Dr. Melba Ketchum on the radio this morning.

[Q-C]

Russians-Genetic Experiments-Athletes-Olympics-Basketball-

Rejects-Wildpeople-Bigfoot-Cryptozoologists

DNA-Human but not Human-

[evancj]

This whole scam stinks worse than the mythical skunk ape itself. She is either just as delusional as the people she has aligned herself with or she has a money making scheme that will unfold shortly.

When it's all over she will blame the real scientist for rejecting her paper (if there ever was one) and the ignorant will believe her. She is doing a great disservice to real science with this stunt.

[Sakari]

This whole scam stinks worse than the mythical skunk ape itself. She is either just as delusional as the people she has aligned herself with or she has a money making scheme that will unfold shortly.

When it's all over she will blame the real scientist for rejecting her paper (if there ever was one) and the ignorant will believe her. She is doing a great disservice to real science with this stunt.

According to Rhettman Mullis, founder of Bigfootology, "do not forget that Sykes is also turning this project into a book and the BBC have stated they are going to film a three hour documentary (one hour segments) on the Sykes' project."

Edited December 12, 2012 by Sakari

[keninsc]

It's a mistake to say that evolution is all just one direction. There are mammals that "de-evolved" and went back to the ocean for example. They were able to take attributes they got from living on land for millions of years and use them back in the ocean successfully.

I can picture how a Bigfoot might succeed in the forests if it followed the eating behavior of bears (gorging and hibernation) or had some kind of hunting ability. I don't see what species it could have evolved from 15,000 years ago around here. We haven't found any fossils like Neanderthals or other human subspecies in North America.

I think evolution is more the result of mutations within a species, if those mutation give the effected species a better edge then that mutation gets past on until it isn't a mutation any more, it's an inherent trait. Then the process starts over again. Reminds me of the old adage, "It's only kinky the first time or two, after that it's just what you do."

True, we haven't found any fossils, but that doesn't mean the process started here. The Gigantopithecus existed in China for around 300K years, then died out apparently. Bigfoots might have evolved in Asia and migrated here in largely their current form. That would explain the lack of finding Neanderthals on North America, and if we conjecture a bit further then the reason we don't see any Bigfoots in the fossil record could be that they haven't been here long enough to be there. A species that potentially is only 15k years old in still in it's primordial infancy.

One day they could be the dominate species on the planet.

And yes, I am simply thinking out loud and typing it out to see what everyone else thinks about it as well. That is what this is all about after all, exchange of thoughts and ideas, even highly hypothetical ones.

[Insanity]

It's a mistake to say that evolution is all just one direction. There are mammals that "de-evolved" and went back to the ocean for example. They were able to take attributes they got from living on land for millions of years and use them back in the ocean successfully.

I can picture how a Bigfoot might succeed in the forests if it followed the eating behavior of bears (gorging and hibernation) or had some kind of hunting ability. I don't see what species it could have evolved from 15,000 years ago around here. We haven't found any fossils like Neanderthals or other human subspecies in North America.

Evolution does not have directions, and mammals that are adapted for ocean life are not necessarily 'de-evolved'. They evolved differently, but 'de-evolved' suggests a regression, which would really not be the case. They are well suited for their environment.

Evolution does not always produce more complex or advanced species with time, but produces species well suited for the environment they are in. If a species fails to adapt to a changing environment that it is no longer suited for, it goes extinct.

Life should not be judged as either primitive or advanced, but various forms of life have evolved differently.

Remarkably, the number of genes in the human genome is not significantly greater then many other species, and there are many that have more genes then humans.

[cormac mac airt]

I think evolution is more the result of mutations within a species, if those mutation give the effected species a better edge then that mutation gets past on until it isn't a mutation any more, it's an inherent trait. Then the process starts over again. Reminds me of the old adage, "It's only kinky the first time or two, after that it's just what you do."

True, we haven't found any fossils, but that doesn't mean the process started here. The Gigantopithecus existed in China for around 300K years, then died out apparently. Bigfoots might have evolved in Asia and migrated here in largely their current form. That would explain the lack of finding Neanderthals on North America, and if we conjecture a bit further then the reason we don't see any Bigfoots in the fossil record could be that they haven't been here long enough to be there. A species that potentially is only 15k years old in still in it's primordial infancy.

One day they could be the dominate species on the planet.

And yes, I am simply thinking out loud and typing it out to see what everyone else thinks about it as well. That is what this is all about after all, exchange of thoughts and ideas, even highly hypothetical ones.

How would Gigantopithecus extinction 300,000 years ago explain the lack of Neanderthal remains in America? The former was an ape, the latter a species of human that itself went extinct c.39,000 BP. Besides, at some point Bigfoot would have had to leave remains somewhere. Yet no one has ever found any.

cormac

[psyche101]

Not a problem really I was just as distracted as anyone else really........I like lesbians, what else can I say?

Yes, it's all your fault

In fairness to her and assuming she's on the level which I think might be suspect, but assuming she's legit and her work is good then it's going to take a while for scientist to figure out where these guys belong on the human tree of life.

It really should not, the claim is that scientists managed to come up with the conclusion, so surely scientists can explain to other scientists how this all goes together?

Which did happen, and she failed peer review I guess.

Although, one wonders if there might be any lesbian Bigfoots..............oh sorry, I typed that out loud.

Hey I support gay marriage!!

As long as both chicks are hot.

Natural Selection explains evolutionary changes and how species change in response to their environmental pressures, but this, at least I'd assume, is a shift toward a new species. Granted I'm making a huge leap here but speculation is part of the whole point of discussion.

I am not sure about that, how can it be a new species if it is a great ape? Is the suggested animal not a great ape hybrid? Dubious as that is with the success of living existing hybrids, they can happen, but you have to be pretty darn close generically. Like an F1 Hybrid, and even then, offspring are likely to vary wildly.

Edited December 12, 2012 by psyche101

[psyche101]

I think evolution is more the result of mutations within a species, if those mutation give the effected species a better edge then that mutation gets past on until it isn't a mutation any more, it's an inherent trait. Then the process starts over again. Reminds me of the old adage, "It's only kinky the first time or two, after that it's just what you do."

But then natural selection takes over. Successful mutation assist the member of the species, and that mutation is passed on. Then as you say it becomes a permanent change as the altered species replaces the original. This would indicate that ancient man knew Bigfoot, but he does not show up in cave drawings like everything else.

True, we haven't found any fossils, but that doesn't mean the process started here. The Gigantopithecus existed in China for around 300K years, then died out apparently. Bigfoots might have evolved in Asia and migrated here in largely their current form. That would explain the lack of finding Neanderthals on North America, and if we conjecture a bit further then the reason we don't see any Bigfoots in the fossil record could be that they haven't been here long enough to be there. A species that potentially is only 15k years old in still in it's primordial infancy.

Didn't the Neanderthals all die before modern man even made it to the Bering Strait? Would than not explain the lack of fossils better?

We did find remains on the Island of Flores from a species only 12,000 years gone, and the people of Palau, even more recent - 1500 to 1800 years.

One day they could be the dominate species on the planet.

I cannot see how, considering we would be a diminutive species, and we overcame them to a point that we do not even now they exist. We seem to be some strong competition.

And yes, I am simply thinking out loud and typing it out to see what everyone else thinks about it as well. That is what this is all about after all, exchange of thoughts and ideas, even highly hypothetical ones.

Indeed!

[keninsc]

How would Gigantopithecus extinction 300,000 years ago explain the lack of Neanderthal remains in America? The former was an ape, the latter a species of human that itself went extinct c.39,000 BP. Besides, at some point Bigfoot would have had to leave remains somewhere. Yet no one has ever found any.

cormac

Wow? Ok, I really don't know how much clearly and simply I can express that, hang in there Sunshine and maybe you'll get it.

[keninsc]

I am not sure about that, how can it be a new species if it is a great ape? Is the suggested animal not a great ape hybrid? Dubious as that is with the success of living existing hybrids, they can happen, but you have to be pretty darn close generically. Like an F1 Hybrid, and even then, offspring are likely to vary wildly.

Well, keep in mind that everything that lives on land today is descended from a single life form that crawled up out of the oceans millions and millions of years ago. If you split apart our brains you will find that we have the brain structures from all the groups we descended from as do all other species. We have a Coccyx, which is your tail bone that's left over from when we actually had tails. We still have the prehensile mantle over your eyes which is a carry over from when we were monkeys. Dude, humans are the biggest bastardization of life on the face of the Earth.

.....and your concern is for some new species of ape? We've already discovered in various places around the world that humans evolved in other places, we are all children of Africa with Super great grand Ma Ma, Lucy's DNA coursing threw our veins, however for some reason those "starter" species didn't fare too well and died off leaving little old us to dominate the planet.

That's the nature of evolution, the purpose is to improve it and make it possible to propagate itself, and yes that journey will take some down the old, dead end, dirt road on the evolutionary super highway that leads to oblivion because that variation sucked really badly. Which should be proof to the Alien DNA believers that they have their collective heads in a warm, dark, moist place, but they like it there because they want us to have some higher, enlighten, God-like thing to assure us this is only a pit stop on the road to wherever it is we're headed for becau8se it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside when we lay our collective heads down at night.

Now then, I do not have all the answers. I'm speculating because of the possible result of the DNA stated in the program and my own questions and observation over the years and how I see them sort of tying in together in a very left handed sort of way. It's just thinking out loud is all it is. Feel free to join in, but I'm not talking about apes, the subject is humans, because that's what Old Doc Ketchum is saying her results is indicating. Ix-nay on the Appy-eh, otay? It's just going to get the thread off on some distant tangent about lesbians of something like that......oh wait......bad example. Never mind.

[keninsc]

But then natural selection takes over. Successful mutation assist the member of the species, and that mutation is passed on. Then as you say it becomes a permanent change as the altered species replaces the original. This would indicate that ancient man knew Bigfoot, but he does not show up in cave drawings like everything else.

I don't know where you got that from, large bipedal "things" are on many prehistoric wall paintings, some of them are actually better quality than many a "blobsquatch" photo I've seen over the years. Might be a good idea to acquaint yourself with this fact before we proceed, that way we can cut down on the BS demanding to see the proof because you simply don't want to make an effort to find it out for yourself. I know this is going to sound like I'm trying to pick a fight and I promise you that is NOT my intention, however it's not my job to educate you or anyone else here. The stuff is out there and all you or anyone else has to do is push the buttons and let the search engine do all the hard work. Then all you need to do is read and comprehend what you're reading and retain it for future reference.

Didn't the Neanderthals all die before modern man even made it to the Bering Strait? Would than not explain the lack of fossils better?

Beats the heck out of me? I postulated a theory and instead of discussing that theory you're asking me to postulate on your theory instead. Hey, I call "dibs", I postulated first.

We did find remains on the Island of Flores from a species only 12,000 years gone, and the people of Palau, even more recent - 1500 to 1800 years.

I cannot see how, considering we would be a diminutive species, and we overcame them to a point that we do not even now they exist. We seem to be some strong competition.

Yeah, that's why the little b******* are dead now. Their stuff didn't fare well in life.

[cormac mac airt]

Wow? Ok, I really don't know how much clearly and simply I can express that, hang in there Sunshine and maybe you'll get it.

Okay, I admit I was over-tired when I read your post. But I can't see how an alleged species such as Bigfoot just happens to originate just in time (15,000 BP) to migrate into the Americas and never leaves any evidence of remains. And is also said to have completely human mitochondrial DNA and either completely human nuclear DNA or a human/hominid combination. Depending on which version of Ketchum's story one wishes to believe. Sounds more like Ketchums' concocted a convenient excuse for being wrong IMO.

cormac

[keninsc]

Ain't no thing man, I'm over tired too. Hey, 'tis the season and all that.

Yeah, that's either an extremely convenient coincident or some game playing is going on there, I really can't figure out which yet. Although I did see where first her paper was rejected, then it wasn't rejected the publisher was requesting additional information which isn't any big deal. Now I see the paper still hasn't been accepted for publication however it will be published in January or February. You know, all these news agencies get their info from the same place, why can't they seem to get it right? Everyone can't be right on something like that.

Oh, one thing they did agree on was no lesbian pics in the article. DAMN!

[cormac mac airt]

I have to wonder what's next. First, according to the original DNA accounts, Bigfoot was completely modern human with a few genetic anomalies. Now it's a modern human/hominid hybrid. Can only guess that next it will be claimed to be a formerly unknown hominid with biological stealth technologies incorporated into its DNA.

cormac

[Sakari]

I have to wonder what's next. First, according to the original DNA accounts, Bigfoot was completely modern human with a few genetic anomalies. Now it's a modern human/hominid hybrid. Can only guess that next it will be claimed to be a formerly unknown hominid with biological stealth technologies incorporated into its DNA.

cormac

I can not get over a " human " female having sex with a " ape "....... I did find a bigfoot sex video, but I am pretty sure I can not post it here.

Really though, a human and ape having sex, and having enough to make a new species?.......Talk about desperate.

[Q-C]

We mated with other (similar) species, but I can't get over the size conundrum of this particular mating that produced bigfoot only 15,000 years ago.

I doubt it was the human side that was a giant barrel-chested beast.

Not to mention if human genes reduced the size of the offspring.

Edited December 12, 2012 by QuiteContrary

[Jeff Albertson]

When it's all over she will blame the real scientist for rejecting her paper (if there ever was one) and the ignorant will believe her. She is doing a great disservice to real science with this stunt.

I agree I want to give Dr. Melba Ketchum a chance was planning to wait for te peer revied paper to make any jugement. With so many rumors and no paper Even if the paper is published still had to read to make sure the science was sound. But then two big red flag happen, one Dr. Todd Disotell and Two. Her radio interview happen. Aslo what happens if she does publish in some thrid world country Journal Russia (China just claimed to found a Unicorn nest site I do believe in cryptozoology as a method but I see no proof of that claim both in antadoltal evidence and Empircal evidence.) All she is doing is futher making it harder to prove the existence and disproving the existence of Bigfoot. Futher driving cryptozoology a part from science (It is on the edge of science and psedoscience, it how you apply the method of cryptozoology that seperates it.) People who are on the psedoscience side of cryptozoology loby for a ban on killing a bigfoot. Causing this same people to claim consperace theory about the cover up,of the evidence.

Fox Mulder said it best "Don't write this book. You'll perform a disservice to a field of inquiry that has always struggled for respectability."

[cormac mac airt]

We mated with other (similar) species, but I can't get over the size conundrum of this particular mating that produced bigfoot only 15,000 years ago.

I doubt it was the human side that was a giant barrel-chested beast.

Not to mention if human genes reduced the size of the offspring.

And only share less than 6% of our nuclear DNA. As opposed to Bigfoot which according to Ketchum, et al. has gone from being a fully modern human to a human/hybrid in less than two years. Yep, no problem with her credibility there.

cormac

[Jeff Albertson]

And only share less than 6% of our nuclear DNA. As opposed to Bigfoot which according to Ketchum, et al. has gone from being a fully modern human to a human/hybrid in less than two years. Yep, no problem with her credibility there.

cormac

Science is full of claims that where considered imposable, I see no promblem with this, as long as the science backs up the claim by a peer revied paper and the science is sound.

[cormac mac airt]

Science is full of claims that where considered imposable, I see no promblem with this, as long as the science backs up the claim by a peer revied paper and the science is sound.

So you think this is possible and with no real explanation of how it was mis-represented:

As opposed to Bigfoot which according to Ketchum, et al. has gone from being a fully modern human to a human/hybrid in less than two years.

What doesn't set right with me about the Bigfoot claim is much the same with the Neanderthal/HSS mating claim. That being that if one started with a small population of Bigfoot having mated with HSS females, since there is no evidence of the continuation of Bigfoot Y Chromosomal DNA (possibly due to their being sterile) one quickly runs out of BF males to continue mating with the females. So how can the line continue for 15,000 years?

cormac

[Jeff Albertson]

So you think this is possible and with no real explanation of how it was mis-represented:

What doesn't set right with me about the Bigfoot claim is much the same with the Neanderthal/HSS mating claim. That being that if one started with a small population of Bigfoot having mated with HSS females, since there is no evidence of the continuation of Bigfoot Y Chromosomal DNA (possibly due to their being sterile) one quickly runs out of BF males to continue mating with the females. So how can the line continue for 15,000 years?

cormac

So far there is no evidence to judge it on if evidence is show in a peer revied journal then I can tell you if it is impossable, I can not go by rummors what is said about it. Once the peer revied journal is released I can judge the evidence, to the best of our curent understanding of science.

[cormac mac airt]

So far there is no evidence to judge it on if evidence is show in a peer revied journal then I can tell you if it is impossable, I can not go by rummors what is said about it. Once the peer revied journal is released I can judge the evidence, to the best of our curent understanding of science.

I can tell you what the evidence can't show. And that's that DNA can change from human to non-human in 2 years, which is what the claims have done. THAT'S impossible.

cormac

[Jeff Albertson]

I can tell you what the evidence can't show. And that's that DNA can change from human to non-human in 2 years, which is what the claims have done. THAT'S impossible.

cormac

I can not see how you can do this by not knowing the where the DNA that been sequenced without doing a cladistics and applying this to phylogenetics? The fossil record is imcomplete let alone we don't know if bigfoot is repersented in the fossil rercord. What if bigfoot is Meganthropus (Homo erectus paleojavenicus? we do need a body for morphometrics to best determine if bigfoot is in the fossil record). Science is consently taking in new idea and changing old way of thinking. If this was in the 1970's (if I rember right) we would be having this same confersation on how animals relay on photosynthesis for energy to live, and how it would be impossible by information know at the time.

[Q-C]

Imo, Bigfoot has always asked us to think way way waaaaaaay outside the laws of nature.

And "proving" bf in the lab will be no different.

[cormac mac airt]

I can not see how you can do this by not knowing the where the DNA that been sequenced without doing a cladistics and applying this to phylogenetics? The fossil record is imcomplete let alone we don't know if bigfoot is repersented in the fossil rercord. What if bigfoot is Meganthropus (Homo erectus paleojavenicus? we do need a body for morphometrics to best determine if bigfoot is in the fossil record). Science is consently taking in new idea and changing old way of thinking. If this was in the 1970's (if I rember right) we would be having this same confersation on how animals relay on photosynthesis for energy to live, and how it would be impossible by information know at the time.

I'm not doing anything. That was Ketchum's own claim a couple of years ago, that the DNA was fully modern human. Now she's claiming it's a hybrid. If you have a problem with the claim, take it up with her. Like I said before, DNA doesn't change.

cormac