274 replies to this topic

[DieChecker]

No known relation to apes, neanderthal of primitive hominids? That leads directly to... Aliens?

Anyway, if the mtDNA is entirely human then there is no Female Bigfoot bloodline, right? Somewhere back in time, a male proto-bigfoot breed with a human. Making a hybrid race that somehow became stable. (Maybe by further hybridization with more humans?) A range of percentages of human blood would explain why some bigfoots are 10 feet tall, others are 8 feet tall, and some are 6 feet tall. Might also explain the various differences in footprint morphology and such. This could open up the Discussion to all kinds of "What if"s.

Betcha someone tries to tag the hybridization onto..... Gigantopithicus? That way the "giganto lovers" and the "human=Bigfoot" will both be right. They mentioned that they compared the DNA to ape, ancient humans, but not to ancient apes.

[cormac mac airt]

15,000 years ago the only hominin species left was us. So any group that broke off that far back were modern humans to begin with. And at that point in time modern humans were migrating into the Americas while there is no evidence of a pre-existing group of hominins here.

cormac

[DieChecker]

cormac mac airt, on 27 November 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

15,000 years ago the only hominin species left was us. So any group that broke off that far back were modern humans to begin with. And at that point in time modern humans were migrating into the Americas while there is no evidence of a pre-existing group of hominins here.

cormac

That we know of.... Dun, dun, duuuuuunnnnnn!!!

[cormac mac airt]

DieChecker, on 27 November 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

That we know of.... Dun, dun, duuuuuunnnnnn!!!

Eurasians share 1% - 4% autosomal DNA with Neanderthals, yet significantly different mtDNA from them but we are supposed to believe that the Bigfoot hybrid is reversed. I'm not buying it.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 27 November 2012 - 10:00 PM.

[DieChecker]

cormac mac airt, on 27 November 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Eurasians share 1% - 4% autosomal DNA with Neanderthals, yet significantly different mtDNA from them but we are supposed to believe that the Bigfoot hybrid is reversed. I'm not buying it.

cormac

So, modern human mtDNA has some neanderthal mtDNA in it? Wouldn't that mean that there are male and female neanderthals in the modern human ancestory? If only male neanderthals had shopped around, then wouldn't there be zero neanderthal mtDNA in modern human mtDNA?

So what they are saying is possible, but not terribly likely? Even if it is one in a billion chance, stranger things have happened.

Several of the articles have stated that such a hybrid would be sterile, like a mule. Yet not all mules are sterile. Some female mules are fertile. However no fertile male mules have ever been recorded, so no Mule self propogating species has ever been started.

From what I understand the same is true of Lion-Tiger and PolarBear-BrownBear hybrids. Some few are fertile.

[cormac mac airt]

DieChecker, on 27 November 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

So, modern human mtDNA has some neanderthal mtDNA in it? Wouldn't that mean that there are male and female neanderthals in the modern human ancestory? If only male neanderthals had shopped around, then wouldn't there be zero neanderthal mtDNA in modern human mtDNA?

So what they are saying is possible, but not terribly likely? Even if it is one in a billion chance, stranger things have happened.

Several of the articles have stated that such a hybrid would be sterile, like a mule. Yet not all mules are sterile. Some female mules are fertile. However no fertile male mules have ever been recorded, so no Mule self propogating species has ever been started.

From what I understand the same is true of Lion-Tiger and PolarBear-BrownBear hybrids. Some few are fertile.

No. Neanderthals have separate mtDNA from HSS. It's the autosomal/or nuclear DNA that Eurasians share a small percentage of. This is DNA that is shared by both parental lines. Since we don't share the mtDNA of Neanderthals this suggests that it was a Neanderthal male/HSS female mating pair or pairs that were responsible for the small percentage we share. Which further means that in the case of an alleged Bigfoot hybrid the female line would have to have always been HSS since the alleged testing results turned up HSS. And while you're right that not all mules are sterile, there's also no evidence that the HSS Y Chromosome DNA was modified in any way during either of the above events, Neanderthal/HSS or Bigfoot/HSS. Which means that even "IF" such occurred, it died out rather quickly and was never passed on to modern generations.

cormac

[DieChecker]

cormac mac airt, on 27 November 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

No. Neanderthals have separate mtDNA from HSS. It's the autosomal/or nuclear DNA that Eurasians share a small percentage of. This is DNA that is shared by both parental lines. Since we don't share the mtDNA of Neanderthals this suggests that it was a Neanderthal male/HSS female mating pair or pairs that were responsible for the small percentage we share. Which further means that in the case of an alleged Bigfoot hybrid the female line would have to have always been HSS since the alleged testing results turned up HSS. And while you're right that not all mules are sterile, there's also no evidence that the HSS Y Chromosome DNA was modified in any way during either of the above events, Neanderthal/HSS or Bigfoot/HSS. Which means that even "IF" such occurred, it died out rather quickly and was never passed on to modern generations.

cormac

Ahhh...   OK. Thanks for answering about that.

I'll remember that bit about the neanderthal mtDNA to toss at people later.

Does that mean probably most of the neanderthal DNA in our genome is female in nature?

[QuiteContrary]

Humans mated with other species including what are called Denisovans, which are not Neanderthals.

Even today similar species may interbreed: Bears, lions/tigers, and different baboons. I can see the mating and gestation and birthing compatibilities.

But my question is, how does a human female bear and birth the off-spring of a giant species to result in a bigfoot species? This creature is huge, with a huge shoulder/chest span. I had a cesarean, it ended up my son's chest circumference was larger than his head. Thankfully, he wasn't going anywhere on his own.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 28 November 2012 - 02:39 AM.

[QuiteContrary]

FurthurBB, on 27 November 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Well, this sample was collected by some well known bigfoot hunter who sent it to three independent labs for testing. I do not think the sample origin is in question and it appears that the person who collected it believes it to be from bigfoot.  The problem is that the mitochondrial DNA is completely modern human and the nuclear DNA is part human and part unknown animal.  To say it was actually hybrid they would need to exclude all possible contamination and identify the unknown DNA.  Since mtDNA is easy to get from hair and I am assuming this is a hair sample and nuDNA degrades quickly in hair, the most obvious answer is that this is a sample of human hair.  I am curious to see what the other labs have to say.  It seems extremely unlikely to me that a modern human woman mated with an unknown primate male sometime after the time of neanderthals and produced a fertile offspring that has been roaming the forests of North America ever since.

bolding mine

Yes, the sample is in question. Not only because of the bigfoot hunter's wild story, but also until further verification...standard scientific procedures...review... and replication of results are satisfactory for mainstream science.

[cormac mac airt]

DieChecker, on 28 November 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

Ahhh...   OK. Thanks for answering about that.

I'll remember that bit about the neanderthal mtDNA to toss at people later.

Does that mean probably most of the neanderthal DNA in our genome is female in nature?

Remember, it's the autosomal/nuclear DNA that is shared and NOT the mtDNA. I have a feeling it's still confusing you a bit. Here's another way of understanding what I'm saying:

Y Chromosomal DNA from Neanderthal:  Either made male offspring sterile or in rare cases may have lasted for a short time in subsequent lineages but never made it to modern times.

Autosomal/Nuclear DNA from Neanderthal/Human offspring:  Is the shared 1% - 4% found in Eurasians, carried down to modern times.

MtDNA from Neanderthal/Human offspring:  ALWAYS carried down the line from an HSS female and not a Neanderthal line.

As to what gender one could consider the Neanderthal DNA found in our genome, it would probably be more accurate to consider it as 'neutral'.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 28 November 2012 - 03:04 AM.

[DieChecker]

cormac mac airt, on 28 November 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

Remember, it's the autosomal/nuclear DNA that is shared and NOT the mtDNA. I have a feeling it's still confusing you a bit. Here's another way of understanding what I'm saying:

I was wondering because you said you thought that the Y Chromosome was probably little affected, so that made me think perhaps most of the neanderthal expressed from the X Chromosome.

So it would be neutral in that both male and female have X Chromosomes?

[cormac mac airt]

DieChecker, on 28 November 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

I was wondering because you said you thought that the Y Chromosome was probably little affected, so that made me think perhaps most of the neanderthal expressed from the X Chromosome.

So it would be neutral in that both male and female have X Chromosomes?

It would be neutral, since it's autosomal/nuclear. Meaning it doesn't specifically, nor solely, come from the paternal or maternal side. So if you wanted to call it 'neutral' or 'both', I guess either would be just as accurate.

cormac

[Socio]

More on the DNA;

http://www.dailymail...an-females.html

Quote

Bigfoot is not only real and living among us, but he is a direct relative of man and had sex with human females 15,000 years ago - according to a new scientific study using 'real' DNA samples.

The report by Texan researcher Dr. Melba S. Ketchum is apparently the result of five years of work by her firm, DNA Diagnostics and concludes that the legendary Sasquatch is a missing link that arose approximately 15,000 years ago.

Quote

The 'nuclear DNA samples' - the blueprint that mixes genetic material of both parents, shows that bigfoot's have human nuclear DNA and 'novel hon-human sequence.'

'Genetically, the Sasquatch are a human hybrid with unambiguously modern human maternal ancestry,' Ketchum said in the statement.

Edited by Socio, 28 November 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[QuiteContrary]

Socio, on 28 November 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

More on the DNA;

http://www.dailymail...an-females.html



[/size]

How large/tall were we 15,000 years ago?

I would like to see the list of names and institutions backing all this up.

How many of you on UM think you  could write that list of names and institutions? Sight unseen.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 28 November 2012 - 11:50 AM.

[justcalmebubba]

~~On a sun shiny day  insert where  in a grassy feild there was a qute little bug minding it's own basking in the sun
Across the road  pecking  about a small group of chickens  and 1 chicken just happens to see the little bug fluttering  its wings
   So the chicken crossed the road to eat the nice tastey bug basking in the sun....
Sitting  by the creek just outside the the enchanted forest apon a big rock "bigfoot" looked up and saw the chicken cross the road
and with the sudden earge of hunger, "bigfoot" ever so softly leaps the creek and sneeks through the grassy feild....to eat the chicken that ate the bug
on a sun shiny day  ...
   Standing  on a hill  not far away was the person, "the would be hunter" who just just craped  their self seeing "bigfoot" comeing in their direction
while thay fumbled for the cammra wile trying to run away......
   ~~~chain of events and why theres never a clear pic of BIG FOOT~~~

Edited by justcalmebubba, 28 November 2012 - 01:13 PM.