Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Bigfoot DNA?

Posted Nov 29, '12 at 6:05pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

Dr. Melba Ketchum is claiming that hair samples are from a Sasquatch and it turns out that Bigfoot is a human hybrid.

"DALLAS, Nov. 24--A team of scientists can verify that their 5-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called âBigfootâ or âSasquatch,â living in North America."
I'm failing to see how they can jump to his conclusion. Eve if the sample does indeed turn out to show it to be from a human hybrid as they claim.

The point that the study hasn't been put through peer review also raises suspicion. We don't know if the study was conducted properly or if the samples had been tainted before hand. Right now they are just making a claim and not showing their work.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/13303/20121128/bigfoot-real-one-researcher-proof.htm#eYuKZJFuLdfXvfo9.99
http://www.dnadiagnostics.com/press.html

So what are your thoughts?

 

Posted Nov 29, '12 at 6:18pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,740 posts

It's currently under peer review, so I suppose waiting is the best course of action.

I do have to say though, I'm highly, highly skeptical of any Bigfoot or Sasquatch claim. If such a species existed, why have we found no remains of them? Why can no one find them? No evidence for them in droppings or nests, and certainly there would need to be some sort of thing to "hybrid" with in the first place.

Pretty much I think it's bunk to begin with.

 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 2:36am

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,557 posts

Well, there is evidence of a ancestor of humans named gigantopithecus existing, and that is what believers theorize bigfoot is. However, I too am highly skeptical that anything will come of this. Gigantopithecus died out a long time ago.

 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 3:30am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,305 posts

Knight

It's currently under peer review, so I suppose waiting is the best course of action.

^this, of course.

But also, her mode of operation is dubious from the start; she claims to have found unknown DNA sequences and calls them "Sasquatch nuclear DNA" without further reasoning; to me, "distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences" does sound like the probe was contaminated. She has found a strange amalgam of sequences, I'm sure of that, but there is no positive evidence for a sasquatch or a bigfoot in there. If I've learned something about strange findings, is that jumping on conclusions usually lead in disappointment.
 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 4:50am

JoshTheBoss

JoshTheBoss

420 posts

**** yourself. This section is for intellectual conversation, which is why I'm never here. You don't wanna see a bunch of posts about astrology on here do you?

 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 5:28am

JuiceyBox

JuiceyBox

138 posts

The birth of a, "Big foot" or a hominin hybrid species is possible. There have been human disorders, so who says animals don't have any, too? This, "big foot" may just be your average animal that has a disorder.

But I think the study listed above is false. Same reasons. Never been put through peer review, and immediate jump to conclusions.

 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 6:52am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,305 posts

Knight

This, "big foot" may just be your average animal that has a disorder.

Well, the study said they found clearly human mtDNA, which means there must have been a human mother at some point. If what they claim is true, that is.
 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 7:39am

JuiceyBox

JuiceyBox

138 posts

Well, the study said they found clearly human mtDNA, which means there must have been a human mother at some point. If what they claim is true, that is.


I suppose.

THen it must be a human with a disorder. It doesn't seem as logical as an animal with a disorder, though.

Anyways, I still don't believe their study is true.
 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 8:27am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,305 posts

Knight

Even though I'm not giving any credit to the study as a whole either, I'm sure they would have noticed it if they had found a human sequence warped by a disorder, and wouldn't have written "distinctly nonhuman". Although, you never know.. ^^ But I'm still more fond of the simple contamination thing.

I'm just wondering about the date they gave for the assumed hybridisation event, ca. 15'000 years ago. Their only means of finding that out would be the mtDNA, Even if it turns out to be a big mistake, how come the mtDNA is so old?

 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 10:43am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

Another issue I'm seeing with this is what we know of hybrid species. In almost all cases a hybrid animal will be sterile. So if this is real, Bigfoot couldn't be an ongoing species.
This adds another element to the mix as well. If we are to consider the hybrid Bigfoot and Bigfoot is mostly sterile. That would mean not only do we have an as yet undiscovered half human running around, but also another undiscovered species of ape running around alive and well that has gone undetected along with Bigfoot.

 
Reply to Bigfoot DNA?

You must be logged in to post a reply!