(Image source: LiveScience)
BY STEVEN SPARKMAN
ANCHOR ZACH TOOMBS
Bigfoot believers are sometimes the butt of jokes, but are they about to have the last laugh?
The mythical creature has been caught on blurry video after blurry video, like the famous Patterson-Gimlin film, but hard evidence remains hard to come by. (Via Wikipedia)
Now, though, Melba Ketchum, a geneticist working in Texas, claims to have sequenced bigfoot’s DNA. No, really.
No official word on where the samples came from, but the bigfoot blogosphere says it was saliva from a half-eaten blueberry bagel.
Her study looked at mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria are a small organelle in cells that have their own genetic code, passed down by the mother. (Video via YouTube / XVIVOanimation)
Ketchum says her analysis shows bigfoot’s mitochondrial DNA matches humans. What does that mean? Well, according to Ketchum, human women interbred with some unknown primate to produce the bigfoot race, sometime in the last 15,000 years. No, really.
Her press release ends by calling for the creature’s protection, saying: “Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights...”
So does this mean it’s official: sasquatches exist and were born when human women mated with some unknown animal? Well, for the moment, no. The actual study hasn’t been published.
But skeptics are already tearing into Ketchum’s claims. A writer for LiveScience says if mitochondrial DNA matches humans, it COULD be due to interbreeding, or:
“The samples were contaminated. Whatever the sample originally was ... it's possible that the people who collected and handled the specimens accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough.”
And well-known skeptic Steven Novella points out if the mysterious primate’s DNA is so different from ours, breeding an entire hybrid race is pretty much impossible.
“Humans could not breed with our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, or any living ape. … The bottom line is this – human DNA plus some anomalies or unknowns does not equal an impossible human-ape hybrid. It equals human DNA plus some anomalies.”
And it’s not just the non-believers who take issue with Ketchum’s findings. Another bigfoot writer tells the Yakima-Herald, there’s a faction of bigfoot hunters who believe the elusive beast is an ape, and isn’t related to humans. Ketchum’s story reportedly has them “totally up in arms.”
“There’s so much personal psychology involved here — people who have staked their reputation on (Sasquatch) being ape that they can’t back away from that.”
But there’s one thing all the skeptics have in common — they say it’s all speculation until the study comes out, and there’s no word when that will be. A writer for the Houston Chronicle says that’s a little fishy.
“Real research scientists almost never pre-announce their research findings. That is, they don’t go public with big news until it has been vetted by peer reviewers … In effect she is using the mantle of science to confer credibility on her discovery, without actually deserving the credibility. That’s a big no-no.”
It’s possible Ketchum’s study is airtight and will answer all the skeptics’ questions. No, really. And if not, well, maybe Animal Planet camera crews will do the job.
“Oh! Well, that’s a... That’s a rodent, there.”
Or maybe not.
(Image source: LiveScience)
BY STEVEN SPARKMAN
ANCHOR ZACH TOOMBS
Bigfoot believers are sometimes the butt of jokes, but are they about to have the last laugh?
The mythical creature has been caught on blurry video after blurry video, like the famous Patterson-Gimlin film, but hard evidence remains hard to come by. (Via Wikipedia)
Now, though, Melba Ketchum, a geneticist working in Texas, claims to have sequenced bigfoot’s DNA. No, really.
No official word on where the samples came from, but the bigfoot blogosphere says it was saliva from a half-eaten blueberry bagel.
Her study looked at mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria are a small organelle in cells that have their own genetic code, passed down by the mother. (Video via YouTube / XVIVOanimation)
Ketchum says her analysis shows bigfoot’s mitochondrial DNA matches humans. What does that mean? Well, according to Ketchum, human women interbred with some unknown primate to produce the bigfoot race, sometime in the last 15,000 years. No, really.
Her press release ends by calling for the creature’s protection, saying: “Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights...”
So does this mean it’s official: sasquatches exist and were born when human women mated with some unknown animal? Well, for the moment, no. The actual study hasn’t been published.
But skeptics are already tearing into Ketchum’s claims. A writer for LiveScience says if mitochondrial DNA matches humans, it COULD be due to interbreeding, or:
“The samples were contaminated. Whatever the sample originally was ... it's possible that the people who collected and handled the specimens accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough.”
And well-known skeptic Steven Novella points out if the mysterious primate’s DNA is so different from ours, breeding an entire hybrid race is pretty much impossible.
“Humans could not breed with our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, or any living ape. … The bottom line is this – human DNA plus some anomalies or unknowns does not equal an impossible human-ape hybrid. It equals human DNA plus some anomalies.”
And it’s not just the non-believers who take issue with Ketchum’s findings. Another bigfoot writer tells the Yakima-Herald, there’s a faction of bigfoot hunters who believe the elusive beast is an ape, and isn’t related to humans. Ketchum’s story reportedly has them “totally up in arms.”
“There’s so much personal psychology involved here — people who have staked their reputation on (Sasquatch) being ape that they can’t back away from that.”
But there’s one thing all the skeptics have in common — they say it’s all speculation until the study comes out, and there’s no word when that will be. A writer for the Houston Chronicle says that’s a little fishy.
“Real research scientists almost never pre-announce their research findings. That is, they don’t go public with big news until it has been vetted by peer reviewers … In effect she is using the mantle of science to confer credibility on her discovery, without actually deserving the credibility. That’s a big no-no.”
It’s possible Ketchum’s study is airtight and will answer all the skeptics’ questions. No, really. And if not, well, maybe Animal Planet camera crews will do the job.
“Oh! Well, that’s a... That’s a rodent, there.”
Or maybe not.
