Guest Theagenes Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Correct. Disotell says her time frame of 15000 years is impossible. Disotell is misunderstanding what she's proposing. They're talking past each other. In fairness that's because she doesn't seem to be using her terminology correctly. Some of his criticism is fair but much of it is thinly veiled ad hominem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 ^I don't see where they're getting 'impossible' in any case. Because we don't have an extant fossil of one? Again, the whole "we don't have a fossil" argument is weak tea at best. We didn't have a fossil for the "hobbit" until a couple of years ago, and IT existed 15000 years ago. We didn't rediscover the coelecanth/7-gill shark/etc until very recently and it/they certainly existed 15000 years ago, because it exists today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Disotell is misunderstanding what she's proposing. They're talking past each other. In fairness that's because she doesn't seem to be using her terminology correctly. Some of his criticism is fair but much of it is thinly veiled ad hominem Well obviously you understand it better than I do, so can you explain how they are talking past each other? I took it to mean that Disotell understands that it's impossible for the 15000 year time frame because we were US.... 15000 years ago. In order to have something running around the woods with no fire, no tool use, no shelters, no vestige of humanity and 8 feet tall covered in hair? We might expect that the "fork in the road" was slightly.......slightly farther back in time. ^I don't see where they're getting 'impossible' in any case. Because we don't have an extant fossil of one? Again, the whole "we don't have a fossil" argument is weak tea at best. We didn't have a fossil for the "hobbit" until a couple of years ago, and IT existed 15000 years ago. We didn't rediscover the coelecanth/7-gill shark/etc until very recently and it/they certainly existed 15000 years ago, because it exists today. Yes but evidently we cannot breed with coelecanths......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 1) She has never had a paper published........ever. Not true. She's been a co-author on several papers. Nevertheless, Disotell's *opinions* have been duly noted. Still, I choose to wait and see. This thing wouldn't be in peer review more than five minutes if Ketchum was as incompetent as her critics contend (the whole idea she doesn't understand what sequences are/aren't in GenBank comes to mind). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 We might expect that the "fork in the road" was slightly.......slightly farther back in time. Or it could be something that was never meant to be, but is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Or it could be something that was never meant to be, but is. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Not true. She's been a co-author on several papers. Nevertheless, Disotell's *opinions* have been duly noted. Still, I choose to wait and see. This thing wouldn't be in peer review more than five minutes if Ketchum was as incompetent as her critics contend (the whole idea she doesn't understand what sequences are/aren't in GenBank comes to mind). Depends entirely on the Journal she submitted her paper to. That is THE question. However, we all have overshot the runway, to one degree or another. I agree with your comment: "Still, I choose to wait and see." But, this thread would be bare if we all followed suit. Some of us will eventually have egg on our face, true. Others will be triumphant. Or, it will be a mess and the donnybrook will commence and ambiguity will be the winner. I'm basing my previous comments on Bigfoot phenomena, to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Well obviously you understand it better than I do, so can you explain how they are talking past each other? I took it to mean that Disotell understands that it's impossible for the 15000 year time frame because we were US.... 15000 years ago. In order to have something running around the woods with no fire, no tool use, no shelters, no vestige of humanity and 8 feet tall covered in hair? But the other part of the putative hybrid is (according to Ketchum's apparent results) definitely NOT us. Ketchum is not claiming that BF is an offshoot of HSS that branched 15,000 years ago. She is claiming that HSS and a yet-to-be-documented other branch of hominid hybridized 15,000 years ago. Two entirely different things. Yes but evidently we cannot breed with coelecanths......... But we could easily breed with a near-but-non-human relict hominid, just as we did with Neanderthal or Denisova. That, to date, we don't have any solid documentation of said hominid does not mean that it was not present. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 But the other part of the putative hybrid is (according to Ketchum's apparent results) definitely NOT us. Ketchum is not claiming that BF is an offshoot of HSS that branched 15,000 years ago. She is claiming that HSS and a yet-to-be-documented other branch of hominid hybridized 15,000 years ago. Two entirely different things. But we could easily breed with a near-but-non-human relict hominid, just as we did with Neanderthal or Denisova. That, to date, we don't have any solid documentation of said hominid does not mean that it was not present. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Did Neanderthals use fire? Tools? If Bigfoot is half us and have Neanderthal? Then why isn't those things associated with Bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Did Neanderthals use fire? Tools? If Bigfoot is half us and ______ Obviously bigfoot don't need fire or tools. But those are good questions. Its as if its the perfect predator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Obviously bigfoot don't need fire or tools. But those are good questions. Its as if its the perfect predator. Does anybody know WHAT a human can interbreed with? Chimps? Gorillas? Orangs? Giganto? Obviously Neanderthals and Denisovas.......but they were essentially human already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) Only humans with 23 pairs of chromosomes. Animal chromosome list. Edited December 26, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Well obviously you understand it better than I do, so can you explain how they are talking past each other? I took it to mean that Disotell understands that it's impossible for the 15000 year time frame because we were US.... 15000 years ago. In order to have something running around the woods with no fire, no tool use, no shelters, no vestige of humanity and 8 feet tall covered in hair? We might expect that the "fork in the road" was slightly.......slightly farther back in time. That is what we he was saying, but that's not what she is proposing. That's where there's a disconnect. But again that's mostly due to her vague and poorly worded press release. Part of the problem was that Disotell had a hard time getting past the fact that she put out this press release with conclusions and no data to back it up, leap-frogging the review process---and he's right. I can't emphasize enough how terrible a move that was for the credibility of this study. She dug a real hole for herself and made what was already going to be an uphill battle even more difficult. But that said, Disotell took the vague wording of her press release and chose to interpret it in way that would make her apparent conclusions sound the most ridiculous---i.e. that BF branched off from humanity 15,000 BP. Later he admits that there is an interpretation of her conclusions that is plausible---that there was a hybridization event between humans and BF 15,000 BP. Of course we now know from subsequent interviews that the latter is exactly what she is proposing. If you look back earlier in this thread a few weeks ago when I first started posting here, you'll see I had the same problem with the vagueness of the press release, but I chose to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just a hybridization event in the past that she was talking about---just like other hybridization events that we know about with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Disotell chose to willfully interpret her admittedly vague comments in the worst possible light for the purpose of mocking her, in keeping with the tone of the show. But even then he had to eventually reign in the sneering hosts and admit that if she was talking about a hybridization event then that it is plausible (if unlikely). You just have to wade through the snark to get to that very important point. Let me bold this so everyone catches it: Disotell actually confirmed that Ketchum's proposed hybridization event 15,000 years ago is plausible. Does anybody know WHAT a human can interbreed with? Chimps? Gorillas? Orangs? Giganto? Obviously Neanderthals and Denisovas.......but they were essentially human already. There is very good discussion of this topic a couple of weeks back in this very thread. In addition to Neanderthals and Denisovans there is also evidence that some humans in Africa mated with another as yet unidentified hominin that is further removed from us than those two. This might have been H. heidel bergensis or H. rhodesiensis. Also, Neanderthal and Denisovans mated with each other. This is essentialyl what Ketchum is proposing---another one of these hybriditization events only at 15,000 BP instead of 40,000 BP. The problem is then how does this hominin which needs to be fairly closely related to us come to be 7-8" feet tall and covered with hair. That's where the problem comes in; not the hybridization event itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 So let's explore this unknown paternal side of Ketchum's theory for a moment. It has to be very close to us.......and had to be living 15000 years ago. The hobbit? They were on a island in SE Asia 15000 years ago and four feet tall. Not a likely candidate. I also understand that Homo Erectus manufactured stone tools and used fire..... again not a likely candidate. Anybody else have any likely candidates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 At this point, it's an undiscovered/unknown candidate. If it had previously existed, it would be in the genome bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts