Sasquatch Coffee


Bigfoot Origins: Hybrid or Mutant?

Posted by: Guy Edwards on March 28th, 2013

Bigfoot Lunch Club


Possible Bigfoot Origins can be summed up in two words: Hybrid or Mutant

“We used to think that mutations occurred individually and slowly over time, but fossil evidence suggests that new species pop up fast, driven by gene pool isolation, and then stabilize with population increase.” –¬†Anthony Ciani, UIC condensed matter physicist

Bigfoot Lunch Club has been waiting for Dr. Melba Ketchum to contact us to no avail. It is a shame, without Melba Ketchum’s input, it is hard to provide a balanced take on her research. Today may be as close as we can get. Anthony Ciani tells us he was introduced to Melba Ketchum earlier this year, January of 2013. When he was asked to be a guest editor for the journal in which her paper would be published.

Mr. Ciani brings up some interesting points based on Melba Ketchum’s paper regarding the possible origins of Bigfoot.

There are two clear possibilities for the origin of bigfoots: hybrid or mutant. The mtDNA is fully consistent with known human sequences (given a base pair or two). The maternal lineage is, without a doubt, H. sapiens sapiens. Even more interesting, is that the oldest mtDNA sequence found was from about 15,000 ybp, while the youngest was only a few thousand years old, if that. This means that bigfoots have been continuously splitting from or interbreeding with normal humans since about 15,000 ybp until rather recently. The problem with the hybrid idea is that if bigfoots are a cross between humans and some closely related hominid (Homo X), then they probably would have breed with Homo X, and we should find unknown mtDNA from Homo X; but there is not, at least, not in the bigfoots from which samples were collected. Some people might think that the Homo X chromosome 11 and human chromosome 11 should still be distinctly identifiable, but chromosomal crossover could have mixed them together, turning a heterogeneous hybrid into a homogeneous race.

The other option is that bigfoots originated as a mutation from H. sapiens sapiens. We used to think that mutations occurred individually and slowly over time, but fossil evidence suggests that new species pop up fast, driven by gene pool isolation, and then stabilize with population increase. There was a global disruption about 15,000 ybp, and it is quite possible that bigfoots are cold-adapted humans. Given their physical features, they do seem to be dark skinned and negroid, which were the predominant human traits until about 6,000 ybp (when human skin color lightened in the north). Add in the hair and size, and you have a bigfoot. Throw in a bit of racism, and you have perpetual segregation. Given the broad range of physical descriptions, bigfoots may still be mutating. Bigfoots may have been even smarter in the past, and if Gerald Crabtree is correct, both they and us may be getting even less smart. Intelligence is not the objective of evolution; survival is, and evolution may have us all giant and hairy, running around in the woods. — Anthony Ciani, UIC condensed matter physicist

Either way they are a type of people. I have both theories in the paper. Dr. Ciani is correct, I was told to take the theory out and then told to put it back in so it was a no win situation. He is also right in that we weren’t trying to prove what the progenitor was, just that they existed and what their DNA shows. We did that quite handily.Dr. Melba Ketchum

Read the entirety of what Mr. Ciani has to say at Bigfoot Lunch Club.

Guy Edwards About Guy Edwards
Psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic.


9 Responses to “Bigfoot Origins: Hybrid or Mutant?”

  1. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

    Dark skinned and “negroid” up to 6,000 years ago? That seems like a weird claim, especially if some other primate crossed the Bering Strait from Asia along with our species. And there were already complex civilizations by then, all over the globe, weren’t there, some of whose artwork survives today? Are there a lot of depictions of “negroid” humans, perhaps excepting Enkidu? Can someone clarify for this humble mind?

  2. DWA responds:

    “Hybrid or mutant”?

    I suppose that all species could be considered either one of those to some extent. Speciation, after all, is supposed to be the result of random mutations that just happen to have enhanced survival value.

    But I think we are well short of talking about this. Confirming the animal is the first step in the discussion.

  3. DWA responds:

    “Many skeptics have claimed that the “scientific community” would consider all good evidence seriously, but what Ketchum discovered was an abundant mix of knee-jerk ridicule and institutional cowardice, in both the attempted collaborations and in publishing the paper. The “scientific community” has been very childish in this endeavor.”

    That much is right on. As to the general topic, not Ketchum’s paper specifically.

  4. semillama responds:

    Yeah, that statement was fishy as well. Note this guy isn’t an evolutionary biologist either. Native Americans have been in North America for much longer than 6,000 years, and many of them are relatively light-skinned – and look at many Asiatic people as well. Heck, Cro-Magnons were likely light-skinned and they go back about 50,000 years, give or take a few zeros. Blue eyes evolved about 10,000 years ago. The term “Negroid” is also problematic, as it’s considered offensive by many and tied to outdated concepts of race.

    Plus, it doesn’t take into account what appears to be a completely different foot morphology, from casts of footprints that show what seems to be a mid-tarsal break. If I recall correctly, this is taken by some to indicate a separate evolution of full bipedalism.

    For the record, I still think the likeliest explanation for Ketchum’s results is that Ketchum’s samples were contaminated. The analysis needs to be reproduced by a different research using different equipment and strict protocols to avoid contamination. Unfortunately, there were no contamination controls in effect when the actual samples were taken, which really puts their provenience into question.

  5. Alamo responds:

    Right you are Poetics…

    Egyptian art from 4000 BC clearly shows a distinction between north African and sub Saharan humans… with sub Saharan showing more Negroid traits and north African showing more of a Mediterranean cast.

  6. Goodfoot responds:

    PoeticsOfBigfoot: Earth changes may have made evidence of ancient civilizations truly hard to find. Alternatively, they may be virtually in plain view and not recognized.

    Not that long ago it was believed all migration to the Americas occurred after the last ice age retreated. Then remains of Clovis Man were found in New Mexico, and proved pre-last ice age migration. Then Clovis Man remains and artifacts were shortly found in numerous locations, including the Carolinas. Many were in more or less plain view, but were not recognized because “they weren’t supposed to be there”. So it’s true that we have to believe in something before we can see it. Like the Indians who couldn’t “see” Columbus’ ships anchored just offshore.

  7. Surveyor responds:

    More recently, Solutrean artifact, mostly points, have been found from Maryland to Virginia along the coast (even inland in places), dating as early as 29,000 ybp. One hand axe at one of these finds was analyzed and found to be made from flint that is only found in a certain region in France.

    Source:
    New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America
    .
    Keys, D. (2012, February 28)
    Retrieved October 11, 2012, from The Independent

    The term “negroid” is very much alive and well-used in the fields of anthropology and archaeology. It is primarily used to assign race to remains, either fossilized (at dig sites, etc.) or by forensic anthropologists on more recent remains that must be identified by cranial features. The common terms used are negroid, mongoloid, and caucasoid, though those definite identifications are becoming increasingly more difficult as interracial marriages are becoming more and more common. I imagine that ID by cranial features will eventually be relegated to paleo and historical anthropology, while modern forensics will rely more and more on DNA evidence.

  8. jayman responds:

    Has anybody considered genetic engineering?

  9. Goodfoot responds:

    jayman: It’s worth consideration, but certainly not with any current data set (whatever that may be).

    It’s WAY too early in the game to propose this seriously, in the present era of shape-shifting UFO alien Bigfoot theories.

    Which is not to say it couldn’t be true, about your theory, if it is such, or any other thesis. There is not enough data, period.

    I suppose they could be shape-shifting encyclopedia salesmen, but we don’t know.

    I think they are flesh-and-blood humanoids, not apes. PEOPLE, in short, but most people won’t accept that, either. Personally, I don’t really need to know precisely what they are. I’ll always have my experience, and that’s probably going to have to be good enough for me.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.