Bigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 



Ketchum DNA Paper?

Page 4 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  BurdenOfProof on Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:09 pm

DPinkerton wrote:
BurdenOfProof wrote:so is patty one of ketchums human bigfoots? compliant gait and all?

Huh? "human bigfoot"?

You know one with 100% modern human mtDNA
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  BurdenOfProof on Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:10 pm

CMcMillan wrote:
BurdenOfProof wrote:
DPinkerton wrote:
Woodwose wrote:I believe that he's referring to the fact that no hybrid species should features nuclear and mitochondrial DNA that appear to come from different species. I don't think that hybridisation works like that.

From what I have read (and I could be wrong) vastly different NDNA and MTDNA is indicative of contamination.

I'm no expert, so I might be wrong.

Where has it claimed "vastly different"? It has been established that homo neanderthalsis and other relic homo have interbreed with homo sapien. And as stated...the mtDNA is not different.

so is patty one of ketchums human bigfoots? compliant gait and all?

Human Bigfoot?
See you think Bigfoot is a Generic APE like creature.
Until you think otherwise you won't accept anything.

If your going complaint Gait . Hasn't it been proven that a person can walk that way. All the films I have seen with people trying to debunk the Patti film show that the walk can be done.

CMC you seem to buy into EVERY single wild claim there is. Are you trolling me?
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  CMcMillan on Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:13 pm

No Not trolling you brought up Complaint Gate for a reason to try to Debunk.
But It has been shown Humans can do it.
So your telling me that the Scientists who were seeing if a human can replicate the Patti Walk were liers?

So someone disagrees with you they are a troll?
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  Woodwose on Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:21 pm

DPinkerton wrote:Where has it claimed "vastly different"?

Saying that there are two forms of DNA = vastly different.

From what I have read hybrid species feature a mix of compatable DNA where markers can be attributed to the contributing species but both contributing species create a a mix of DNA that amounts to a unique DNA marker. So the differently mixed DNA suggested by Ketchum is simply not possible in terms of what we know about DNA and speciesation.

This seems to be justified by the evidnce regarding modern human and Neanderthal hybridisation. Modern human DNA is distincly human, but contains arkers that suggest hybridisation. We do not find modern humans where there is a mismatch between nuclear and miticondrial DNA.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  Woodwose on Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:25 pm

Even I have to admit that that sounds like garbled nonsense.

Let me digest things and try and explain myself properly tomorrow.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  CMcMillan on Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:50 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:
CMcMillan wrote:No Not trolling you brought up Complaint Gate for a reason to try to Debunk.
But It has been shown Humans can do it.
So your telling me that the Scientists who were seeing if a human can replicate the Patti Walk were liers?

So someone disagrees with you they are a troll?

so wait you are saying that these human bigfoots of ketchums would likely walk like normal humans but have the ability to have a compliant gait aswell and it just happens the patty thought "think ill walk with a compliant gait today".

You do know that it has been said that Ancient Neandethal and other trides when they walked barefoot foe centuries walked with a Compliant Gate.
I never said these days.
You seem to not know what your talking about Several Papers you can download via PDF files talk about this and running.
And no Ketchums Bigfoots are not 100% human and when is the term Modern Man suggested to have come into play?

lauflabor.ifs-tud.de/files/papers/Rummel10ICRA.pdf

www.liverpool.ac.uk/premog/PDFs/aafarensis.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=oIoT1RcFeCwC&pg=PT319&lpg=PT319&dq=did+humans+walk+with+a+compliant+gait&source=bl&ots=v2fQ3TzUJI&sig=Eeh12SozgzlXK1YQdXb54K2EcBY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yEIgUc66B9DK0AGbkYHgBw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCTgU
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:54 am

OK, what I was trying to say is that when it comes to our supposed hybridisation with Neanderthals, what we find is that there are markers in our mtDNA that we have in common with Neanderthals. For this hybridisation to be proven we need to see a breakdown of Neanderthal nDNA, which we don't yet have, to confirm that our genetic mix comes from that species (rather than an earlier hybridisation event - similar to that which occurred between our distant ancestors and the Pan genus).

The fact that our mtDNA only contains markers from Neanderthals indicates an ancient interbreeding, since with contemporary hybridisation females take on the full sequence of dominant mtDNA (from the father). Over time the newly hybrid species (if fertile) will be subject to a mixing of genetic sequences following interbreeding with the species it cohabits with. This would result in the mtDNA genetic mix we appear to see between some modern humans and Neanderthals.

If Ketchum's study is saying that her DNA consists of completely different nDNA and mtDNA then we are talking about ongoing and current hybridisation. Furthermore, since female hybrids always take on the mtDNA from their father, this would mean that if Ketchum's sample came from Matilda, her mother must be fully human (because the mtDNA was fully non-human). How likely is that - especially given that she seems to look fully BF and not what you would expect from a hybrid?

Obviously this mix of human nDNA with completely different mtDNA does not fit Ketchum's hypothesis that BF is the result of ancient hybridisation that occured 15,000 BCE.

A more likely explanation for the genetic mix is contamination.


Last edited by Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:20 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:16 am

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/eve.html
This is where DNA point mutations come in. When mtDNA is inherited from our mother, occasionally there is a change or mutation in one or more of the ‘letters’ of the mtDNA code – about one mutation every thousand generations. The new letter, called a point mutation, will then be transmitted through all subsequent daughters. Although a new mutation is a rare event within a single family line, the overall probability of mutations is clearly increased by the number of mothers having daughters.

Unlike nuclear DNA, which is inherited from both parents and in which genes are rearranged in the process of recombination, there is usually no change in mtDNA from parent to offspring. Although mtDNA also recombines, it does so with copies of itself within the same mitochondrion. Because of this and because the mutation rate of animal mtDNA is higher than that of nuclear DNA,[31] mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking ancestry through females (matrilineage) and has been used in this role to track the ancestry of many species back hundreds of generations.

The low effective population size and rapid mutation rate (in animals) makes mtDNA useful for assessing genetic relationships of individuals or groups within a species and also for identifying and quantifying the phylogeny (evolutionary relationships; see phylogenetics) among different species, provided they are not too distantly related. To do this, biologists determine and then compare the mtDNA sequences from different individuals or species. Data from the comparisons is used to construct a network of relationships among the sequences, which provides an estimate of the relationships among the individuals or species from which the mtDNAs were taken. This approach has limits that are imposed by the rate of mtDNA sequence change. In animals, the high mutation rate makes mtDNA most useful for comparisons of individuals within species and for comparisons of species that are closely or moderately-closely related, among which the number of sequence differences can be easily counted. As the species become more distantly related, the number of sequence differences becomes very large; changes begin to accumulate on changes until an accurate count becomes impossible

Not sure you understand it very well.
It sounds nothing says it is with current DNA since even ours can be tracked back to "eve" The concept is the same that Bigfoots DNA orginal Orgin is also similar to ours that a Bigfoot mated with a female human and then this would be the current line. You are also taking that Bigfoot is more Animal than some AncientHuman Hybrid. Once you remove the belief it is a Generic APE of some type.

The DNA falls inline with the concept of both "American Indian" Legends as well as the "Sumerians"
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:55 am

Firstly, nothing I said makes any assumptions about the nature of BF or it's potential origins (besides which humans are apes Rolling Eyes).

Secondly, the points I made relate specifically to hybridisation, which I believe to have specific quirks not covered in the information you quoted.

I do not claim to be an expert in these matters. I'm just relaying what I understand the situation to be regarding our relatedness to Neanderthals and the way we observe hybridisation in species today.

Finally, if you read the information you quoted it is very clear that BF should not have fully human nDNA. That's basically the point I was making. If BF is the result of an ancient hybridisation event, it's DNA should show it to be a distinct species with markers from contributing species (not intact fully human nDNA). That would only be the case if hybridisation had occurred within one or two generations.

Amerindian and Sumerian legend is irrelevant to the DNA analysis.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:35 am

Ahhh again you bring up that we are APES as a sligght.
I said Generic APE IE Common APE your use to seeing in the ZOO. you knew what i ment stop playing dumb.

Nuclear DNA , nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid (nDNA), is DNA contained within a nucleus of eukaryotic organisms. In most cases it encodes more of the genome than the mitochondrial DNA and is passed sexually rather than matrilineally. Nuclear DNA is the most common DNA used in forensic examinations.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is the DNA located in organelles called mitochondria. Most other DNA present in eukaryotic organisms is found in the nucleus. Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA are thought to be of separate evolutionary origin, with the mtDNA being derived from the circular genomes of the bacteria that were engulfed by the early ancestors of today's eukaryotic cells. In the cells of current organisms, the vast majority of the proteins present in the mitochondria (numbering approximately 1500 different types in mammals) are coded for by nuclear DNA, but the genes for some of them, if not most, are thought to have originally been of bacterial origin, having since been transferred to the eukaryotic nucleus during evolution. In mammals, all mtDNA in a zygote is inherited solely from the mother, and this holds true for most other organisms as well.

Difference
Unlike nuclear DNA, whose genes are rearranged in the process of recombination, there is usually no change in mtDNA from parent to offspring. Because of this, and the fact that the mutation rate of mtDNA is higher than that of nuclear DNA and is easily measured, mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking matrilineage, and has been used in this role for tracking the ancestry of many species back hundreds of generations. Human mtDNA can also be used to identify individuals.

And yes what Native Indians and Sumerians have listed in the legends is relevent. Since it is in tales that "a race" Mated with Human Females.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:54 am

CMcMillan wrote:Ahhh again you bring up that we are APES as a sligght.
I said Generic APE IE Common APE your use to seeing in the ZOO. you knew what i ment stop playing dumb.

It wasn't intended as a 'slight'. I believe that you are making a fatuous distinction that has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

.......Unlike nuclear DNA, whose genes are rearranged in the process of recombination, there is usually no change in mtDNA from parent to offspring. Because of this, and the fact that the mutation rate of mtDNA is higher than that of nuclear DNA and is easily measured, mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking matrilineage, and has been used in this role for tracking the ancestry of many species back hundreds of generations. Human mtDNA can also be used to identify individuals.

That's all very fascinating, but what do you think it means and how do you think this relates to Ketchum's data?

And yes what Native Indians and Sumerians have listed in the legends is relevent. Since it is in tales that "a race" Mated with Human Females.

It isn't relevant to how the DNA analysis is carried out or inform what conclusions might be drawn. The DNA analysis may determine if these myths have any basis in fact, but that is a separate issue.

As a side note, I really wish you could see that my posts are not a personal attack on you or your beliefs. And just because I disagree with you, it does not follow that I am a debunker who disbelieves in BF and has some kind of agenda. I'm just trying to figure out what all this means and at the moment it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The simple fact of the matter is that we interpret the available information differently and in a discussion between reasonable individuals that should not be cause for animosity. Perhaps you could consider taking that on board in the future?
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  DPinkerton on Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:26 am

[quote="Woodwose"]
CMcMillan wrote:That's all very fascinating, but what do you think it means and how do you think this relates to Ketchum's data?

I think it explains how "bigfoot" can have "human" mtDNA. And mtDNA is passed from the female...not the male.

Human female mates with neanderthal male...the resulting offspring's mtDNA would be 100% human. Yet the offspring would be a hybrid of the two species.

DPinkerton

Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:33 am

http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/bigfoot-dna.html

Hair Analysis:

Hair samples were sent to the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (Dallas, TX) for
analysis. The samples were evaluated visually, stereoscopically, and by light microscopy to
determine human or animal origin. Hairs that were classified as potential novel hominid were also evaluated for DNA typing potential by examining for root material.
Only hairs that were not human in appearance and could not be identified as any other species were utilized in this study.

The samples were processed and the mitochondrial DNA extracted and sequenced. The 11 Samples that were chosen from the samples I submitted were determined to be Sasquatch (Bigfoot). The sample numbers from Table 1 of the Study are 2,3,11,38,42,70,82,122,125,126,127. From this group of samples three had enough genetic material to run a full mitochondrial DNA sequence. These samples numbers were 2, 11, and 38.

It was determined that the female linage of the Bigfoot was human and the male linage was from a still unknown hominin.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:38 am

It was determined that the female linage of the Bigfoot was human and the male linage was from a still unknown hominin.

This is the conclusion of the DNA testing that she was able to withdraw.
I am not sure why your having a hard time understanding that mtdna is Female Linage. So if the Female was Human the mtdna would indicate Human.

This lines up with many of the Ancient Myths and Legends that say some "race" mated with Human Females.
So any offspring would indicate human not the other race.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:55 am

DPinkerton wrote:Human female mates with neanderthal male...the resulting offspring's mtDNA would be 100% human. Yet the offspring would be a hybrid of the two species.

That's not quite how I understand it to work. For instance, when a male lion mates with a female tiger the resulting liger has mtDNA that is 100% lion.

For arguments sake, if what you said is correct, we would only see 100% human mtDNA in a hybrid at the initial point of hybridisation. Over time mutation and interbreeding should result in a unique mtDNA profile with trace markers of the original hybridisation event/s.

Unless BF has continuously interbred with H. Sapens Sapiens up to the present day, 100% human mtDNA doesnt make sense (unless there is contamination).

Having said all that and re-reading what Meldrum says about the DNA, it seems far from clear that the BF mtDNA is 100% human - there are anomalies with the sample.

avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:03 am

Woodwose wrote:
DPinkerton wrote:Human female mates with neanderthal male...the resulting offspring's mtDNA would be 100% human. Yet the offspring would be a hybrid of the two species.

That's not quite how I understand it to work. For instance, when a male lion mates with a female tiger the resulting liger has mtDNA that is 100% lion.

For arguments sake, if what you said is correct, we would only see 100% human mtDNA in a hybrid at the initial point of hybridisation. Over time mutation and interbreeding should result in a unique mtDNA profile with trace markers of the original hybridisation event/s.

Unless BF has continuously interbred with H. Sapens Sapiens up to the present day, 100% human mtDNA doesnt make sense (unless there is contamination).

Having said all that and re-reading what Meldrum says about the DNA, it seems far from clear that the BF mtDNA is 100% human - there are anomalies with the sample.


Thats a Hypothetical of someone trying to disprove mtDNA

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/evolution/ligers-and-hybrid-fertility-t4453.html

But consider this hypothetical.

Female lion mates with a male tiger.
A fertile female liger is born with lion mtDNA.
Female liger then mates with a tiger, and all the offspring have lion mtDNA.
Eventually through continued tiger mating, the lion DNA is diluted, but there would still be an unchanged Lion mtDNA in the Tiger lineage.

That's the weakness of mtDNA evidence, as it is possible for two populations to share a common mtDNA, but almost nothing else DNA related. Y chromosome evidence also has the same weakness.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:05 am

CMcMillan wrote:So if the Female was Human the mtdna would indicate Human.

At he point of hybridisation, yes.

If the Matilda footage is legitimate and she was the source of the DNA the implication is that her father was a BF and her mother was human. However according to the video and written description she does not look anything like a first generation hybrid.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:07 am

Human mitochondrial genetics is the study of the genetics of human mitochondrial DNA (the DNA contained in human mitochondria). The human mitochondrial genome is the entirety of hereditary information contained in human mitochondria. Mitochondria are small structures in cells that generate energy for the cell to use, and are hence referred to as the "powerhouses" of the cell.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is not transmitted through nuclear DNA (nDNA). In humans, as in most multicellular organisms, mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother's ovum. There are theories, however, that paternal mtDNA transmission in humans can occur in certain circumstances.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_genetics
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:08 am

Woodwose wrote:
CMcMillan wrote:So if the Female was Human the mtdna would indicate Human.

At he point of hybridisation, yes.

If the Matilda footage is legitimate and she was the source of the DNA the implication is that her father was a BF and her mother was human. However according to the video and written description she does not look anything like a first generation hybrid.

and the mtdna would still show as Human if in past their decendents had Bread with Human,
Its how we are able to trace where we are as human beings.

mtdna is used to trace our orgin to "EVE"
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:12 am

Look its not that dificult.
Even the syfy show Battlestar Galactica explained in the last episode of "MtEVE" that they were able to trace our ancestory to her. via Mtdna.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:20 am

CMcMillan wrote:and the mtdna would still show as Human if in past their decendents had Bread with Human,
Its how we are able to trace where we are as human beings.

mtdna is used to trace our orgin to "EVE"

If mtDNA did not change, every species on the planet would share the same mtDNA.

When it comes to tracing our ancestry and relatedness to other species through mtDNA, scientists look for markers that we have in common with one another and other species. And because mtDNA changes over time we can estimate when various species branched off from another.

Without changes occurring in mtDNA none if this would be possible.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:21 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of modern humans. In other words, she was the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother's side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart.

Each ancestor (of people now living) in the line back to the matrilineal MRCA had female contemporaries such as sisters, female cousins, etc. and some of these female contemporaries may have descendants living now (with one or more males in their descendancy line). But none of the female contemporaries of the "Mitochondrial Eve" has descendants living now in an unbroken female line.


Without a DNA sample, it is not possible to reconstruct the complete genetic makeup (genome) of any individual who died very long ago. By analysing descendants' DNA, however, parts of ancestral genomes are estimated by scientists. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y-chromosome DNA are commonly used to trace ancestry in this manner. mtDNA is generally along the maternal line, or matrilineally.[6][7] Matrilineal descent goes back to our mothers, to their mothers, until all female lineages converge.

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BELOW:
mtDNA is generally passed un-mixed from mothers to children of both sexes, along the maternal line, or matrilineally

So you are now claiming science is wrong that mtDNA is generally un-mixed?


Last edited by CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:25 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:24 am

Yes, ancestry is traced via mtDNA, but not because it remaines unchanged - but rather because it does change.

If BF interbred with humans 15,000 years ago the species would no longer have 100% human mtDNA (just a select number of common sequences).
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:25 am

mtDNA is generally passed un-mixed from mothers to children of both sexes, along the maternal line, or matrilineally

you aren't even reading what science says mtDNA is and how it works.

Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the Biblical Eve.[5] The reference to Eve may lead to the misconception that she was the only living female of her time, even though she co-existed with other females. However, her female contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to every woman living in the present day.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  DPinkerton on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:30 am

Bigfoot is the result of interbreeding between species....not an entirely new species having evolved from a different genus. I think you are failing to see how that would work. Bigfoot is not a different step in the evolutionary ladder...it is a hybridization.

DPinkerton

Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum