Justified & Ancient
- May 30, 2009
- Reaction score
Cryptomundo has a longish thread with various pro and con arguments, here.lordmongrove said:I for one am not buying the modern human / hominid idea for the creation of a whole species.
on the flip side, as to why in 15,000 years the species may have changed so much:semillama:
Here’s the giant red flag about all this. Anyone who’s taken a high school biology class that taught basic genetics should spot it. For Sasquatch to have purely human mtDNA, and for that to result from a hybridization event 15,000 years ago, then the remaining female breeding population for the entire species must have been completely wiped out, leaving ONLY the females from the hybridization event. This would suggest a catastrophic bottleneck that may have left only one group of breeding creatures, with ONLY females with the human mtDNA. This population would then have to make its way over to North America and populate the continent after the retreat of the glaciers. How much more likely is that the sample was contaminated with human mtDNA, perhaps from Melba Ketchum herself?
Another issue is that for a “hybridization” to take like this, the male has to come from an undefined member of the Homo genus. But the physical characteristics described for Sasquatch, especially the foot anatomy, strongly suggest to me that the genus is not Homo, but another type of hominin or even a primate that independently evolved bipedalism...
..As I’ve said before, the results must be duplicated at another, independent laboratory for any DNA analyses to hold water when attempting to provide evidence for a controversial species. The whole Ketchum affair is just too problematic to take at face value.
The latter makes sense to me, certainly.CDC:
We are years away from understanding, but this paper if, if it passes peer review, will take a huge step into answering the questions in many directions.
Dr Ketchums findings actually make sense.
There were many Genus-Homo, some I am sure have not been found as yet.
Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis are closely related to each other and have been considered subspecies of Homo sapiens. Both lived in Europe and Asia.
If remnant populations of these Genus Homo migrated east following the same path Homo sapiens used, it is conceivable that they bred with those same Homo sapiens
It would prove some Native American stories as fact, tribes of Giant Forest People, that were to be avoided and respected.
If a species is dying out and mates cannot be found, the only option is to seek other similar species to breed with…it is simply nature’s driving force to continue a species.
In Florida now, python species are breeding amongst each other as released pet pythons of different breeds are finding that the only other options than extinction. The result is mixed breed giant snakes…Rock python + Indian Python = a giant python
Mixed breeds often create larger offspring, example tiger and lion mix
A species of Homo on the verge of extinction, finds Homo sapiens to breed with and the species lives on. The very first Americans here were all the were available to breed with and descendants of that breeding are what may be the “species” we call Bigfoot.
Also on Cryptomundo, there's some interesting stuff on that from Igor Burtsev himself, who "broke" the findings, commenting on his motives here:lordmongrove said:I'm also wondering what has happened to the Russian data. No further word on it.
Further, later on that thread, there's a good counter point to semillama's comment I cited in my previous post, re the mitochondrial DNA issues:I have received a question:
I have one question, what motivated you to share what you did today?
… and that you simply didn’t understand that you weren’t supposed to release the information until the American Journal first published the results.
We waited a couple of years the scientific publication by Dr. Melba Ketchum. But scientific magazines refuse to publish her manuscript which deserves to be published. And I want to remind some facts of the destiny of scolars in our field.
Before the First World War our zoologist Vitaly Khahlov described the creature, named it Primihomo asiaticus. He send his scientific peport very circumstantial, thorough to the Russian Academy of Sciences. And what? The report was put into the box, and had stayed there till 1959, about half of century. Until Dr. Porshnev found it and published…
Dr. Porshnev himself had written a monograph “The present State of the Question of Relict Hominoids”. It was issued in 1963 by the Academy of Sciences in some 180 copies only, for a special use. Only after a half of century (again!) it was publishe 1n 2012 in 2500 copies…
In 1960s Mongolian Academician Rinchen had sent the skull of supposed almas to Poland, becaus our anthropologists refused to study it. Poland’s anthropologist made a sculptural portrait of that creature, Rinchen called it Homo sapiens almas in 1960s. But – it has been forgotten till last years… Again half a century!
I don’t want the new discovery (not the first one, but the next one) to wait for another half a century to be recognized by haughty official scientific establishment!
That is why I broke the tradition, did not let this acheavement to wayt for next half a century to be recognized. No matter of the publication in the scientific magazine, people should know NOW, what bigfoot/sasquatch is.
As I know, one third of population of the USA believe in exuiosting of these creatures. And they deserve to know WHAT THEY ARE.
So, yeah - exciting for those who either believe or are on the fence, but for those who actively don't there's still no reason to change their minds.JE_McKellar
The interesting result here is how she compared the samples to human mitochondrial DNA, and came up with a match, and a recent match at that. “Hybrid” might sounds too sensational for my tastes, but basically it means that we’re talking about a population of hominins that interbred with human (females) about 12k years ago. That means that the original Sasquatch was a close cousin of modern humans, maybe a derived Homo erectus. This original population, though, suffered some sort of bottleneck or catastrophe right around the onset of the Holocene, right when many other large mammals were suffering catastrophic population declines. The survivors, though, interbred with human women and their descendents grew and spread into the modern Sasquatch population.
Old World Sasquatch/Almas/Yeti populations might have gone through a similar bottleneck and interbreeding with modern humans, or they might have been a single population of Sasquatch that spread out from the Bering land bridge. DNA testing of Eurasian samples should help us figure that out, so I assume that Burtsev is eager to get funding for that next stage of the project, and grew impatient with the delays from the scientific press.
Of course, Melba’s findings need to be replicated, but further testing needs to be done comparing the Sasquatch DNA with Neandertal and Denisovan samples, and the experts need to start looking for known human gene variants within the Sasquatch pool. In short, even if this report about Melba’s work proves true, it’s only the first step in a very long process.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Dr. Jeff Meldrum Responds to Melba Ketchum's TV Interview
Posted by Guy Edwards
"Please don't get me wrong. I truly hope she has the brass ring. I want very much for her study to be legitimate and significant." --Dr. Jeff Meldrum on the Dr. Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study
Dr. Jeff Meldrum is the highest profile scientist and academic when it comes to Bigfoot research, he is an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. His book, a companion to the Documentary of the same name, "Sasquatch Legend meets Science," is a must have in any serious bigfooters library.
Believers and skeptics alike respect Dr. Meldrum's approach to the Bigfoot phenomena. Notable skeptic Brian Dunning has been quoted as saying, "The work of responsible scientists like Dr. Meldrum is exactly what true skeptics should be asking the Bigfoot community for, not criticizing him for it."
Due to his credentials and popularity Dr. Meldrum has been showcased on maultiple networks including NatGeo, History Channel, and the Discovery Channel, this also includes TV shows including Monster Quest and the recent Finding Bigfoot.
He is also involved in a parallel study of Bigfoot DNA. The study headed by Bryan Sykes of Oxford University.
Recently Melba Ketchum has been in the spotlight due to her press release that claims Bigfoot may be part Human. Two days ago (11/27/2012) Dr. Melba Ketchum was interviewed and Dr. Jeff Meldrum commented on the interview on his Facebook Page. You can read his response right after the video below.
And Dr. Meldrum's response.
Dr. Ketchum provides a much more reasonable interview for a Houston news program. She acknowledges the prematurity of the announcement (I believe she could have stopped short of discussing her unpublished results, however). She does conclude by saying the publication is anticipated in a matter of weeks not months (we've heard that before, but I hope this time it is indeed accurate).
Please don't get me wrong. I truly hope she has the brass ring. I want very much for her study to be legitimate and significant. To that end I want to see her navigate the publication process properly and successfully!
My criticisms stem from the lack of available substantiation of her interpretation of the mtDNA results and the difficulty I have envisioning a scenario that accounts from what is proposed -- a hybridization event 15000 years ago in Eastern Europe that resulted in a population dispersed across North America.
Many people don't seem to understand the role of a null hypothesis (a working hypothesis). The aim is to attempt to falsify or refute it. The hypothesis that whatever is out there is likely a relict ape, or a relict early hominin (e.g. Paranthropus) appears the most reasonable in light of the substantive objective data (personal subjective experiences by some, notwithstanding). Melba even acknowledges this fact in her interview. If evidence, properly interpreted, overwhelmingly negates the null hypothesis, then we set it aside -- simple as that. The notion of "camps" as if they were political parties, has no legitimate place in a scientific endeavor.
stuneville said:Lots to wade through, will post back later when I've time to work out what I think .
No. I'm not, now I've had a chance to wade a bit. I see three basic possibilities.oldrover said:What surprises me is that the faithful don't seem to be taking this very seriously either.
Bigfoot DNA Tests: Science Journal's Credibility Called Into Question
Bigfoot is real ... maybe.
After months of waiting for a peer-reviewed scientific journal to publish findings on the validity of alleged Bigfoot DNA evidence, the time has come for answers. But is there enough empirical evidence to finally confirm that the elusive, tall, hairy man-beast of North America really exists? Maybe, but questions have now been raised about the scientific journal publishing the findings.
In November, after a five-year study of purported Bigfoot (aka Sasquatch) DNA samples, Texas geneticist Melba Ketchum and a team of experts in genetics, forensics, imaging and pathology, were anxious for their findings to be published in a scientific journal. On Wednesday, their research appeared in the DeNovo Journal of Science, which seemed to confirm Ketchum's research about the reality of Bigfoot.
But according to GoDaddy.com, DeNovo was first registered as a domain on Feb. 4, 2013 --- anonymously and for only one year.
The current edition of DeNovo is listed as Volume 1, Issue 1, and its only content, thus far, is the Bigfoot research.
Also, on Ketchum's Sasquatch Genome Project website, she writes, "It has been a long and tedious battle to prove that Sasquatch exists. ... Trying to publish has taken almost two years. It seems mainstream science just can't seem to tolerate something controversial, especially from a group of primarily forensic scientists and not 'famous academians' aligned with large universities, even though most of our sequencing and analysis was performed at just such facilities."
Ketchum then explains how one journal agreed to publish her findings, but then was advised not to by its lawyers because such a controversial subject "would destroy the editors' reputations (as it has already done to mine). ... Rather than spend another five years just trying to find a journal to publish and hoping that decent, open minded reviewers would be chosen, we acquired the rights to this journal and renamed it so we would not lose the passing peer reviews that are expected by the public and the scientific community."
And therein lies the potential problem: Did Ketchum "buy" this journal, and begin its new existence under the name of DeNovo just over a week ago in order to get what appears to be a favorable peer review of her Bigfoot studies? That's the big question being raised by numerous people at this point.
According to a press release by Ketchum's Sasquatch Genome Project, the study, "which sequenced three whole Sasquatch nuclear genomes, shows that the legendary Sasquatch is extant in North America and is a human relative that arose approximately 13,000 years ago and is hypothesized to be a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with a novel primate species."
A total of 111 specimens of alleged Sasquatch hair, blood, skin and other tissues formed the basis of the study. These samples came from many individuals and groups at sites covering 14 states and two Canadian provinces.
Watch this related Fox News Bigfoot report
On her Doubtful News website, skeptic and geologist Sharon Hill raises many questions about Ketchum's claims.
"I clicked on the DeNovo site and was appalled at how amateurish the site is. It's full of stock photographs, very poorly coded, there are errors all over it and it's very difficult to navigate," Hill told The Huffington Post.
"[Ketchum] documented that she acquired the rights to this journal. We don't know what journal that was. I still can't find it and that's a little fishy," said Hill. "And then she renamed it so they would not lose the peer reviews that they had. It looks suspicious. This is not how science works."
Also, on the DeNovo site, the journal itself is identified as both DeNovo and DeVono.
It would be a huge story if all the work done by Ketchum and her team ultimately leads to scientific confirmation of the reality of Sasquatch. But at this point, the new wrinkles about the DeNovo Science Journal have only added to the credibility issues by a foot or two -- a Bigfoot.