|
|
Post by broox on Nov 30, 2012 17:22:50 GMT -5
Kind of interesting, but I remain dubious. "Bigfoot is real. At least that's what veterinarian Melba S. Ketchum claims after a five-year study of more than 100 DNA samples that she believes comes from the elusive hairy beast. "Under Ketchum's direction at DNA Diagnostics in Nacogdoches, Texas, a team of researchers has concluded that the creature may be a human relative that somehow developed around 15,000 years ago as a result of a hybrid cross between Homo sapiens with an unknown primate... ..."Ketchum's study showed that part of the DNA her team sequenced revealed an unknown primate species, she said, which suggests that Bigfoot is a real creature that resulted from this primate "crossing with female Homo sapiens." "They're not any of the large apes -- they branch off as a separate lineage," Ketchum said. "My personal theory is that it probably branched off and evolved in parallel with the rest of the primate lineage." www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/bigfoot-dna-proves-creature-exists-genetic_n_2199984.htmlADDED BONUS: here's a story about a serbian vampire www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/sava-savanovic-vampire-on-the-loose-serbia_n_2211364.html?utm_hp_ref=crime&ir=Crime#slide=1247375 |
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Nov 30, 2012 19:00:29 GMT -5
Okay, DNA study... pretty scientific sounding...
"Human-primate hybrid"... less scientific... how would they know? Couldn't it be an offshoot species with similar DNA, like chimpanzees?
Then, "15,000 years ago an ape man banged a human female and Bigfoot was born"... wait, what? How is that a scientific supposition at all? Exactly no science went into the assumption that the female was human.
Isn't it more likely (if the hybrid theory is necessary at all) that a human male would have sex with a monkey? Just, historically, don't you think? I'm just saying, why automatically pin this on the woman? Is this Bible science?
|
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Nov 30, 2012 20:15:02 GMT -5
Or are they calling bigfoot a rapist? I mean, I know it's not rape if the chick is hot, or if she was in a club, or if she was wearing tight pants cos clearly then she was asking for it, so maybe it's not bigfoot's fault... but how many babies resulted from this interspecies banging? A whole line of parallel not-quite-people? Also, you can tell from the mitochondrial dna if the common ancestor was human or ape. Just saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scary Gary on Dec 1, 2012 0:03:03 GMT -5
"The overall results of Ketchum's study will soon be revealed, she said, after a peer-reviewed journal is published."
See, here is the problem. The results are what the peer review is about. She is trying to put the cart before the horse. If, and that is a BIG IF, she was really on to something here; she would have no hesitation to release the results immediately and let the peer review do it's job. Withholding the data is the hallmark of a charlatan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scary Gary on Dec 1, 2012 0:12:16 GMT -5
"Exactly no science went into the assumption that the female was human."
The reason they claim it was a male bigfoot is that they say the mitochondrial DNA is human. Mitochondrial DNA is passed directly from the mother to the offspring. It is only the nuclear DNA that is passed by both parents. With that said, she could have claimed it was human nuclear DNA and ape mitochondrial DNA.
This is also part of the trick she is doing. With humans and apes sharing so much DNA in common (99% or so), it is much easier claim nuclear DNA as one and mitochondrial DNA as the other. Otherwise, she would have to prove that the 1% difference is bigfoot opposed to another ape or mutation. A much harder task.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Dec 1, 2012 8:10:03 GMT -5
What I don't get is, bigfoot is supposedly an unknown primate, but they're saying the ancestry is human and unknown primate, so they're still not defining any variables. Bigfoot comes from Bigfoot. Thanks for that revelation.
|
|
|
|
Post by broox on Dec 1, 2012 11:27:29 GMT -5
You guys are going to be really embarrassed when you run into bigfoot in the supermarket and he tells you he's read this thread and is deeply offended.
|
|
|
|
Post by broox on Dec 1, 2012 11:29:23 GMT -5
"The overall results of Ketchum's study will soon be revealed, she said, after a peer-reviewed journal is published." See, here is the problem. The results are what the peer review is about. She is trying to put the cart before the horse. If, and that is a BIG IF, she was really on to something here; she would have no hesitation to release the results immediately and let the peer review do it's job. Withholding the data is the hallmark of a charlatan. I was thinking the opposite is true: that they should have waited until the peer review was completed to release their findings. |
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Dec 1, 2012 12:31:47 GMT -5
It does seem like they're skipping ahead for publicity because they know what they've got won't hold up. With Bigfoot, you just have to say you've discovered something. You don't really have to prove it. By the time the real results are out no one will care anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Dec 1, 2012 17:19:12 GMT -5
yes, mitochondrial dna from the mother, that's what I was trying to get at but I lost what I was saying halfway through the sentence. I blame the heatwave, it's 40 degrees over here.
Anyway the peer review will depend on which peers she chooses. She might choose some fellow crazy people, I mean, believers, who won't just make fun of her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scary Gary on Dec 1, 2012 18:40:33 GMT -5
I was thinking the opposite is true: that they should have waited until the peer review was completed to release their findings. Science doesn't work that way, Broox. The peer review process is fundamental to the scientific method. If the data cannot be evaluated by other scientists and confirmed, than it simply is not science. As Sean mentioned, she is simply seeking the publicity and headlines up front and hoping no one notices when the actual science comes crashing down on her. |
|
|
|
Post by Scary Gary on Dec 1, 2012 18:49:42 GMT -5
yes, mitochondrial dna from the mother, that's what I was trying to get at but I lost what I was saying halfway through the sentence. I blame the heatwave, it's 40 degrees over here. Anyway the peer review will depend on which peers she chooses. She might choose some fellow crazy people, I mean, believers, who won't just make fun of her. At first glance, I didn't realize that was what you were saying. After I posted, I re-read your comment and realized that was where you were heading. If her goal is to get it peer reviewed by actual scientists in a reputable journal, than she has no shot of getting it passed. If, on the other hand, her goal is to get it the approval of the Finding Bigfoot cast; she has already succeeded. |
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Dec 1, 2012 19:02:16 GMT -5
She can't even get it passed on this forum so...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Dec 1, 2012 20:00:00 GMT -5
Hey, we're critical thinkers. I'm all for Bigfoot, but we support the scientific method. I mean, mitochondrial DNA and all that... ya know?
|
|
|
|
Post by broox on Dec 2, 2012 12:45:04 GMT -5
I was thinking the opposite is true: that they should have waited until the peer review was completed to release their findings. Science doesn't work that way, Broox. The peer review process is fundamental to the scientific method. If the data cannot be evaluated by other scientists and confirmed, than it simply is not science. As Sean mentioned, she is simply seeking the publicity and headlines up front and hoping no one notices when the actual science comes crashing down on her. I think that's what I was trying to say: that the data should have been evaluated by other scientists BEFORE she made this announcement to the press. Otherwise it has no validity, what's to stop me from making a similar announcement and say I intend to get it reviewed too. She's putting whatever reputation she does (or does not) have on the line by putting this out there before there's any legitimate peer consensus. |
|
