Guest Jodie Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I can't disagree with that, I would be disappointed if they even mentioned bigfoot in the paper. What about enough polymorphisms to disqualify homo, what would you call it then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Sas, let's stipulate that there is no provenance; if you had several blood samples from Ketchum showing a polymorphism, which doesn't appear among the millions of known Homo Sapiens in continental North America, then how confident would you be that the samples were just a novel variant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Try the Search function antfoot. Fahrenbach's footprint size distribution analysis is like the Skookum Cast or the Jacobs photos in terms of its ability to generate strong opinions and lengthy threads. Not denying that. I just find this particularly compelling compared to other pieces of evidence. I just think it's too subtle a point to be made by misidentification and hoaxing. Not conclusive at all, just more compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 ......If the provenance of the tissue could be demonstrated (like from a massive, hairy arm or leg), then that's different. So far all I've seen as an alleged source of the DNA for Ketchum's study was something that looked like a smear of barbecue sauce on a plate. It has certainly not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the material Ketchum is dealing with is anything but grade A, prime Homo sapiens. There's a lot more information I would need (e.g., chromosome number, blood typing, and especially provenance of samples) before I would see any justification for calling these samples anything but Homo sapiens. Bolding mine. As I told Stubstad, a parallel study will likely be similarly doomed with unconvincing provenance. Way too much controvertible evidence. And as a practical concern, why would a sample provider even want to mix a submission into something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 What if the morphology of the sample confidently excludes Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 What if the morphology of the sample confidently excludes Homo Sapiens Sapiens? It depends on the specific result. The DNA could suggest another subspecies of Homo sapiens, e.g., Homo sapiens biscardii. While this would be cool, it would probably be both the most difficult thing to confidently establish, and it would be least likely to explain as "bigfoot." In other words, it would be very difficult to rectify a giant, hairy, immensely strong, long-armed, mid-tarsal break, no-material-culture bigfoot as our own species. Alternatively, DNA could come back indicating a creature in the genus Homo, but not Homo sapiens. This would be very cool, more readily compatible with the anecdotal evidence attributed to bigfoot, and it would permit a fascinating investigation into the possibility that bigfoots are relic H. erectus, or H. ergaster, or something like that. Conceptually, there are again difficulties with alleged bigfoot morphology and lack of material culture. The DNA could also indicate something in the family Hominidae, or even more specifically in the subfamily Homininae. The DNA could indicate Australopithecus for example, or perhaps a new genus entirely. This is what I would be looking for to match the best with anecdotal evidence provided for bigfoot. Whatever the result, all of the above would be wonderfully cool, and I would celebrate it as much as anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) I have to say that whilst I have a different expectation of the existence of Sasquatch, I do much admire the position that Saskeptic takes. Open minded skepticism is intellectually spot-on in my view. If I read it right, his position is analagous with "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law (ie the criminal court "guilty" hurdle), whereas mine is more like "on the balance of probabilities" (ie civil court criteria). He hasn't backed himself irretrievably into a corner such that he would have to clear off into anonymity if a 100% unambiguous result comes in supporting the existence of our hairy friend. Quite the opposite in fact. Furthermore, to keep coming back here in a calm manner despite holding a minority view is admirable. I, for one, also welcome interesting professional clarifications such as he has just given, and so, here is my first ever (I think!) Plus one. Mike Edited January 13, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 definitions: science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method pseudoscience: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific If you'd like to start a new thread investigating these ideas, I'll participate. This one we should probably encourage to address "The Ketchum Report." As for the latter, I do not know if it is pseudoscientific because I have not read it. I will add though that if a series of DNA signatures from tissues collected at disparate locations in North America all indicate Homo sapiens with an unusual polymorphism, then the proper conclusion of that work should be something like "there's this weird polymorphism we found in humans living in these locations." A pseudoscientific conclusion from such analysis would be "we've discovered bigfoot". If the provenance of the tissue could be demonstrated (like from a massive, hairy arm or leg), then that's different. So far all I've seen as an alleged source of the DNA for Ketchum's study was something that looked like a smear of barbecue sauce on a plate. It has certainly not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the material Ketchum is dealing with is anything but grade A, prime Homo sapiens. There's a lot more information I would need (e.g., chromosome number, blood typing, and especially provenance of samples) before I would see any justification for calling these samples anything but Homo sapiens. I was specifically refering to the works of the scientists you and Mulder have been discussing. Dr. Ketchums work cannot yet be evaluated. It was a yes or no question regarding the former, which would establish the need for a different thread. I do think though that this would drive straight to the point that Mulder is trying to make that while these scientists are well credentialed , their work is largely ignored. I don't necessarily think it is their fault, it has more to do with the types of evidence available and perhaps more importantly the perceptions about that evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 MikeG: I much appreciate the kind words. southernyahoo: search function should be your guide to previous discussions we've had on those topics. If you come up empty, then I recommend starting one or more new threads, rather than letting this one veer any farther from Ketchum and her analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Sas, let's stipulate that there is no provenance; if you had several blood samples from Ketchum showing a polymorphism, which doesn't appear among the millions of known Homo Sapiens in continental North America, then how confident would you be that the samples were just a novel variant? mitch, I think you overestimate the number of "known H. sapiens in continental North America." The actual number of recorded human sequences in GenBank is much much lower than you think. Certainly not a complete representation of all the variants of H. sapiens. You could probably get the exact number from GenBank. This, I think, was not appreciated by Stubstad or by Ketchum, either. And of those I highly doubt that there was much if any representation from isolated tribes. So almost any Hupa or other isolated tribe would likely have sequences not in GenBank. In light of the frauds that have involved bigfoot in the past, I would say it hardly stretches the imagination to conceive of collecting, say, Hupa specimens in California, then mailing them to Ketchum from various locations around the country. Not saying anyone did that, but if I were going to hoax, that is the way I would do it. By the time some population geneticist wanders into Hoopa 30 years from now, I would have made millions, bought that ranch in Costa Rica, and retired beyond the reach of the law. Ha ha. Edited January 14, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Parn, I didn't ask my question clearly enough. Adding US and Canada populations, one gets (311+34) million individuals. Has Ketchum found a handful of eccentrics spread out across the continent, but whose sequences aren't recorded in genbanks? I wondered to Sas, how confident he'd be that Ketchum had only gotten H Sapiens DNA, but I take your point that there is a limited number of sequences to compare. Edited January 14, 2012 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 mitch, I think you overestimate the number of "known H. sapiens in continental North America." The actual number of recorded human sequences in GenBank is much much lower than you think. Certainly not a complete representation of all the variants of H. sapiens. You could probably get the exact number from GenBank. This, I think, was not appreciated by Stubstad or by Ketchum, either. And of those I highly doubt that there was much if any representation from isolated tribes. So almost any Hupa or other isolated tribe would likely have sequences not in GenBank. In light of the frauds that have involved bigfoot in the past, I would say it hardly stretches the imagination to conceive of collecting, say, Hupa specimens in California, then mailing them to Ketchum from various locations around the country. Not saying anyone did that, but if I were going to hoax, that is the way I would do it. By the time some population geneticist wanders into Hoopa 30 years from now, I would have made millions, bought that ranch in Costa Rica, and retired beyond the reach of the law. Ha ha. It is a pathetic tactic to paint all who are participating in this study with the broad brush of past hoaxers. It wouldn't take thirty years would it? Nothing would be stopping you from collecting some hoopa samples today. I'm sure Disotell would test them for the polymorphisms for you. Why would you not do it before someone makes these imaginary millions? And with H. Sapiens samples no less. Do you really think people would pay millions ? Where's your faith in science? Will you reject science if they find Ketchums work confirms a unigue species of hominid? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Well I'm about tired of that excuse that the DNA is from the Hoopa Tribe. They do have the sequence cataloged somewhere because The U.S. government recognizes the tribe. In order to claim to be a member of the tribe to receive any benefits you have to have your DNA parentage tested and compared to establish yourself as a member of the tribe if the geneology is not clear. http://www.hoopa-nsn.gov/documents/Hoopa%20Enrollment%20Packet.pdf As for GenBank, They don't store the sequences as one intact genome but as different identified segments in different files for comparison. This info is from 2001, I'm sure the library is much larger now. A portion of human DNA is stored in the PRI division, which contains (as of this writing) 13 library files, for a total of almost 3.5 GB of data. Human data is also stored in the STS, GSS, HTGS, and HTC divisions. Human data alone in GenBank makes up almost 5 million record entries with over 8 trillion bases of sequence. http://oreilly.com/catalog/begperlbio/chapter/ch10.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 This is an intersting discussion but it is moot. There is no dna study that is going to be published. We were very near publication seven months ago and we are still here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I know you have said this before bigfootnis, but why do think there is no study? I understand perfectly why it is taking years to complete. I was doubtful that a paper was even written but evidently Dr. Ketchum says it is. My understanding is it can take up to 18 months for peer review and you must submit the paper one journal at a time. Depending on where it is in the process, we could be waiting one more day or several years depending on Dr. Ketchum's perserverance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts