Skeptic's Answer To Ketchum's Dna Testing

[southernyahoo]

Zoinks!

Of course, but if so that different species is not human, i.e., it should not be placed with us in the genus Homo. That genus is defined by its structural modifications to accommodate bipedalism as much as its enhanced cranial capacity. We members of that genus have rigid, arched feet, a unique hip structure, larger and more robust hindlimbs than forelimbs, the foramen magnum placed directly beneath the skull, etc. Our gross skeletal morphology has been modified for bipedal walking and running.

If bigfoot is so close to us that its DNA indicates it should be considered a subspecies of Homo sapiens (if I read that right today), then that DNA does not square with an animal with a skeleton that must be quite different than our own.

Well I'd say that this new species walks just as human as we do as indicated in Patty. Alot of people say she has to be a human in a suit, so where is this different structure?

Which is why I can't believe that IF Ketchum's samples were valid and IF they weren't contaminated and IF they were really taken from various Sasquatches known or unknown that the result would be modern human. It would seem to me to maybe be a relative, but it couldn't possibly match us 100%.

I agree.

[Guest]

Zoinks!

Of course, but if so that different species is not human, i.e., it should not be placed with us in the genus Homo. That genus is defined by its structural modifications to accommodate bipedalism as much as its enhanced cranial capacity. We members of that genus have rigid, arched feet, a unique hip structure, larger and more robust hindlimbs than forelimbs, the foramen magnum placed directly beneath the skull, etc. Our gross skeletal morphology has been modified for bipedal walking and running.

If bigfoot is so close to us that its DNA indicates it should be considered a subspecies of Homo sapiens (if I read that right today), then that DNA does not square with an animal with a skeleton that must be quite different than our own.

Okay, What you wrote makes sense to me. When will we know for sure what's what?

Does anyone have a date for the news release? Is it sooner, or later?

Will there be a news conference like the Georgia boys had? No One will wish to believe us after what they did!

I suspect having real scientists and genetic experts talking will help elevate this out of the norm or a prank.I hope!

[Guest]

Certainly human anatomy is not conducive to moving on all fours. Doesn't mean that some individuals cannot perform in such fashion. To suggest, if anyone is suggesting, that Bigfoot moves around habitually, if only partially, on all fours is to make a leap of faith (eyewitnesses v. common sense, throw out common sense in favor of whatever the eyewitness tells us).

On the other hand, there are documented cases of feral children that show on-all-fours locomotion. http://www.smashinglists.com/10-feral-human-children-raised-by-animals/

As to the 100% homo question, I doubt that this is all the report will attempt to show. The only way they could make this argument, it seems to me, is to present morphological samples, such as the "Sierra Kills steak" and eyewitness statements relating sightings to samples, and argue that this is a new species of hairy homo, even if the DNA is100% homo sapiens sapiens.

But, apparently, the report will support what is now being referenced as homo sapiens hirsutii, hairy homo sapiens. My guess is that the report will try to establish Bigfoot as an archaic homo sapien, by what means I don't know (and probably wouldn't understand anyway). Perhaps they will find an admixture of modern and archaic homo sapiens in the nuclear DNA and this will suffice, along with the morphology and eyewitness accounts. Perhaps, only the gene for body hair growth may read more archaic than normal modern sapiens and this is the smoking gun.

While this is all interesting and fun, I don't think this report alone will be definitive. Matter of fact, some long time Bigfooters may be the first to cry foul.

If I'm 100% wrong and the report will be the first substantial blow to the American Ape storyline, buy up the works of Meldrum and other apesters----they will be real collectors items.

[Guest]

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".

Both Stubstad and Paulides have been distanced from Ketchum for some time, IIRC. What proof do you have that they know ANYTHING about the ultimate results of the study?

Ketchum has never said anything to the contrary.

Which does NOTHING to prove Stubstad and Paulides' claims.

The fact is that the popular consensus description of Bigfoot is not compatible with the modern human DNA that has been found;

Chimpanzees and humans share an overwhelming majority of dna and their "consensus descriptions" are at considerable variance.

Ketchum will never publish a positive study linking bigfoot with modern human DNA in a reputable journal;

If that is what the study shows then that is what the study shows. If the process was done correctly, we must accept the result.

it will not persuade "science" (nor will it even persuade Meldrum, I predict).

If Science is as objective as it claims to be, and the study results are found to have followed the correct proceedures, then Science MUST accept the results.

I will not presume to speak for Dr Meldrum.

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.

Option 3, a new species falling between modern human and ape (possibly chimpanzee) on the phylogenic tree has been discovered.

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.

So has Timberghost.

I don't need to see your YouTube link of a guy who's very fast moving on all fours: I believe that such people exist. They are, however, anomalies. If humans were designed to run on all fours, that's how we train our boys to run the bases in Little League. (In fact, we wouldn't need to train them to do it.)

Bigfoot isn't fully human morphologically. It has a blend of human and great ape traits, including relatively shorter legs and longer arms by most reports. This makes it better adapted to "4x4", which is the primary movement mode of most great apes. You need to examine the difference between "habitual" and "obligate" bipedalism.

[Guest]

Option 3, a new species falling between modern human and ape (possibly chimpanzee) on the phylogenic tree has been discovered.

Is this your prediction, Mulder?

[southernyahoo]

While this is all interesting and fun, I don't think this report alone will be definitive. Matter of fact, some long time Bigfooters may be the first to cry foul.

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.

If I'm 100% wrong and the report will be the first substantial blow to the American Ape storyline, buy up the works of Meldrum and other apesters----they will be real collectors items.

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.

[Guest]

Is this your prediction, Mulder?

Not per se, but it is an option that fits with what's been "leaked" about the Ketchum results, assuming that we can trust the leakers. I'm still on the fence on that issue.

I'm also still open to the idea that BF is a Giganto descendent.

There just isn't enough known about the results at this point in time.

[Guest]

Bigfoot isn't fully human morphologically. It has a blend of human and great ape traits, including relatively shorter legs and longer arms by most reports. This makes it better adapted to "4x4", which is the primary movement mode of most great apes.

That's fine, but the morphology of all other Homo is consistent with obligate bipedalism. If bigfoot deviates from that, then it's - by definition - not Homo. Thus the morphology doesn't match the DNA.

[Guest wudewasa]

That's fine, but the morphology of all other Homo is consistent with obligate bipedalism. If bigfoot deviates from that, then it's - by definition - not Homo. Thus the morphology doesn't match the DNA.

Thank you! No modern human has a midtarsal break, the visual adaptation to see well in darkness, the ability to generate infrasound or arms that terminate at the knees. Oh yeah, except for a few families throughout history, modern humans aren't covered in hair either.

[bipedalist]

All this biped. vs. quad. 4x4 has put this disturbing image in my head. Ok say it is not Homo.

but what are the chances that Finding Bigfoot will ever investigate a case of 4x4 locomotion of

an unknown primate on their show? Because.......

I want to see Bobo do that recreation, badly!

[Guest slimwitless]

So either the study isn't about modern humans or....what, exactly? Ketchum's been involved in a years-long study (complete with expensive testing, incredible leaks and accompanying peer review drama) proving there's human DNA in the woods? If I were of the mind to reject this story outright, I think I'd rather just go with elaborate hoax.

[southernyahoo]

That's fine, but the morphology of all other Homo is consistent with obligate bipedalism. If bigfoot deviates from that, then it's - by definition - not Homo. Thus the morphology doesn't match the DNA.

I think it might be premature to debate the actual morphology of bigfoots hip arrangement and how it might accomodate quadrupedal locomotion as much as it is premature to Say we've seen all the dna , so your statements sas is not exactly valid.

Whether you believe bf can do it won't affect the validity of the dna or the eyewitness accounts.

All this biped. vs. quad. 4x4 has put this disturbing image in my head. Ok say it is not Homo.

but what are the chances that Finding Bigfoot will ever investigate a case of 4x4 locomotion of

an unknown primate on their show? Because.......

I want to see Bobo do that recreation, badly!

He already did in georgia.

[Guest]

That's fine, but the morphology of all other Homo is consistent with obligate bipedalism. If bigfoot deviates from that, then it's - by definition - not Homo. Thus the morphology doesn't match the DNA.

That is open to debate, but let's assume you are correct. We share the overwhelming majority of our dna with chimps, yet are morphologically distinct from them. So there is precedent for primates sharing dna but not expressed traits.

Dogs are another good case. A tiny, hairless Chihuahua and a huge, wooly St Bernard are both dogs. They even share some gross morphological similarities. The details, however, are quite different.

They could even be interbred (male Chihuahua to female St Bernard at least), but why anyone would want to is beyond me, and I don't think anyone has bothered to do so.

Thank you! No modern human has a midtarsal break, the visual adaptation to see well in darkness, the ability to generate infrasound or arms that terminate at the knees. Oh yeah, except for a few families throughout history, modern humans aren't covered in hair either.

It has been repeatedly said that the classification falls BETWEEN modern human and other, more primitive types. So of course an admixture of traits is to be expected.

[Guest]

We share the overwhelming majority of our dna with chimps, yet are morphologically distinct from them. So there is precedent for primates sharing dna but not expressed traits.

Of course, but it's a matter of degree. Chimps are very similar to us both genetically and morphologically. We have some significant morphological differences, however, that have led the experts in systematics to place the two species in different genera, i.e., Pan and Homo. The genus Homo is characterized by (among other things) a significantly enlarged braincase and skeletal modifications that make us bipedal obligates. That doesn't have to be the case, it just is - it's a tautology because that's how Homo is defined: obligately bipedal. If "bigfoot" is facultatively quadrapedal, that's different from all the other Homo. We would expect bigfooty DNA to be very similar to our own, and probably more similar than our DNA is to that of chimps. But for the DNA to indicate Homo (and Homo sapiens no less!) in a creature with significant skeletal modifications that deviate from obligate bipedalism? No. It just doesn't wash.

Dogs are another good case. A tiny, hairless Chihuahua and a huge, wooly St Bernard are both dogs. They even share some gross morphological similarities. The details, however, are quite different.

Well no they're not, actually. Dogs belong to the same species but have been intensely modified through artificial selection. Still, while there is a great difference in conformation among widely disparate breeds, they all walk on four legs, tend to have great senses of hearing and olfaction, sniff each others' butts to say hello, etc. If you've got a breed of dog that facultatively runs on two legs instead of four, that's the level of skeletal/muscular modification that would be required to make a relevant comparison.

[Guest]

Of course, but it's a matter of degree. Chimps are very similar to us both genetically and morphologically. We have some significant morphological differences, however, that have led the experts in systematics to place the two species in different genera, i.e., Pan and Homo. The genus Homo is characterized by (among other things) a significantly enlarged braincase and skeletal modifications that make us bipedal obligates. That doesn't have to be the case, it just is - it's a tautology because that's how Homo is defined: obligately bipedal. If "bigfoot" is facultatively quadrapedal, that's different from all the other Homo. We would expect bigfooty DNA to be very similar to our own, and probably more similar than our DNA is to that of chimps. But for the DNA to indicate Homo (and Homo sapiens no less!) in a creature with significant skeletal modifications that deviate from obligate bipedalism? No. It just doesn't wash.

Well no they're not, actually. Dogs belong to the same species but have been intensely modified through artificial selection. Still, while there is a great difference in conformation among widely disparate breeds, they all walk on four legs, tend to have great senses of hearing and olfaction, sniff each others' butts to say hello, etc. If you've got a breed of dog that facultatively runs on two legs instead of four, that's the level of skeletal/muscular modification that would be required to make a relevant comparison.

I agree saskeptic there appears to be major significant morophlogical differences that would put Bigfoot in it own genus(A taxonomic catergory used in the classification of organisms, conssisting of characteristics / this is why we need a typespecimen before we give it a genus.) Crotalus ssp. are in the genus crotalus They are in the family viperinae (over 130 species in 11 genera in 4 subfamilys) in the famaily of Viperinae all the snakes look simaler been Solenoglyph (morphologically speaking there are 4 basic forums of poisones snakes Solenoglyphs, proteroglyphs, and opisthoglypts and alglph. But differents between them put them in different genera. Crotalus, Agkistrodon, Bothrops, ect.)

With the dogs here is a paper

Farm-Fox Experiment.pdf

Edited November 14, 2011 by Jeff Albertson