Skeptic's Answer To Ketchum's Dna Testing

[Guest]

I you acknowledge that it's only the mtDNA that is "human", then it's only the half the total picture.

Potentially a lot less than half. You could have next to no "modern" nuclear genes while the modern human mtDNA tools along for generations happy and complete.

But, if all or most of the samples from across the continent show modern mtDNA (which it is beginning to sound like), the chances that the nuclear genome has big chunks of modern chromosomes floating around in it is a real proposition. (And that is going to really muddy up the controversy.)

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

Parnassus, you make a great point and I agree 100%. If the DNA study comes back as human DNA, I'll be the first in line to cry foul.

What I've seen was NOT human, they're human-like in the sence they have two arms, two legs etc....but so does a Gorilla. So in the same sence Gorillas are human-like too. Bigfoot DNA absolutely must be different from human just as Gorilla DNA is certainly different from ours.

I'll never accept that these creatures are modern humans because I've seen them and they're simply not. I don't know for sure what they are, but I know they're not us. IMO

Chris B.

[Guest LissingMinx]

something else for y'all to play with:

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

and this:

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

"The discovery of the homeotic Hox gene family in vertebrates in the 1980s allowed researchers in developmental biology to empirically assess the relative roles of gene duplication and gene regulation with respect to their importance in the evolution of morphological diversity. Several biologists, including Sean B. Carroll of the University of Wisconsin–Madison suggest that "changes in the cis-regulatory systems of genes" are more significant than "changes in gene number or protein function".[26] These researchers argue that the combinatorial nature of transcriptional regulation allows a rich substrate for morphological diversity, since variations in the level, pattern, or timing of gene expression may provide more variation for natural selection to act upon than changes in the gene product alone."

have fun!

[Guest]

Parnassus, you make a great point and I agree 100%. If the DNA study comes back as human DNA, I'll be the first in line to cry foul.

What I've seen was NOT human, they're human-like in the sence they have two arms, two legs etc....but so does a Gorilla. So in the same sence Gorillas are human-like too. Bigfoot DNA absolutely must be different from human just as Gorilla DNA is certainly different from ours.

I'll never accept that these creatures are modern humans because I've seen them and they're simply not. I don't know for sure what they are, but I know they're not us. IMO

Chris B.

Well said Chris, and plus 1 to you with .

[Guest RayG]

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

Conversely, no matter how poor the evidence, there's always someone who will promote it.

RayG

[Guest]

One more time: DNA comes from samples. Samples come from critters. DNA = critter.

And critter equals human being of which there are 7 billion. If the DNA is human the sample most likely came from a camper, hiker, logger, or hunter. I suppose the samples will be linked to some fuzzy video from Erikson of which "man in the suit" theory cannot be ruled out.

The dna analysis that will count will come from the body that will soon be obtained in Russia.

[Guest]

Do you have some inside info about that? Why are you expecting a body from Russia?

Here's hoping that where ever it comes from that it died of old age, or injury not done by a hunter, or other human.

Then we'll have no one fussing.

Edited to add further thoughts on this issue.

Edited November 16, 2011 by SweetSusiq

[Guest]

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?

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

Clarifying....

Your point 1. comes from the same source as the other issues, such as the mtDNA being 100% human.

Although you (in other posts) have Paulides virtually a stranger to Ketchum (while Parn has them virtually shacking up), Paulides initiated the study by supplying samples to Ketchum and he surely has been advised as to what the samples have worked out to be. And yes, he says Bigfoot is human. Of coarse, this does not necessarily mean homo sapiens sapiens.

Also we ought to remember to differentiate modern homo sapiens from archaic homo sapiens: modern is homo sapiens sapiens while archaic forms of homo sapiens may include subspecies like Neanders.

Of course we do not know what Ketchum's paper will argue; we are speculating based on leaks and comments by Paulides and others. And don't forget the homo sapiens hirsutii reference, which does seem to coincide well with the rest of what we are hearing.

And a question to anyone who may know: if the mtDNA is homo sapiens sapiens, does that preclude the nuDNA from reading as something else?Could the maternal DNA look 100% sapiens sapiens and the nuDNA an admixture of modern and archaic sapiens?

Edited November 16, 2011 by jerrywayne

[southernyahoo]

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.

I think you should wait and see whats in the paper. If you still think you could pull your own hair and match whats in it, then I'll be glad to see you prove it.

[BobZenor]

...

And a question to anyone who may know: if the mtDNA is homo sapiens sapiens, does that preclude the nuDNA from reading as something else?Could the maternal DNA look 100% sapiens sapiens and the nuDNA an admixture of modern and archaic sapiens?

The mtDNA is passed down the female lineage and only rarely changes. It has very little to do with nuclear DNA besides the nuclear DNA that controls some its functions.

A single female modern human in their ancestry could theoretically account for all of the population being part of her mitochondrial haplogroup given enough generations. It is a reasonable assumption that only a few made it over the land bridge and that small population could have had members that were part of that haplogroup. It would have probably started out as a small population in the New World is the point so that could explain a high frequency of that haplogroup. It also may be selected for as some seem to be in modern humans. Jodie found an article that one haplogroup was reported to give some Europeans higher resistance to sepsis for example.

From that same link

...Although haplogroup H is the most recent addition to the group of European mtDNA, paradoxically it is also the most common.

There could be virtually no modern human nuDNA in there at all. There could also be quite a lot with selection keeping the population adapted to the wild. There is always the possibility that they are evolved from modern humans but that would be pretty hard for me to accept.

[Guest parnassus]

The mtDNA is passed down the female lineage and only rarely changes. It has very little to do with nuclear DNA besides the nuclear DNA that controls some its functions.

A single female modern human in their ancestry could theoretically account for all of the population being part of her mitochondrial haplogroup given enough generations. It is a reasonable assumption that only a few made it over the land bridge and that small population could have had members that were part of that haplogroup. It would have probably started out as a small population in the New World is the point so that could explain a high frequency of that haplogroup. It also may be selected for as some seem to be in modern humans. Jodie found an article that one haplogroup was reported to give some Europeans higher resistance to sepsis for example.

From that same link

There could be virtually no modern human nuDNA in there at all. There could also be quite a lot with selection keeping the population adapted to the wild. There is always the possibility that they are evolved from modern humans but that would be pretty hard for me to accept.

Wadr, Bob, that haplotype study doesn't say what you think it says. Maybe you're just going by what Jody said, but being a predictor of survival is not at all the same, either clinically or statistically, as giving resistance.

Now, Bob, how could there be "virtually no modern human nuDNA??????" Sorry, but that hybrid stuff is just so far in the realm of, well, fantasy, that it is strange to me that anyone can seriously propose it, let alone believe it. Hybrid with what? and with who? how many times? generations? how could that work? Stubstad seems to be the one who proposed it, perhaps because he's an engineer and knows nothing about population genetics. It's like imagining animals are assembled in a factory. It's tabloid quality. It's "I had bigfoot's baby" stuff.

This idea that the mtDNA is modern human and the nuclear DNA isn't modern human in a stable population is so far fetched as to be simply a red herring, as any competent zoologist or geneticist will tell you.

seriously.

Don't even consider that. Ketchum/Paulides is not gonna tell you that. I promise. cross my heart.

That's my opinion. But you can take it to the bank.

[BobZenor]

Wadr, Bob, that haplotype study doesn't say what you think it says. Maybe you're just going by what Jody said, but being a predictor of survival is not at all the same, either clinically or statistically, as giving resistance.

I am not even sure what you think I I think it said. The implication seems pretty simple to me. It increases survival so it is selected for. That is why the inclusion of two facts that haplogroup H is now more common and yet one of the newest. The main theme of the study was that it increased survival. The fact that correlation doesn't always prove causation is why I said "may be selected for as some seem to be" in the following quote.

It also may be selected for as some seem to be in modern humans. Jodie found an article that one haplogroup was reported to give some Europeans higher resistance to sepsis for example.

They only talked about one cause so the implication seems obvious. I don't buy that there wouldn't be independent gene flow that didn't include haplogroup H so the implied selection pressure from increased survival seems like a logical deduction to me. There are always alternative possible causes and I wasn't sure they eliminated them which is the only reason I qualified it with "seem to be". There is no question that some mitochondria are selected for. That was just an extreme example. If they weren't, there wouldn't be such a thing as mtDNA specific to a species. They would evolve independently like species do. Species only very rarely start with two animals. Our mitochondria indicates that our species is only very roughly 200,000 years old based on when we all share a single common ancestor yet there were many ancestor 200,000 years ago. The other mitochondria were logically lost by selection.

Now, Bob, how could there be "virtually no modern human nuDNA??????" Sorry, but that hybrid stuff is just so far in the realm of, well, fantasy, that it is strange to me that anyone can seriously propose it, let alone believe it. Hybrid with what? and with who? how many times? generations? how could that work? Stubstad seems to be the one who proposed it, perhaps because he's an engineer and knows nothing about population genetics. It's like imagining animals are assembled in a factory. It's tabloid quality. It's "I had bigfoot's baby" stuff.

It is simple biology that I was talking about. Natural selection increases the frequency of some traits. Founder effects can amplify that effect. I was giving the range from practically zero modern human nuDNA in a population to 100 percent if it is an evolved modern human. The "quite a lot" example was meant to imply anything in between.

This idea that the mtDNA is modern human and the nuclear DNA isn't modern human in a stable population is so far fetched as to be simply a red herring, as any competent zoologist or geneticist will tell you.

seriously.

Don't even consider that. Ketchum/Paulides is not gonna tell you that. I promise. cross my heart.

That's my opinion. But you can take it to the bank.

That sounds more like argument from incredulity. I don't know where your implication for a stable population comes from. I didn't claim to know the percentage of bigfoot that share the same mtDNA or how much variation is found in them. I don't get the reason to include "stable population" since I didn't imply it. Stable is just a relative thing. Populations don't stop evolving.

I was just giving the possible explanation for them to have a high percentage of the same mtDNA. It just seemed like something that a lot of people would have a problem accepting without understanding how it could happen. If they didn't have modern human mtDNA and logically at least a small amount of modern human nuDNA, this would should be a whole lot simpler to prove assuming valid DNA to start with.

Edited November 16, 2011 by BobZenor

[Guest]

Now, Bob, how could there be "virtually no modern human nuDNA??????" . . . how could that work?

This idea that the mtDNA is modern human and the nuclear DNA isn't modern human in a stable population is so far fetched as to be simply a red herring, as any competent zoologist or geneticist will tell you.

Bob is correct on this. I'm not exactly sure what you're questioning beyond finding a non-modern hominin living today implausible.

The speculation is: two closely related species occasionally exchange genes but do not fully fuse into one species for whatever reason. The foreign genes are selected out or are just simply washed out by the more numerous native genes over generations. Then you could get "virtually no modern human nuDNA."

In the abstract this is a perfectly legit scenario.

And I'm not sure what you mean by a "stable population?" Stable in what?

Edited November 16, 2011 by tsiatkoVS

[Guest]

Wadr, Bob, that haplotype study doesn't say what you think it says. Maybe you're just going by what Jody said, but being a predictor of survival is not at all the same, either clinically or statistically, as giving resistance.

Now, Bob, how could there be "virtually no modern human nuDNA??????" Sorry, but that hybrid stuff is just so far in the realm of, well, fantasy, that it is strange to me that anyone can seriously propose it, let alone believe it. Hybrid with what? and with who? how many times? generations? how could that work? Stubstad seems to be the one who proposed it, perhaps because he's an engineer and knows nothing about population genetics. It's like imagining animals are assembled in a factory. It's tabloid quality. It's "I had bigfoot's baby" stuff.

This idea that the mtDNA is modern human and the nuclear DNA isn't modern human in a stable population is so far fetched as to be simply a red herring, as any competent zoologist or geneticist will tell you.

seriously.

Don't even consider that. Ketchum/Paulides is not gonna tell you that. I promise. cross my heart.

That's my opinion. But you can take it to the bank.

Plus 1 to you from me..Thank you.

I am not even sure what you think I I think it said. The implication seems pretty simple to me. It increases survival so it is selected for. That is why the inclusion of two facts that haplogroup H is now more common and yet one of the newest. The main theme of the study was that it increased survival. The fact that correlation doesn't always prove causation is why I said "may be selected for as some seem to be" in the following quote.

They only talked about one cause so the implication seems obvious. I don't buy that there wouldn't be independent gene flow that didn't include haplogroup H so the implied selection pressure from increased survival seems like a logical deduction to me. There are always alternative possible causes and I wasn't sure they eliminated them which is the only reason I qualified it with "seem to be". There is no question that some mitochondria are selected for. That was just an extreme example. If they weren't, there wouldn't be such a thing as mtDNA specific to a species. They would evolve independently like species do. Species only very rarely start with two animals. Our mitochondria indicates that our species is only very roughly 200,000 years old based on when we all share a single common ancestor yet there were many ancestor 200,000 years ago. The other mitochondria were logically lost by selection.

It is simple biology that I was talking about. Natural selection increases the frequency of some traits. Founder effects can amplify that effect. I was giving the range from practically zero modern human nuDNA in a population to 100 percent if it is an evolved modern human. The "quite a lot" example was meant to imply anything in between.

That sounds more like argument from incredulity. I don't know where your implication for a stable population comes from. I didn't claim to know the percentage of bigfoot that share the same mtDNA or how much variation is found in them. I don't get the reason to include "stable population" since I didn't imply it. Stable is just a relative thing. Populations don't stop evolving.

I was just giving the possible explanation for them to have a high percentage of the same mtDNA. It just seemed like something that a lot of people would have a problem accepting without understanding how it could happen. If they didn't have modern human mtDNA and logically at least a small amount of modern human nuDNA, this would should be a whole lot simpler to prove assuming valid DNA to start with.

Would someone please direct me to some literature where I can even begin to understand this?

I have a college degree, but it was in nursing.I know more about cancer than I do anything about this DNA science. I've had essentially basic college sciences, and I have only general DNA Knowledge from 20 years ago.

Is there something anywhere simple enough for me to understand so I'm not **Totally** lost?

Please?

Edited November 16, 2011 by SweetSusiq

[Guest Jodie]

I just want to point out that if you are going to rely on what Stubstad said, which let me make perfectly clear here that I don't, then according to him, the samples he analyzed and deemed not likely to be hoaxed were not used in the study. If you are drawing conclusions about the study samples based on his mtDNA analysis, then you are simply assuming that those included in the study also contained mtDNA unless you are privy to a DNA report. I personally need to see it in writing.

Wadr, Bob, that haplotype study doesn't say what you think it says. Maybe you're just going by what Jody said, but being a predictor of survival is not at all the same, either clinically or statistically, as giving resistance.

Parn evidently thinks I have more influence on people than I actually do so I say let him continue to live with his illusions on more levels than just the DNA study.