Ketchum DNA Paper?

DPinkerton wrote:

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

Huh? "human bigfoot"?

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.

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

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".

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

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.

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.

.......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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

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"

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.

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.