Skeptic's Answer To Ketchum's Dna Testing

[Guest]

Not so. Someone on the old forum posted an account of a town in Asia (IIRC) where the entire population goes 4x4 doe to some weird genetic quirk. It would be easier for BF, with it's longer than normal for human arms to do this.

. . . And if you took a moment to look up the source of that story, it's about a family in Turkey. The reasons for the odd gait are complex, but a neurological condition that affects balance when they attempt to walk bipedally plays a big role. So, unlike bigfoot, they don't seamlessly switch between 2X4 and 4X4 mode. You may feel free to find some other group of humans (perhaps circus performers) who can do that and draw some other strange link to bigfoot.

[BobZenor]

All true, but to be fair, the DNA-proof-of-hominid thing won't tell us which bigfoot is the real one. For instance, does a "human" bigfoot make Patty more or less plausible? Does a human bigfoot make "samurai chatter" more plausible, and howling at the moon less plausible? Does a human bigfoot rule out the 12-footers? Here's a tough one: mid-tarsal break. DNA evidence that places bigfoot in Homo makes Meldrum's mid-tarsal break hypothesis far less likely. A personal favorite of mine, 4X4 mode, is clearly out the window with a human bigfoot.

There would still be many questions to address with the bigfoots-are-humans-via-DNA analysis scenario. All would be answered if somebody just hauled one in.

It would certainly make Patty and the Samurai Chatter more plausible. Gimlin, who apparently saw it far better than anyone alive, described it as a huge hairy human. I think with most people who believe bigfoot likely exists and who have a beef with the samurai chatter, it is about the implied implication of them being closer to a human that they object to. It isn't any less probable that they would sometimes yell at night or bang on trees. That also shouldn't be that surprising even if it were a nonhuman ape.

It doesn't rule out a 12 footer by any logic or biology I know of. I personally wouldn't expect them to get even close to that large. Someone probably extrapolated that height from 22 inch footprints but size of feet should grow relatively faster than height or even mass. Anything over 9 feet tall and bulky is going to look that big to some witnesses. People just aren't used to seeing anyone that big so I would expect those height estimations are all exaggerations and that is even assuming the 22 inch prints were real.

We have the MT joint and flatfooted people. It seems potentially like a rather minor change physically. It probably would imply exaggerations of some of the interpretations of the MT break. I think they have a more flexible foot by the way whatever approached us had feet that seemed to roll like a truck tire. I am skeptical about them being nearly as flexible as a chimps foot.

Running on all fours might be an option for people if we had stronger hands and wrists especially when young. I would doubt adults doing that very often besides when sneaking around or climbing up steep hills. They could easily be a lot better at it than most people with their long powerful arms. Chimps became quadrupeds and likely had a more upright bipedal ancestor. It is still a viable way to get around if you are strong enough. Some people saw that as being more "ape" because that is what they expected to see. That is what they taught before Ardi. It probably still is taught by some since it is one of those ingrained ideas in science.

If the DNA confirms them being human as in part of the genus Homo with some modern human DNA, I would highly doubt that many scientists will be calling for a dead body. I would expect the opposite reaction. Even darting one should be controversial in that hypothetical new world order.

[Guest]

@ BOBZENOR

"It doesn't rule out a 12 footer by any logic or biology I know of. I personally wouldn't expect them to get even close to that large. Someone probably extrapolated that height from 22 inch footprints but size of feet should grow relatively faster than height or even mass. Anything over 9 feet tall and bulky is going to look that big to some witnesses. People just aren't used to seeing anyone that big so I would expect those height estimations are all exaggerations and that is even assuming the 22 inch prints were real."

I found this on another site, I wonder if crossbreeding with earlier homo sapien species has anything to do with BF size ?

"The liger is the largest known cat in the world.[1] Imprinted genes may be a factor contributing to huge liger size.[4] These are genes that may or may not be expressed on the parent they are inherited from, and that occasionally play a role in issues of hybrid growth. For example, in some dog breed crosses, genes that are expressed only when maternally-inherited cause the young to grow larger than is typical for either parent breed. This growth is not seen in the paternal breeds, as such genes are normally "counteracted" by genes inherited from the female of the appropriate breed.[5] "

"What that means is, the growth determining gene can sometimes be lost among inter species breeding. Any offspring will grow out of control and never stop growing. In the case of lions, that gene has to come from the mother. If a female tiger gives birth after being impregnated by a male lion, the gene is absent."

This cat is huge !!!

[Guest]

Yes, we can special plead bigfoot 9 ways to Sunday. No matter what the alleged DNA might show, it will provide support for every version of bigfoot people report. If there's a precedent for something in nature, it becomes automatically plausible for bigfoot.

I don't see how we can have it both ways. If it's got a unique foot structure or a unique form of locomotion, then it most likely does not belong in the genus Homo. If the DNA confirms there's something new in the genus Homo, then it's likely that the unique foot structure is wrong and the 4X4 bigfoots were bears.

[ShadowBorn]

Yes, we can special plead bigfoot 9 ways to Sunday. No matter what the alleged DNA might show, it will provide support for every version of bigfoot people report

Saskeptic

Thank you for clarafying this for me.DNA is DNA and it shows of a living entity.So if DNA does show of a living entity then how can we deny what people are seeing and hearing.Is not DNA the measure of life and yet if there is DNA of a living entity then how can we deny the existance of a living entity as Bigfoot.

[Guest]

What happens if Adrian Erickson release "Sasquatch the Quest" when Dr. Melba ketchum release the DNA study (As it is suppose to happen), and the documentary "sasquatch the quest" turns out to be pictures of a faked sasquatches. Would skeptics not read the DNA results or claim that they are fabricated? Would the media report on the documantary only but fail to look at Dr. Melba Ketrum publication? If "Sasquatch the quest" turns out to be faked it could have the potentale of doing more damage than good.

What happens if Erickson releases the documentary and by all accounts it ends up being the most compelling footage ever assembled? Would it further bolster the findings in the paper and cause people to say, "umm well okay... maybe we don't need to kill one"?

[Guest]

From accounts of those who have seen the footage Erickson decided to show to select persons the footage in toto consists of 15 clips, from 1 to 14 seconds. The most compelling anyone outside the Erickson camp has been privy to is 14 seconds of a female Sasquatch looking back and forth for a child. Gray skin, brow ridge and intelligent eyes. The eyes move however they do not blink. A well respected researcher who viewed this clip told me that to him it was incredible, but that it would not convince a serious skeptic.

I certainly hope they have more than this to offer us or nothing is going to change.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Tautriadelta

[BobZenor]

Yes, we can special plead bigfoot 9 ways to Sunday. No matter what the alleged DNA might show, it will provide support for every version of bigfoot people report. If there's a precedent for something in nature, it becomes automatically plausible for bigfoot.

I don't see how we can have it both ways. If it's got a unique foot structure or a unique form of locomotion, then it most likely does not belong in the genus Homo. If the DNA confirms there's something new in the genus Homo, then it's likely that the unique foot structure is wrong and the 4X4 bigfoots were bears.

So if I walk on all fours which even I am perfectly capable of doing, I am not in the genus Homo? If you shorten my legs up and give me slightly longer and stronger arms, sound familiar, I imagine I could do it pretty well. We fairly recently changed our wrists and hands to become more dexterous. The wrist and hands became much weaker in the process but we gained finer control. Are the ancestors of bigfoot supposed to be more evolved because they are in the genus Homo and therefore could only follow our lead of weaker wrists even when they obviously aren't and logically wouldn't have been in the same niche. It is just not that big of a difference to have flat somewhat flexible feet. Even some modern humans have that condition. I thought I agreed with you and I think some interpretations were likely exaggerated. I thought they were exaggerated because someone was looking for more primitive features since they were described as ape features. That is what gave me my fist clue about the bias.

Taking rigid positions that apparently only an arched modern human foot qualifies something as belonging to the genus Homo isn't consistent with other hominids in the genus. At least one supposedly recently extinct member of the genus doesn't share our arch nor does it have our so called derived wrist. It is really just a wrist not evolved to our niche and not any more primitive or advance than any other. I know that is how most anthropologists think even though they know perfectly well the correct definitions of derived. It is ingrained. They don't see locomotion as plastic to change with the environment or niche. They see it as a progression from primitive to us. That is why they have a progression from all fours to bipedalism as if that made us human. Don't get me wrong. I tend to discount many reports of them running on all fours to make the quick get away. Since it is so rare, I also don't think it is the normal means of locomotion. I just don't think it is some huge stretch to think they are capable of it.

[Guest]

What happens if Erickson releases the documentary and by all accounts it ends up being the most compelling footage ever assembled? Would it further bolster the findings in the paper and cause people to say, "umm well okay... maybe we don't need to kill one"?

The film might convince some skeptics and might convince some scientist to futher investigate Bigfoot, also it might convince that the need for cryptozoology as a main stream science. Such a scientific revolation that a large undisovered animal can go by unnotice by modern day scientist would help galvanise another generation of explores and scientist, and think what they might be able to a complish. But the need for a typespecimen will happen it will increase the need to kill a bigfoot no way around it.

[Guest]

@ BOBZENOR

"It doesn't rule out a 12 footer by any logic or biology I know of. I personally wouldn't expect them to get even close to that large. Someone probably extrapolated that height from 22 inch footprints but size of feet should grow relatively faster than height or even mass. Anything over 9 feet tall and bulky is going to look that big to some witnesses. People just aren't used to seeing anyone that big so I would expect those height estimations are all exaggerations and that is even assuming the 22 inch prints were real."

I found this on another site, I wonder if crossbreeding with earlier homo sapien species has anything to do with BF size ?

"The liger is the largest known cat in the world.[1] Imprinted genes may be a factor contributing to huge liger size.[4] These are genes that may or may not be expressed on the parent they are inherited from, and that occasionally play a role in issues of hybrid growth. For example, in some dog breed crosses, genes that are expressed only when maternally-inherited cause the young to grow larger than is typical for either parent breed. This growth is not seen in the paternal breeds, as such genes are normally "counteracted" by genes inherited from the female of the appropriate breed.[5] "

"What that means is, the growth determining gene can sometimes be lost among inter species breeding. Any offspring will grow out of control and never stop growing. In the case of lions, that gene has to come from the mother. If a female tiger gives birth after being impregnated by a male lion, the gene is absent."

With the result of hybrinization to happen the species have to first get around the prezygotic barriers. Then the hybrids may be fertile or sterile depending on qualitative and / or quantitative differences in the genomes of the two parents. Example hybrid would be like the mule, whose parents are of different species, are frequently sterile (Postzgotic barriers) also hybrid dysgensis may occur. To answer your question If hybridization with earlier Homo sapien species has anything to do with Bigfoot size? If the list of barriers did not happen to allow a fertile Heterosis (Hybrid Vigor also know as Heterosis The increased vigor of growth survival, and fertility of hybrid, as compared with the two homozygotes. It usually results from crosses between two gentically different highly inbred lines. It is always associated with increased heterozygosity.) For a Hypothesis it is possible Heterosis is often associated with faster and Larger growth this might help to explan the lack of juvinal Bigfoot Prints. There is no way of knowing with out a typespecimen.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Jeff Albertson

[BobZenor]

...

"What that means is, the growth determining gene can sometimes be lost among inter species breeding. Any offspring will grow out of control and never stop growing. In the case of lions, that gene has to come from the mother. If a female tiger gives birth after being impregnated by a male lion, the gene is absent."

...

I would doubt hybridization caused indeterminate growth or growth that doesn't stop in sasquatch. That doesn't sound like a very healthy situation. It does point out how easy it should be to evolve larger size. It is apparently only one gene that regulates it. Getting significantly larger would probably also require some other features to change like relatively larger bones and feet. It would probably need stronger jaws and that might also require some adapting. There are other sorts of potential problems like overheating or high blood pressure. It could easily be done in tens of thousands of years in my opinion so the lack of confirmed bones that size in the fossil record isn't really much evidence against them being relatively closely related. Faster evolution is possible but there is really no reason to think it didn't take much longer to evolve that size. There is nothing about being Homo that stops that.

[Guest]

Saskeptic

Thank you for clarafying this for me.DNA is DNA and it shows of a living entity.So if DNA does show of a living entity then how can we deny what people are seeing and hearing.Is not DNA the measure of life and yet if there is DNA of a living entity then how can we deny the existance of a living entity as Bigfoot.

I do not think they are just pointing out that it is possible so that it would be a strawman. That DNA can be synthesis in the lab and does not have to come from living entity no more.

Yes, we can special plead bigfoot 9 ways to Sunday. No matter what the alleged DNA might show, it will provide support for every version of bigfoot people report. If there's a precedent for something in nature, it becomes automatically plausible for bigfoot.

I agree looking at this critical objective investigation without pending to either acceptance or narrow minded dismissal. How can we be certain where the samples come from North America people sent them in from all over. I would like the sample to be large enough to be retestable for Dna (by a second party that has no finance gain from the project) and also to determine the age of the sample. Before I will say that it is plausible for Bigfoot.

[Guest Tyler H]

Mulder, while I am on your side, re:"DNA=Body=Proof"... we already have that proof.

We have 'hair from unclassified primate' and we have teeth and bone fragments from Giganto, so if all the public needed was "DNA=proof", this issue would have been settled a long time ago. For whatever reasons, science exacts higher standards than just DNA samples, to accept/describe a new species.

Personally, I don't see these particular efforts being much more than "another brick in the wall" building the evidence for the acceptance of this animal. WHen you couple this with footage (Adrian E's project, PG Film) and other trace evidence and physical evidence, and eye-witness testimony, it all becomes very compelling.

But until we have a body, there is still a ways to go.

[Guest Cervelo]

I have it in EXACTLY the right order.

DNA comes from a physical sample, which came from a creature.

What is your alternative proposed source for DNA?

Spontaneous generation?

Magic?

Dr Ketchum perpetrating a fraud using lab-spliced DNA?

It took awhile but I found it!

[Guest]

Yes, we can special plead bigfoot 9 ways to Sunday. No matter what the alleged DNA might show, it will provide support for every version of bigfoot people report. If there's a precedent for something in nature, it becomes automatically plausible for bigfoot.

I don't see how we can have it both ways. If it's got a unique foot structure or a unique form of locomotion, then it most likely does not belong in the genus Homo. If the DNA confirms there's something new in the genus Homo, then it's likely that the unique foot structure is wrong and the 4X4 bigfoots were bears.

Because primates NEVER go 4x4...

I could post a proverbial zillion pictures of other primates doing just that, including chimanzees, which are also genus Homo.

For someone claiming scientific credentials, you're not very good at this, Sas.

It took awhile but I found it!

Translated it for the casual reader.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Mulder