Skeptic's Answer To Ketchum's Dna Testing

[Guest]

Critics have "panned" this post of yours Mulder, as explosive to ironometers everywhere.

Of course you are. But if going 4X4 is actually faster for you than bipedal locomotion in certain circumstances, then that implies a deviation in skeletal morphology that is inconsistent with other members of the genus Homo. If a hominin's arms are so long and robust that some form of knuckle walking helps provide a burst of speed superior to that provided by running bipedally, then I would argue that the creatures does not belong in the genus Homo.

Same with foot structure. To my knowledge, all Homo for which we have descriptions of foot structure show a rigid foot with an arch. While some folk's arches are better developed that others', none of us show mid-tarsal breaks like we see in the feet of chimps. (If I'm wrong about this, I'll happily concede the point.)

Thus, a DNA analysis that places the sample within the genus Homo raises a lot of questions about some things people think they know about bigfoot. The use of stone tools in our genus, and the lack of evidence for this among bigfoot, is another example.

While we are on the "Fail Trail", this statement sticks in my craw........."But if going 4X4 is actually faster for you than bipedal locomotion in certain circumstances, then that implies a deviation in skeletal morphology that is inconsistent with other members of the genus Homo."

Really???? Haven't you seen a track meet? Sprinters start the race from a 4x4 position because............work with me here.......I'm going to help you sound out the word...........because, it is F A S T E R (faster). Yes, it is faster "outta the hole" as drag racers say.

Skeletal morphology............hmmmmm.......seems I have a bone to pick with the skeletal morphology thing! Human skeletons haven't morphed since trackmeets became the rage. I think our skeletons have remained virtually unchanged since our forebears got suprised while squatting or sitting around a campfire when a lion showed up. 4x4 for the first bit of the escape would be a trait was passed on, not passed onto the veldt in lion poop!

Critics have "panned" this post of yours Mulder, as explosive to ironometers everywhere.

Of course you are. But if going 4X4 is actually faster for you than bipedal locomotion in certain circumstances, then that implies a deviation in skeletal morphology that is inconsistent with other members of the genus Homo. If a hominin's arms are so long and robust that some form of knuckle walking helps provide a burst of speed superior to that provided by running bipedally, then I would argue that the creatures does not belong in the genus Homo.

Same with foot structure. To my knowledge, all Homo for which we have descriptions of foot structure show a rigid foot with an arch. While some folk's arches are better developed that others', none of us show mid-tarsal breaks like we see in the feet of chimps. (If I'm wrong about this, I'll happily concede the point.)

Thus, a DNA analysis that places the sample within the genus Homo raises a lot of questions about some things people think they know about bigfoot. The use of stone tools in our genus, and the lack of evidence for this among bigfoot, is another example.

While we are on the "Fail Trail", this statement sticks in my craw........."But if going 4X4 is actually faster for you than bipedal locomotion in certain circumstances, then that implies a deviation in skeletal morphology that is inconsistent with other members of the genus Homo."

Really???? Haven't you seen a track meet? Sprinters start the race from a 4x4 position because............work with me here.......I'm going to help you sound out the word...........because, it is F A S T E R (faster). Yes, it is faster "outta the hole" as drag racers say.

Skeletal morphology............hmmmmm.......seems I have a bone to pick with the skeletal morphology thing! Human skeletons haven't morphed since trackmeets became the rage. I think our skeletons have remained virtually unchanged since our forebears got suprised while squatting or sitting around a campfire when a lion showed up. 4x4 for the first bit of the escape would be a trait was passed on, not passed onto the veldt in lion poop!

I really cannot edit out this sites propensity to create a double post posing as a file to download on my computer..............sorry if redundancy bugs you!

Edited November 12, 2011 by John T

[Guest]

It will be interesting to see Radford squirm when this paper is published since it wont be just Ketchums word he would have to take. If the DNA is truely unique, it will be like a powerfull magnet that pulls scientists into a testing and retesting frenzy.

Paulides at Honobia said he believed the DNA report will be ignored by most scientists. He said the best he hoped for was that a couple of scientists might look at the report and be intriqued enough to study the issue.

Paulides should know what the report will argue. And he has stated many times that Bigfoot are humans and that the Native American traditions are correct in viewing Bigfoot as fellow humans.

The report has been alleged to show Bigfoot's maternal DNA is 100% human, dating to Europe between 10 and 20 thousand years ago. If we are to find Bigfoot in the DNA, it must be through the nuclear DNA where it has been alleged that there is an admixture of sapiens and erectus genes.

From all this I'm thinking the DNA report will not be definitive or as impressive as some have hoped for. It may offer ambiguous DNA results, but results consistently ambiguous in order for the report to argue for a unique population. I'm musing that the report allegedly will strengthen the pro-Bigfoot interpretation of DNA data by integrating it with origination accounts, such as the Raven Ullibarri and "Sierra Shootings" sighting reports.

No hoax (by Ketchum); no definitive paper.

Here is the newest news (rumor) about a split between Ketchum and Erikson. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/

[Guest]

Mulder I Personaly apologize if you fell diliberately abuse, that is not my honest attention.

It's not yours, Jeff, but it IS that of some others posting here, I'm sure.

It is just personally I don't get your statement. "I made a slight error based on changing classifications and corrected myself once the error was pointed out." The mistake that was pointed out was not a new change to the taxonomy system.

When I had science education, the whole "superfamily, tribe, subfamily, etc" wasn't in use by any text I was ever exposed to. I was educated in the older, "simplified" version (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species). The new extra classifications tripped me up.

So it made me wonder on your postion of Bigfoot. Do you think that Bigfoot is in the genus Homo? or is it your postion that Bigfoot is in between the the genus Pan and Homo? (which would be a new genus most likely)

I'm still unsold either way. The only indication we have that this is the way the DNA is leading are leaks by people (such as Paulides, IIRC) who have a particular axe to grind. Dr Ketchum has yet to give us any guidance as to what the results show (and it is entirely proper that she NOT say anything until the paper is accepted for publication).

I still hold some hope (admittedly that's all it is) that BF is not that closely related to humans, and is a convergently evolved Gigantopithicus descendant. My "way out there" thought is that BF may describe at least two different populations, but that is a whole new ballgame in terms of evidence and argumentation.

Do you think that Pan trogodytes (comman chimpanzees) are in the genus Homo not Pan? If you could clear up definition of words we can have a discussion like adults about Bigfoot and the Dna probaply outcome. Because it seem to me but not sure that we hold different views about Bigfoot and the possiblt DNA results.It would be nice to see the oppiside view that I think you have. If you want to continue the topic please clear up the confusion on the genus so I can make sure where you stand to write a replay, thank you.

I'm not good enough on genetics to argue that chimps (P Troglodytes) are genus Homo or are not. I'm content to leave them where they're currently classed.

A very helpful poster (thank you, you know who you are) just sent me some interesting information about the status of the chimpanzee:

Genetic study from 2003:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html

From 2006:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jan/24/research.highereducation

And pointed me in the direction of Toumai Man (Sahelanthropus tchadensis), and interesting possible common ancestor between man and chimp. The exact status of S Tchadensis is still under debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis

[Will]

New? Homo was described at least as early as 1758 and Pan in 1816.

You slightly misspoke when you publicly insulted me for something about which you were in error? And then you backpedal in your response this gibberish about "new layers of designation?" This from someone who has oft accused me of intellectual dishonesty?

This has been entertaining for me Mulder, and I hope enlightening for other readers of the BFF. Thank you for playing.

You have insulted many times on here Sas. You have a snarky kind of attitude about you, like a professor.

You got three pluses from your usual suspects.

Edited November 12, 2011 by will

[Guest]

I just have one question for you all. Would the real geneticist, anthropologist, or archeaologisit please raise their hand?

So you have a promblem with Herpatologist then why can I not raise my hand then.

[Guest]

Thank you for replaing mulder no explanation need for any mistakes we all make them. I was personally just want to be clear on termanology. So with that cleared up. We can get back discussion the topic of skeptic's answer to ketchum's DNA testing. Personaly I think that Bigfoot are more closely related to the tribe of Groillini not Homininia most likely Gigantopithecus blacki. My arguement is based off of a Bigfoot being a real animal. Starting with the footprints (The footprints are the facts of the matter. These can be treated scientifically for a couple, of reasons: first you can measure and record them, and second, other people can look at the imprints as well.) We see with that patty cast have a midtarsal break which is not charistic of the genus Homo where the longitudinal arch is a good example of this would be. Laetoli hominid footprint trail of North Tazania that date to 3.5 million years ago. It shows that the mode of locomotion of these of these Hominids was fully bipedal, with a longitudinal arch. From detailed comparisons with Homo sapiens. Estimates of step length cadence, and speed of walk have been ascertained, indicating that the Laeroli hominids moved in a strolling fashion with a rather short stride (chateris et. al, 1981). Initial analysis of these footprints compared to modern humans suggest a stature of about 4 feet, 9 inches for the larger individuals and 4 feet 1 inch for the small individual. Not my only reason in beliving that Bigfoot is G. blacki (G. blacki example was to show how can we be sure what Bigfoot is most related to with out a typespecimen.) but it is one example for now to save time and stay on topic about the Dna results One of the promblems I could see with the DNA results might be due to hybridization if hybrid dysgensis (A complex of gentic abnormalities which, occursin certain hybrids. The abnormalities may include sterility, enchanced rates of gene mutations and chromosmal rearangements.) How can we be certain that we are looking at none hybrid genentics? How can we be sure where the DNA samples came from North America? Just two example why I think we need a more than DNA to show the skeptics (also why we need a typespecimen to be sure about the taxonomy). With Sahelanthropus tchadensis I found that intresting I was not aware of S. tchadensis (I have not taken any anthropology classes?) Also I was not know that the DNA was leak by paulides, LLRC. I was curious on your thought regarding that Bigfoot may desribe at least two different populations. In regards on the differnet of DNA between the genus Homo and pan we can descuss that latter if you like it just will take a lot of typing and reading but for now I leave with this regarding that.

Dr. Foreman: "Her oxygen saturation is normal."

Dr. House: "It's off by one percentage point."

Foreman: "It within range. It's normal."

House: "If her DNA was off by one percentage point, she'd be a dolphin."

House M.D.

[Guest gershake]

You have insulted many times on here Sas. You have a snarky kind of attitude about you, like a professor.

You got three pluses from your usual suspects.

Am I a usual suspect? I'm a BF believer, but Saskeptic simply is one of the most reasonable posters on here (IMO) and (IMO) doesn't insult people, either.

[southernyahoo]

Paulides at Honobia said he believed the DNA report will be ignored by most scientists. He said the best he hoped for was that a couple of scientists might look at the report and be intriqued enough to study the issue.

I'm sure he is taking a conservative outlook on the effects of the report, but I don't think that reflects what he believes about the evidence he's turned into the study. Surely he would expect that there are notable differences in bigfoot, otherwise there is nothing to prove.

Paulides should know what the report will argue. And he has stated many times that Bigfoot are humans and that the Native American traditions are correct in viewing Bigfoot as fellow humans.

The evidence prior to this Ketchum study has for a very long time indicated that this hairy biped was from the genus homo. The tracks, the sounds, the hairs, the pictures and video, plus the fact that anything less would not have managed to elude science, and it's DNA would have stood out like a sore thumb when collected by biologists. So none of what is going on here should be unexpected.

The report has been alleged to show Bigfoot's maternal DNA is 100% human, dating to Europe between 10 and 20 thousand years ago. If we are to find Bigfoot in the DNA, it must be through the nuclear DNA where it has been alleged that there is an admixture of sapiens and erectus genes.

I certainly can't get into a technical debate where DNA is concerned, but the maternal lineage is obviously only part of the story, we'll have to rely on the real experts there, and I have'nt heard that we had erectus DNA unless we have dated some sequence to that time period, which would leave room for speculation whether it was erectus or some other hominid.

From all this I'm thinking the DNA report will not be definitive or as impressive as some have hoped for. It may offer ambiguous DNA results, but results consistently ambiguous in order for the report to argue for a unique population. I'm musing that the report allegedly will strengthen the pro-Bigfoot interpretation of DNA data by integrating it with origination accounts, such as the Raven Ullibarri and "Sierra Shootings" sighting reports.

Dr. K still seems confident that the proof is in the DNA , but the proof won't be entirely dependent on the DNA alone because it is also tied to the morphology in the samples, and cricumstances of their collection. IMO there are observable characteristics in the hairs that doesn't correspond with what would be expected in ordinary human head hairs and apparently to some, not even in the known primates. In addition to DNA there is testing available in the fields of toxicology and isotopic analyses that could strengthen the case for them. If all findings are repeatable , I think the samples can be quite persuasive.

No hoax (by Ketchum); no definitive paper.

Since I'm a submitter, I don't see a hoax by anyone, it is simply a matter of whether there is anything diagnostic to the question of bigfoots existence in the samples, and that alone determines what really is definitive.

[Guest slimwitless]

I'm all out of pluses. Great post, southernyahoo.

[Guest]

I'm sure he is taking a conservative outlook on the effects of the report, but I don't think that reflects what he believes about the evidence he's turned into the study. Surely he would expect that there are notable differences in bigfoot, otherwise there is nothing to prove.

The evidence prior to this Ketchum study has for a very long time indicated that this hairy biped was from the genus homo. The tracks, the sounds, the hairs, the pictures and video, plus the fact that anything less would not have managed to elude science, and it's DNA would have stood out like a sore thumb when collected by biologists. So none of what is going on here should be unexpected.

I certainly can't get into a technical debate where DNA is concerned, but the maternal lineage is obviously only part of the story, we'll have to rely on the real experts there, and I haven't heard that we had erectus DNA unless we have dated some sequence to that time period, which would leave room for speculation whether it was erectus or some other hominid.

Dr. K still seems confident that the proof is in the DNA , but the proof won't be entirely dependent on the DNA alone because it is also tied to the morphology in the samples, and circumstances of their collection. IMO there are observable characteristics in the hairs that doesn't correspond with what would be expected in ordinary human head hairs and apparently to some, not even in the known primates. In addition to DNA there is testing available in the fields of toxicology and isotopic analyses that could strengthen the case for them. If all findings are repeatable , I think the samples can be quite persuasive.

Since I'm a submitter, I don't see a hoax by anyone, it is simply a matter of whether there is anything diagnostic to the question of bigfoots existence in the samples, and that alone determines what really is definitive.

Your post is reasonable. Especially reasonable if there is such a thing as Bigfoot. A mighty big IF, it needs to be added.

I don't think Ketchum is perpetuating a hoax. However, I do suspect that the Erickson stuff is .....well, suspect. For me, if the DNA report supports Erickson, and the Erickson videos are less than billed, then the report suffers, instead of Erickson gaining.

Yes, the report will rely on sample morphology too. My point is that it will not settle the issue. Hopefully it will be presented well enough to garner scientific responses.

I believe the erectus connection was in a Lindsay post. Doesn't make sense for several reasons. I don't think homo erectus DNA has even been sequenced yet, has it?

Despite Meldrum and others, the tracks say human. To you, a subspecies of man. To me, a homo sapiens sapiens artifact.

I think Bigfoot phenomena is something like a magic act in that once it is revealed, it is far less impressive than imagined. Napier once said that sasquatch probably exist, but it won't be what it has been cracked up to be. If there really is a sasquatch to discover, it may be something we haven't really thought of, and most of what believers think they know may not prove true.

[Guest]

I don't think Ketchum is perpetuating a hoax. However, I do suspect that the Erickson stuff is .....well, suspect. For me, if the DNA report supports Erickson, and the Erickson videos are less than billed, then the report suffers, instead of Erickson gaining.

That is how I see it I hope that if the the media and skeptics will not only look at the erickson video and ignore the DNA results.

[Guest slimwitless]

I believe the erectus connection was in a Lindsay post. Doesn't make sense for several reasons. I don't think homo erectus DNA has even been sequenced yet, has it?

Well, I think he said Erectus had a midtarsal break (claimed by Meldrum to be a characteristic of sasquatch prints) and a sagittal crest. I have no idea if either of those claims are true.

I don't think we have any homo erectus DNA either.

[Guest]

The evidence prior to this Ketchum study has for a very long time indicated that this hairy biped was from the genus homo. The tracks, the sounds, the hairs, the pictures and video, plus the fact that anything less would not have managed to elude science, and it's DNA would have stood out like a sore thumb when collected by biologists. So none of what is going on here should be unexpected.

Personaly I do not see any evidence for Bigfoot being from the genus homo at all I think the oppiste is true. Lack of fossil record (but lack of fossils does not mean that lack of a species existance.) the tracks alone to me prove that they are not from the genus Homo, the patterson video also. Any animal have a chance of not being seen by man, there are a lot of examples of this also new animals are found all the time in North America.

Dr. K still seems confident that the proof is in the DNA , but the proof won't be entirely dependent on the DNA alone because it is also tied to the morphology in the samples, and cricumstances of their collection. IMO there are observable characteristics in the hairs that doesn't correspond with what would be expected in ordinary human head hairs and apparently to some, not even in the known primates. In addition to DNA there is testing available in the fields of toxicology and isotopic analyses that could strengthen the case for them. If all findings are repeatable , I think the samples can be quite persuasive.

Since I'm a submitter, I don't see a hoax by anyone, it is simply a matter of whether there is anything diagnostic to the question of bigfoots existence in the samples, and that alone determines what really is definitive.

With the DNA been persuasive I can see that but only if there are more samples to be retested by other scientist who have no conflicting intrest in money to be had. On sumitting the DNA sample can you please tell of the process I am curious what there protocals where.

[Guest Jodie]

So you have a promblem with Herpatologist then why can I not raise my hand then.

I didn't think that specialty was relevant to the discussion of where the chimp fell on the family tree, but if I ever have a question about reptiles and amphibians you and RedRatSnake will be the first people I ask.

[Guest parnassus]

I'm sure he is taking a conservative outlook on the effects of the report, but I don't think that reflects what he believes about the evidence he's turned into the study. Surely he would expect that there are notable differences in bigfoot, otherwise there is nothing to prove.

The evidence prior to this Ketchum study has for a very long time indicated that this hairy biped was from the genus homo. The tracks, the sounds, the hairs, the pictures and video, plus the fact that anything less would not have managed to elude science, and it's DNA would have stood out like a sore thumb when collected by biologists. So none of what is going on here should be unexpected.

I certainly can't get into a technical debate where DNA is concerned, but the maternal lineage is obviously only part of the story, we'll have to rely on the real experts there, and I have'nt heard that we had erectus DNA unless we have dated some sequence to that time period, which would leave room for speculation whether it was erectus or some other hominid.

Dr. K still seems confident that the proof is in the DNA , but the proof won't be entirely dependent on the DNA alone because it is also tied to the morphology in the samples, and cricumstances of their collection. IMO there are observable characteristics in the hairs that doesn't correspond with what would be expected in ordinary human head hairs and apparently to some, not even in the known primates. In addition to DNA there is testing available in the fields of toxicology and isotopic analyses that could strengthen the case for them. If all findings are repeatable , I think the samples can be quite persuasive.

Since I'm a submitter, I don't see a hoax by anyone, it is simply a matter of whether there is anything diagnostic to the question of bigfoots existence in the samples, and that alone determines what really is definitive.

I think if you look at the DNA results from Ketchum that Stubstad posted, you will see that this DNA is from modern humans, not "homo". Paulides, who is close to Ketchum and has appeared with her, says human, not "homo". Ketchum has never said anything to the contrary. Your references to Homo are unfounded and simply misleading.

The fact is that the popular consensus description of Bigfoot is not compatible with the modern human DNA that has been found; Ketchum will never publish a positive study linking bigfoot with modern human DNA in a reputable journal; it will not persuade "science" (nor will it even persuade Meldrum, I predict).

The only reasonable conclusions are that Bigfoot DNA has not been found, and/or humans are either attempting to masquerade as Bigfoot or are being misperceived as Bigfoot.