144 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

keninsc, on 11 December 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

However, on a more serious note. Modern man Homo Sapien has been around now for only some 200K years. If this is a "new" human which is only some 15K years old then one has to ponder why it seems to be going the opposite direction in terms of evolution. A mutant? Or some off shoot branch of man? We've had these in the past however those tended to be in remote and isolated places like Islands. A good example would be the "Hobbit" as it's been termed. A short, midget version of humans that died out some time ago. 38K to 13K years ago.

I would like to know how it got kicked off. She is saying "something else" implying something removed from the Sapiens family altogether.

To the best of my knowledge, hybrids have a hard time even being conceived. Whatever it is she is proposing has to be rather close to us to even breed. We cannot breed with a Chimp, don't ask, so this seems quite a stretch to me.

How did it even establish??

[keninsc]

Well damn, there's another good thread going down in flames.

[psyche101]

TwilightSilver, on 11 December 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

This just made my night!

I nearly died laughing...

I please to aim!

[keninsc]

psyche101, on 11 December 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

I would like to know how it got kicked off. She is saying "something else" implying something removed from the Sapiens family altogether.

To the best of my knowledge, hybrids have a hard time even being conceived. Whatever it is she is proposing has to be rather close to us to even breed. We cannot breed with a Chimp, don't ask, so this seems quite a stretch to me.

How did it even establish??

Ok, on this I'd have to say that we need someone who's smarter or at least better educated than the two of us. How does any new species get started? As I understand it, it often starts off as a mutation and that mutation creates some ability to cope better with the environment. How that might relate to a human species.....shift? I haven't a clue.

[psyche101]

keninsc, on 11 December 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Well damn, there's another good thread going down in flames.

I am sorry, I will quiet down, my fault, it's hard to concentrate when you keep talking about pillow fighting lesbians.........


But I think the hybrid question is one she does not seem to have addressed?

keninsc, on 11 December 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

Ok, on this I'd have to say that we need someone who's smarter or at least better educated than the two of us. How does any new species get started? As I understand it, it often starts off as a mutation and that mutation creates some ability to cope better with the environment. How that might relate to a human species.....shift? I haven't a clue.

Natural selection.

Edited by psyche101, 11 December 2012 - 08:27 AM.

[keninsc]

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

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.

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

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.

Edited by keninsc, 11 December 2012 - 08:44 AM.

[Jeff Albertson]

To me it seems like Dr. Melbums Ketchum word cann't be trusted.She says" I can't talk about the peer review that part of the argement you don't go talking about it untill it out. I did not attent for this to come out it leeked " Then what does she think she is doing?  She would of had to leaked the information to Igor for him to leek the information on facebook. Also if it is a leek why is helping the leek to become a flood?  

  Lets see here What a trusted sciectist Dr. Todd Disotell say that is more trust wothy than DFr. Melbum Ketchum at this point her words conserdicts her action. http://doubtfulnews....gfoot-dna-claim

Also Igor words where "I have sent the paper to our Russian scientist to peer review".  What happen to Dr. Ketchum Melbums saying Iwant to publish it in a distinges journal." So what happens if it is published in a Russian Journal how many people will believe it? If this was a real journals like"Nature" would publish it ect. I would even trust Dr. Melbrums journal to publish the paper Dr. Todd Disotell sits on the peer review board. But this just sounds like B.S. to me. Then we talk about habition site into it. Usally on one person see the bigfoot, when it comes to habituation situation. That be like me claiming that I have a flying spagite monster habition site in my back yard, if this was true I would be able to show other people and prove that flying spagite monsters are real.

I am new to this site but I do beleive in the method of cryptozoology. But also beleive it claims like this that makes cryptozoology a laughing joke. (Had to put this in so people know where I am comming from)

Edited by Jeff Albertson, 11 December 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[scowl]

keninsc, on 11 December 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

However, on a more serious note. Modern man Homo Sapien has been around now for only some 200K years. If this is a "new" human which is only some 15K years old then one has to ponder why it seems to be going the opposite direction in terms of evolution.

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.

[Sakari]

Bigfoot having babies with humans........It is true :






If Zoser can use youtube as proof, so can I.   

[rampaging redneck]

With a surname like Ketchum, I would have thought she could capture a Bigfoot in a small red and white ball

Seriously though. My bulls*** detector is off the scale.

[QuiteContrary]

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]

evancj, on 12 December 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

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 by Sakari, 12 December 2012 - 02:16 AM.

[keninsc]

scowl, on 11 December 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

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]

scowl, on 11 December 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

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.