Guest Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) 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. Then to answer you question I am not a anthropologist put I play one on the internet. Edited November 12, 2011 by Jeff Albertson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) The fact is that the popular consensus description of Bigfoot is not compatible with the modern human DNA that has been found; The popular concensus also says they exist but you wouldn't call that science, I'm talking about evidence not subjective opinion. this DNA is from modern humans, not "homo". Your references to Homo are unfounded and simply misleading. Really Parn? Did you know that we are modern denisova, Neanderthal, cromagnon hybrids? Edited November 12, 2011 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 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. Parn I think the error in your logic is that Paulides speaks about them as being fully modern human. It was pretty clear to me that he meant human like as opposed to say being closer to the Gorilla line. If there was an extant relative of the Australopithecines running around what do you think a non-scientist like David would conclude from the DNA profile? As far as the Stubstad comment, the DNA that he discussed was derived from the mitochondria and it was from the human line but he also stated these exact sequences were not found in Genbank and appears to have come from an ancient source. That alone should perk the ears on any skeptic who accepts Stubstad's assertions. As far as the compatibility issue, I really don't see where you can come to that conclusion based upon phenotypic description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 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". Humans are in the genus Homo (Homo sapiens translated as same + wiseman or knowing man) all of the genus Homo ssp are early forum of modern man then genus futher down the we have genus Pan ssp genus Gorilla ssp and genus Pongo ssp and so fourth. Personally I don't understand the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Really Parn? Did you know that we are modern denisova, Neanderthal, cromagnon hybrids? Normally I'd say read between the lines but there's only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 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. Parn, "human" is the adjective for the noun "homo". Wouldn't you call Neanderthals human? 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). You will find that no one involved with the study has claimed that the nuDNA was homo sapiens. In fact, to the contrary, there have been allusions that the nuDNA brought in quite different results than the mtDNA (which was ancient sapiens). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LissingMinx Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Did I read somewhere among all the rumors and "leaks" that there is another, quite different mtDNA lineage as well? I seem to remember thinking it must be something like we see in black-backed jackals mtDNA http://www.pnas.org/content/87/5/1772.short mtDNA is always only a small part of the story. After they obtained the first neandertal mtDNA many insisted it ruled out interbreeding with sapiens. This didn't account for things like asymmetrical hybridization due to sexual selection as we see in N American wolf/coyote interbreeding. When they finally announced the 1-4% neandertal nuDNA in our modern population, yes, I sent out a neener-gram or two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Well, well, well.........homo sapiens hirsuti. Hairy homo sapiens. Is all this about Ketchum finding a gene for excessive hairiness consistently in the samples? Are Green and Meldrum now irrelevant? Or will they make a comeback? Has Paulides solved the mystery? Have some hairy hillbillies been jacking with us all along? Inquiring minds want to know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Well, well, well.........homo sapiens hirsuti. Hairy homo sapiens. Is all this about Ketchum finding a gene for excessive hairiness consistently in the samples? Are Green and Meldrum now irrelevant? Or will they make a comeback? Has Paulides solved the mystery? Have some hairy hillbillies been jacking with us all along? Inquiring minds want to know! Some refer to them as yahoos http://www.appalachianhistory.net/2010/07/yeahoh-yahoo-or-bigfoot.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Did I read somewhere among all the rumors and "leaks" that there is another, quite different mtDNA lineage as well? I seem to remember thinking it must be something like we see in black-backed jackals mtDNA http://www.pnas.org/content/87/5/1772.short mtDNA is always only a small part of the story. After they obtained the first neandertal mtDNA many insisted it ruled out interbreeding with sapiens. This didn't account for things like asymmetrical hybridization due to sexual selection as we see in N American wolf/coyote interbreeding. When they finally announced the 1-4% neanderthal nuDNA in our modern population, yes, I sent out a neener-gram or two HTG, I dated a guy that looked sorta neanderthal in a hot way. W/o all the body hair, just the build and body shape and a sorta slightly sloped forehead. But he was smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Profuse body hair and a sloped head. Robin Williams meets Sloth from Goonies. Sounds not so much had beat them off with a stick as opposed to just generally liked beating things with a stick. How'd he get away? Out the window? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) Okay, Back to science: This creature has to be in the fossil record as extinct.There has to be specimens someplace. I've seen the millions/zillions of bones at the Smithsonian and in London's Museum of Natural Sciences, lots of which were not cataloged, or were unknown IIRC. This was a while back, but my father always said BF would be discovered in a museum if they just looked.. Profuse body hair and a sloped head. Robin Williams meets Sloth from Goonies. Sounds not so much had beat them off with a stick as opposed to just generally liked beating things with a stick. How'd he get away? Out the window? He did speak English, he just looked like a modern Neanderthal w/o the body hair. Big guy too, Nobody messed with him. He really did have a sloped forehead. I actually truly referred to him as my Neanderthal boyfriend.I really used those words talking about him. But he was smart, so that throws other theories out the window. I guess it was the human part of him that was smart? He got away because I met someone I liked better, eventually leading to my Hubby. BTW, I never met the Neanderthal's parents. Now I'm beginning to wonder why.. Edited November 13, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 They were probably away doing important work for Geico Susie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (Pardon me thread, but I thought this needed to be addressed.) 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. Yes, and back in high school when I jumped out of the block at the starter's pistol my forelimbs never touched the ground again. If they had, it would mean that I had fallen down and I was free to wince on the ground and watch the backs of the other sprinters many lengths ahead of me in an instant. If you would like to consider jumping out of the starter's block to equate to running on all fours, be my guest. Perhaps we'll tune into an NFL game this afternoon and see the receivers running down the field on all fours before jumping up into the slower bipedal mode after they've blown past their defenders, but I doubt it . . . Enjoying another incredible week on the BFF, in which I've been challenged by more than one poster about my opinion that humans run faster on two legs than on four. Calgon, take me away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 13, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 13, 2011 ...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. http://www.sasquatchdatabase.com/%28S%28reakrmyqjdkaq155irwgf255%29%29/SearchResult.aspx?i_shot_hit=Y First case from 1897 in Ohio shows a BF supposedly wounded by farmers that moved between biped. to quadriped. Our own General has seen supposed evidence of the movement back and forth biped. to quadriped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts