Bigfoot DNA
- Thread starter GT/CS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot dna ed smith melba ketchum
- Status
I suspect the cheese fell off her cracker a long time ago
Unless it's some sort of act so she can charge knuckle . . . enthusiasts to see her habituating monkeys.
So after those first few mtDNA samples, MK and Stubstad had a falling out and she kicked him out the study. He then told everything he knew in the form of those reports on his website and through posting at the BFF. When people started to question what he was saying and how that related to her study, she would downplay his ideas publicly and say that he didn't know what he was talking about and that she had moved beyond the few samples that he knew about. But she still stuck to this prehistoric hybridization idea and apparently used this to get funding to further nuDNA testing.
"We've got these unusual, ancient mtDNA results. We need more money for further tests."
But in fact they weren't usual at all. But at this point she started doing the nuDNA testing and supposedly got human results mixed with a novel primate. CWB would be a better person to address the problems, here. But the bottomline is she had already come up her hypothesis, based on faulty information, and she was able to "confirm" that flawed hypothesis with the nuDNA results.
"We've got these unusual, ancient mtDNA results. We need more money for further tests."
But in fact they weren't usual at all. But at this point she started doing the nuDNA testing and supposedly got human results mixed with a novel primate. CWB would be a better person to address the problems, here. But the bottomline is she had already come up her hypothesis, based on faulty information, and she was able to "confirm" that flawed hypothesis with the nuDNA results.
The Shrike
Philosopher
Waitaminute - does the Ketchum crew think that the hybrid was created after those archaic Euro-humans rode the Soultrain to North America? If so, I've missed that nugget.
The ancestral New World monkey is thought to have dispersed across the Atlantic about 40 million years ago. It looks like the hominins diverged from their common ancestor with the apes about 4–8 million years ago.
The ancestral New World monkey is thought to have dispersed across the Atlantic about 40 million years ago. It looks like the hominins diverged from their common ancestor with the apes about 4–8 million years ago.
And I believe any of the "hybridization" discussion forgets that there would be a high probability that the offspring would be sterile. So, unless there is a population of halotype H consistently mating with an unknown primate for 15,000 years in North America, it would be a novel mutation to assume that the "hybrid" offspring were able to continue their line if they were sterile. I guess we could be having a whole bunch of immaculate conceptions taking place in one species ? Wait, it's the Nephilim!
As more samples came in she did more mtDNA testing and got more human results. Now with her report we can see that she was getting a wide variety of different haplogroups, many were H subclades as you would expect (including a couple that actual were H1 and H3). There were also a few more Africa/African-American types and a few Native American types. But mostly the mtDNA was from European haplogroups. In other worlds her mtDNA results are pretty much a match for the demographic make up of the modern human population of North America.
Here's why that's a problem for the hybridization idea. Let's say Stubstad's originally idea was legit (forgetting fo rthe moment that it was based on a false premise). You have a BF-like hominin in Eurasia near the end of the Pleistocene. A group of them interbreed with some humans with the result that they now have human mtDNA. These BFs with human mtDNA migrate into North America, but no pure BFs do. Then all their descendents--the North American BF--would have the human mtDNA.
On the surface that would sense---but they should all have the same haplotype. In MK's study she has 16 haplotypes out of the 20 samples that she did full mtDNA sequencing on. 16!
She had to have realized at some point that this prehistoric hybrization idea was bogus but she apparently stuck to it. Maybe because by this point she had convinced Hersom and Erickson to give her hundreds of thousands of dollars to do all of this testing based on a flawed hypothesis that came from Stubstad misunderstanding a wikipedia page?
Here's why that's a problem for the hybridization idea. Let's say Stubstad's originally idea was legit (forgetting fo rthe moment that it was based on a false premise). You have a BF-like hominin in Eurasia near the end of the Pleistocene. A group of them interbreed with some humans with the result that they now have human mtDNA. These BFs with human mtDNA migrate into North America, but no pure BFs do. Then all their descendents--the North American BF--would have the human mtDNA.
On the surface that would sense---but they should all have the same haplotype. In MK's study she has 16 haplotypes out of the 20 samples that she did full mtDNA sequencing on. 16!
She had to have realized at some point that this prehistoric hybrization idea was bogus but she apparently stuck to it. Maybe because by this point she had convinced Hersom and Erickson to give her hundreds of thousands of dollars to do all of this testing based on a flawed hypothesis that came from Stubstad misunderstanding a wikipedia page?
Just to add, if you go by Stubstad's Solutrean hypothesis then Cro-Magnon people would have come to North American and mated with BF here (I think). But if BF was already an established population in NA then mating with a few humans way back when shouldn't have been enough to make them all have human mtDNA. The human mtDNA would even get swamped by the "pure" BF DNA.
So that idea doesn't make sense either.
So that idea doesn't make sense either.
That's right for this to work you have to assume at least some of the offspring of BF and humans were viable. In fairness, this is actually one of the least problematic aspects of this, given that we did produce viable offspring with other early human species like Neanderthal, Denisovan, and maybe another unknown hominin in Africa.
theagenes, but you can see how they could weave all of this into David Paulides missing person theory. The mystery North American ape has been abducting humans for 15,000 years, primarily of European descent, and "hybridizing" with the abductees. You see, to date, they have only been able to collect DNA from the hybridization and haven't made their way to the "pure" North American ape population. I joke about the Nephilim, I bellieve at one point MK made reference to the Nephilim and to "Angel DNA". There are any number of ways to warp their theory.
Last edited:
Well, that's never really spelled out because I don't think she ever really understood what the Solutrean Hypothesis was exactly. Did Solutreans cross to America and breed with BF over here? Did BF breed with Solutreans in Europe and cross over themselves? Are BF and Solutreans one and the same and BF actually created those magnificent cave paintings? Who knows.
Here is the full quote in her report where address this prehistoric hybridization idea. See if it all makes sense for you now:
That's it. It's non-sense.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
As I'm sure you know, though, there is still some debate as to whether Neanderthal was a separate Homo species, or whether it was a subspecies of H. sapiens. "Species" can be defined by reproductive isolation, and there's strong genomic evidence of interbreeding between the two groups, leading some scientists to classify Neanderthal as a subspecies. On the other hand, there are known examples of fertile inter-specific hybridization and introgression, so the debate is far from over.
Just thought I'd muddy the waters a bit.
I concur that human species did mate in the past with other human species to produce a viable population; however, where I find fault is that we are talking about ape and human hybridization, which I don't believe would be close enough to produce a breeding population, if it was even remotely possible. Also, the only species in the fossil record that would even remotely fit the enormous description of Sasquatch would be Gigantopithecus, and I don't believe that a "hybrid" population would be able to breed, again if possible.
Last edited:
Did you mean unusual at the highlighted? I think you did but I want to make sure I'm following you here.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, is there anywhere in the ancient world where those 16 haplotypes may have co-existed?
I'm battling to think of any circumstances in which that could have happened, especially because of the native American haplotypes, but was there ever a melting-pot of people of mixed descent gathered in roughly the same place at roughly the same time?
Now, of course, I appreciate that for MK's theory to hold water, those disparate groups of people don't have to have lived proximately, nor even at the same time. Hybridisation could have been going on continuously in varied locations and over a long period of time, but we're then talking about a proto-sasquatch, a progenitor species (Homo heidlebergensis or some-such), not only surviving into the post-glacial era, but doing so in numbers large enough to breed with at least 16 distinct groups of humans, have their off-spring then gather together and migrate, whilst the progenitors then conveniently die off themselves.....and all without leaving anything in the fossil record, or any artefacts, or burials.
Since I first heard about this hybridisation theory, I have been far more interested in the assumed progenitor species than in its mongrel offspring. Is there a cave out there (presumably in Northern Europe) with Homo-something-or-other-but-not-sapiens bones which are only 10,000 to 15,000 years old, lying waiting to be discovered? Now THAT would be something to get excited about.......but I suspect it is highly unlikely.
Mike
This ape has hybridised with a human to produce ......well.........take your pick......ape offspring, or human offspring. One is a subset of the other.
As I'm sure you know, though, there is still some debate as to whether Neanderthal was a separate Homo species, or whether it was a subspecies of H. sapiens. "Species" can be defined by reproductive isolation, and there's strong genomic evidence of interbreeding between the two groups, leading some scientists to classify Neanderthal as a subspecies. On the other hand, there are known examples of fertile inter-specific hybridization and introgression, so the debate is far from over.
Just thought I'd muddy the waters a bit.
Absolutely. I'm playing devil's advocate her a little bit because you have to spot them a few points to even approach the real problems with this hybridization idea.
Personally, I think that what we've been learning in the last couple years means we need to think able reassessing human taxonomy. I'm certainly more in favor now of Neandethal and Denisovan being sub-species of H. sapiens rather than separate spp.
Well, she saying hominin, so she's implying a close relative, but according to her 11/24 press release it's a hominin more distantly related than Neanderthal or Denisovan. That would leave something like Idaltu or Heidelburgensis, maybe Erectus. But then this near relative would have to be over seven feet tall with extreme hirsuitism.
Honestly, I don't think she put as much thought into it as we are now.
Yep that was a typo
So just allowing Ketchum(DVM) the Soultrean hypothesis, wouldn't you expect to see either the hybrid, or the original . . . Squatch in the fossil record somewhere?
- Status