Skeptic's Answer To Ketchum's Dna Testing

[Guest]

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.

I perdict it is numer 2. I personally am hoping for either number 3 or 4 that would be some intresting stuff.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Jeff Albertson

[Guest slimwitless]

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.

How many weird polymorphisms do you need for #2 to become #3?

[Guest]

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.

+1 from me. Out of curiosity, what is the reason that you prefer 4 over 3? Just prefer it to be more animal and less human if it does exist? I think that of the two 4 is more likely, just wondering why you actually have a preference. Thanks!

[bipedalist]

SY is right - none of us know anything definitive about Ketchum's analysis.

I personally prefer #5 --- to know what SY knows.

[Guest]

I personally prefer #5 --- to know what SY knows.

That is true but discussion the different outcomes, leads to a better understanding of the the it when it is relized. I was assuming that the outcome would be from samples from Bigfoot, because of the assotiation with the Erickson Project. So if the paper does come out and say there is a new species in the genus Homo I will give it a chance now because I was basing my oppion on if the patteron film was real (I beleive so) which left us with both pictures of Bigfoot and footprints that where being left to be associated with a new species. Which showed us the Midtarsal break and would put Bigfoot into it own genus a not fron the Genus Homo. Now if it says it is from the Genus Homo I can see how that is possible (Based on Lormen colemans work of classifing Bigfoots by sightings where there are more than one type of large unclassifed bipedal animals.) But it would not be the Bigfoot from the patterson film Patty would be from a differnt Genus than Homo

Edited November 15, 2011 by Jeff Albertson

[Guest]

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?

1) that's 1/3 of the specific sequences that are diagnostic to differentiate between humans and chimps. That is 1/3 of the handful of % of genes that are different between the two species.

2) I ask AGAIN...who is making the claim that they are H Sapiens? Lindsay? Stubstad? Paulides?

AFAIK, Ketchum has said NOTHING about what her results show vis a vis designation. Can you point me to where she herself (or an authorized rep) has given this designation?

SY is right - none of us know anything definitive about Ketchum's analysis.

Then why are you continuing to tout the Sapiens subspecies designation?

[Guest]

What I'm sure they will do is not question the results but the everything else. What equipment did she use? Where did she go to school? What protocol did she use?

Then they will offer up critcisms of that and not the evidence. They might even roll out some other DNA specialist to counter her findings, and the equipmnet, and the school, and the protocol.

It's like a court trial. No matter what the evidence is, and how strong it is, there's always someone who will question it.

[Guest]

What I'm sure they will do is not question the results but the everything else. What equipment did she use? Where did she go to school? What protocol did she use?

Then they will offer up critcisms of that and not the evidence. They might even roll out some other DNA specialist to counter her findings, and the equipmnet, and the school, and the protocol.

It's like a court trial. No matter what the evidence is, and how strong it is, there's always someone who will question it.

Melba's Facebook page is gone.I just checked on it and the account is closed.

Why would she do that?

I wonder if perhaps people are sending her messages through Facebook? If she's getting unhappy people sending her messages, I can understand why she took it down.

Edited November 15, 2011 by SweetSusiq

[Guest slimwitless]

It's still there, SweetSusiq.

[Guest]

How many weird polymorphisms do you need for #2 to become #3?

Enough to make it clear that the source was not Homo sapiens.

Out of curiosity, what is the reason that you prefer 4 over 3? Just prefer it to be more animal and less human if it does exist?

Personally, I'd just be more confident that what people have been describing as bigfoot is not something in our own genus, based on the morphological features described in the accounts.

2) I ask AGAIN...who is making the claim that they are H Sapiens? Lindsay? Stubstad? Paulides?

I'm sorry, I haven't seen where you asked this question a first time. I do not know the ultimate source of these leaks, but you have referenced such leaks several times in the thread.

As for me "touting" anything about what Ketchum may or may not have found, please note careful use of the word "if" in my statements.

[Guest]

How could something with "1/3 chimp DNA" (whatever the heck that means) be Homo sapiens?

Saskeptic. Lindsey's blog a while back said that the (presumably) nuclear DNA showed a split from us 1/3 of the way back down the line between us and the modern human-chimpanzee common ancestor. Assuming that's all true, that puts the sample source-modern human common ancestor at about two million + years ago just as Lindsey calculated (at least for the original presumably Bigfoot genes and discounting the modern human ones implicitly floating around in them from hybridization).

Borderline Homo? Maybe. Sapiens? Almost certainly not, given reported morphology, behavior and common ancestor distance.

Edited November 15, 2011 by tsiatkoVS

[Guest]

For any one who is interested.

Just read Lindsey's Nov 14th blog entry.

He says General said that the nuclear genes were "1/3 of the way from a human to a chimpanzee" (not chimp-modern human common ancestor). Lindsey says he heard this also from a "someone high up in the Bigfoot world who is close to Melba Ketchum." (Man, I just love second and third hand reports)

If you take that literally, that means the last common ancestor with modern humans for the Bigfoot genes was 4 million years ago, not 2.

Stop me and give me a beer before I read between these particular lines again.

[Guest LissingMinx]

an interesting paper for those having fun speculating on the rumors:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347299911442

[Guest]

an interesting paper for those having fun speculating on the rumors:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347299911442

That is a intresting paper little is know on Hybrination as supject matter yet.

Borderline Homo? Maybe. Sapiens? Almost certainly not, given reported morphology, behavior and common ancestor distance.

Do to the Phenotype that makes it a new genus not to say that it is not the Missing link between the Genus Homo and Pan but it does implay that they is no track that have been cast to repersent this species if it is from the Genus Homo.

[TimB]

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?

Edited to be less personal-

This is the essential question that places the modern human dna argument in doubt. I you acknowledge that it's only the mtDNA that is "human", then it's only the half the total picture.

Tim B.

Edited November 15, 2011 by TimB