I was reading about... I replied "Pubic lice!" She backed sloooowly out of the room. Don't know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) There have been some great links and great reading posted on the last couple of pages. It's an incredibly complex web. And DNA is such a game-changer when it comes to understanding where we come from. But it's still so early yet. But at this point I'm really chomping at the bit to see what she has. Glad this thread is back on track....Wanted to say THANK YOU to all who are bringing us new information and knowledge about the state of DNA technology, theory, and other studies that bear on the subject. Last night, the girlfriend came in, saw me deeply engrossed, and asked what I was reading about... I replied "Pubic lice!" She backed sloooowly out of the room. Don't know why. Edited December 12, 2012 by Theagenes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 To piggy back on what Ape Human says: Native Americans claim bigfoot was already here. Modern humans and Erectus had ample oppurtunity to exchange DNA in Asia and the decendents to migrate all over, including North America maybe way back, 50,000 years ago. If this is the case they could have been isolated and evolved, de-evolved into the paternal side of the equation. Even size is helped along by enviromental factors along with megafauna already here. When clovis people get here 15,0000 years ago, this is the hybridization event. Ketchum does say the mDNA is 100% modern human, clovis, and the nDNA is a mosaic of modern human and novel DNA. The already existing hybrid HHS and Erectus would have been not to popular if they were mating with Clovis women and hunted and pushed to the fringes. I don't know how long it would take to adapt to a nocturnal existence, but they would have a good reason to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Nobody claims they do. Indeed!? arent 'they' though? ....evolution like any other "theory" requires proof. Not here here to argue that just intergecting other possible theories as to the origin of BF as it relates to the possible DNA discovery in this report Edited December 12, 2012 by adam2323 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tomocvar Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Just read a Robert Lindsay BF update where he claims leaks from the Sykes study indicate Sykes is finding proof of an unknown North American Hominid. Does that mean the JREF group is going to start slamming the Sykes study now??? :swoon: Edited December 12, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove unapproved link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts