Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Interesting, what do you think happened to the Neanderthal maternal lineage in modern europeans. Would the female offspring have been rejected by the male modern humans? Where did they go? Could they have gone back to live with the neanderthals and passed on the modern human maternal lineage? If you accept the NP (Neanderthal Predation) theory, the lack of a female Neanderthal lineage makes sense, as Neanderthal females would not have bred with H Sapiens males. The presence of a limited amount of Neanderthal genes in modern humans is the residual of the effects of Neanderthal males impregnating Sapiens females. The majority of such offspring would have been rejected by the Sapiens group and forced to breed back into the Neanderthal group. I have no information on Ketchum's DNA analysis other than what I've read here. What I've read seems to indicate that she's found human DNA. How human DNA = physical bigfoot is beyond me. I'd be gobsmacked if any reputable journal publishes a paper claiming "bigfoot" is real and it's a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Sadly, I think the Ketchum fever will eventually subside like every great hope of bigfootery and this will be one more thing that got people excited for a while but fizzled in the final analysis. It's sad, because I know a lot of good people really pin their hopes for bigfoot on things like this, but we've been down this road before. I'll keep an open mind for what now, May? I ain't holding my breath though. Get a body and we're in business. Ketchup on a plate? Not so much. One more time: DNA comes from samples. Samples come from critters. DNA = critter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I think you would have to assume that something affected the fertility of a female Neanderthal and a male Homo Sapien combination. I'm thinking the male's sperm could not penetrate the Neanderthal egg, if they managed to conceive then the offspring possibly weren't viable or were sterile themselves. I was thinking the other way around and not about fertility but natural selection. Male Neanderthals attracted to human females but not so much the other way. This might leave males with the human clans and females staying with the Neanderthals. Somehow the nuclear DNA stayed with us and the mtDNA was weeded out. You're right though, the females might not have been fertile hybrids. If the females stayed with the Neanderthals and were infertile , I gues that could have been their demise right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Suppose there is no mention of bigfoot, but the results does support another species of the genus Homo, yet with samples provided by bigfoot hunters? I'm bumping this telegraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 15, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 15, 2011 Really doesn't matter what you call it if the dna is unique enough I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I was thinking the other way around and not about fertility but natural selection. Male Neanderthals attracted to human females but not so much the other way. This might leave males with the human clans and females staying with the Neanderthals. Somehow the nuclear DNA stayed with us and the mtDNA was weeded out. You're right though, the females might not have been fertile hybrids. If the females stayed with the Neanderthals and were infertile , I gues that could have been their demise right there. LOLOL Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we all smelled bad back then too, had rotten teeth and lice, what prehistoric man wouldn't want a strong woman to sweep him off his feet and help around the cave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Suppose there is no mention of bigfoot, but the results does support another species of the genus Homo, yet with samples provided by bigfoot hunters? Now that is intresting something to realy think about. I would say that is a good point, the DNA sample would prove that there is a animal in the woods most likely from the genus Homo a typespecimen would be required that does provide the promblem is it ethical? What seperated us from animals is it culture,langue and art still? With out a typespecimen how can we be sure it came from Bigfoot? Can we desribe a new species with out a typespecimen do to the fact it might be murder so unethical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 LOLOL Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we all smelled bad back then too, had rotten teeth and lice, what prehistoric man wouldn't want a strong woman to sweep him off his feet and help around the cave? You know , my wife gets a little jealous of Patty, says I spend too much time with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Yeah, right up until they find and test their own evidence and find the same thing. It will happen quicky for them since this type of testing will be available to them. More like an obsolete paradigm which was never proven. I like Meldrum and think he will modify his hypothesis. It shouldn't be too hard for him as an anthropologist who notes midfoot flexibility in early homo species. SY ..."they find and test their own evidence and find the same thing. It will happen quicky for them since this type of testing will be available to them." absolutely; everyone will love "human DNA equals bigfoot"...every campground will have some; in fact, you won't even have to go out of your house to get your evidence; just collect some hair from your daughter's hairbrush. That and two hundred bucks will get you human bigfoot DNA confirmation you can shove in your scofftic brother in law's face. re Meldrum: I will be really interested in his response. I think you underestimate him. I think he will reject the concept (I'm assuming it won't be published in a good journal). But maybe I overestimate him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Parnassus, I asked this once before and didn't catch an answer. When you say "human DNA equals bigfoot" are you referring to mtDNA or nuDNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Suppose there is no mention of bigfoot, but the results does support another species of the genus Homo, yet with samples provided by bigfoot hunters? southernyahoo, Do you know something .....? Does make sense that a refereed paper would try to distance itself from "Bigfoot". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 It makes perfect sense. Without a type specimen or the ability to determine morphology from genetic information, the reviewers might want to distance themselves from any speculation (no matter how obvious). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Suppose there is no mention of bigfoot, but the results does support another species of the genus Homo, yet with samples provided by bigfoot hunters? Still gobsmacked. DNA = critter. Right, and all we know right now is that the "critter" in question is Homo sapiens. I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 southernyahoo, Do you know something .....? Does make sense that a refereed paper would try to distance itself from "Bigfoot". It's really tough to say I know something about all this. I'm just speculating about things in a hypothetical sense as people turn over various stones.I'll have some interesting facts to share about the wars between bf camps when this is done, no doubt. Still gobsmacked. Right, and all we know right now is that the "critter" in question is Homo sapiens. I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. You've seen no evidence of what dna is in her paper period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Right, and all we know right now is that the "critter" in question is Homo sapiens. I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. That's not true. When they first started "leaking" the numbers (assuming the leaks were accurate) the results for the diagnostic sequences were ~ 2/3 H Sapiens and 1/3 other/chimpanzee. That's enough genetic differentiation to render the subject critter not a true Sapiens. And AFAICT, there is still no confirmation from ANY official source of the H Sapiens Hirsutis designation in any event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 . . . the results for the diagnostic sequences were ~ 2/3 H Sapiens and 1/3 other/chimpanzee. But that's greater (not less) differentiation than there is between humans and chimps. How could something with "1/3 chimp DNA" (whatever the heck that means) be Homo sapiens? SY is right - none of us know anything definitive about Ketchum's analysis. Here's a spectrum of response to possible outcomes: 1. No outcome - no paper ever submitted or no paper ever published about any of this: yawn 2. A paper is published describing Homo sapiens DNA with some weird polymorphism: yawn, some anthropologist might think it's cool and bigfooters might think this proves bigfoot. 3. A paper is published confirming a new species of extant Homo that is NOT Homo sapiens: ground-breaking science!!! 4. A paper is published confirming a new species of extant hominid that is NOT in the genus Homo: ground-breaking science!!! Not only would 3 or 4 be extremely cool in their own right, they might suggest that there actually is something like a bigfoot out there. I am hopeful for 3 or 4 (I'm pulling for 4), but I predict that 1 is what will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts