Posted by: Guy Edwards on March 28th, 2013
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.
Psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic.