Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Socio

Sasquatch DNA Study Announcement

275 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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... :tu: 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh... :tu: 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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on the DNA;

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

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :whistle:

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~~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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like jtheat may now finally find vindication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like jtheat may now finally find vindication.

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that someone thinks they can answer the question, the answer is "I don't know"? Part human part something?

WOW, glad all that testing was done. The professionalism is.............. nonexistent.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey evan! Long time no debate, still "squatchin"? I'll wait for Dr.Sykes report, not to sure about Dr. Ketchum. I guess we'll see....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see your still kicken Stardrive. Yes I'm still looking for any sign of the big guy every chance I get, still haven't found anything.

I think that's a good call Stardrive. Sykes seems like he's mentally stable at least, and his professional credentials makes Ketchum's look like akindergartner's.

I'm sure Sykes will show Ketchum how real scientist do this sort of thing. I hear his timeline is only a couple of months to wrap things up and publish his findings in December. Make one wonder whats taking Ketchum so long.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nov. 27, 2012: Researcher Dr. Melba S. Ketchum claims that a hybrid species commonly called "Bigfoot" or "Sasquatch" should be recognized as indigenous people and must have their human and Constitutional rights protected.

Video interview: http://www.click2houston.com/news/Does-Bigfoot-have-human-DNA/-/1735978/17568802/-/5pkab/-/index.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Bigfoot is just about the only creature man has not been able to interfere with, so we should just leave it that way. Others include werewolves, yeti, leprechauns, chupacabras and so on.

Edited by 27vet
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~~~note typed in redneck editing~~

for ****s and giggles has any one tryed jacklinks to catch a big foot yet? just kidding but i think my kid had the best andswer to whats the other part of big foots dna

part human..... part woolybooger.... but then she looks at me and says dad your crazy yeah okay maybe so but i dont see her leaveing the deer meat alone on the eating table when dinner time comes lol on a side note here theres a post about human giants on here an the idea hit me as im shure with a few others couldnt "bigfoot" be a other wise just a giant human that some how has survived through out the years as a race of humans that once walked the earth then at some point desided to turn their backs on keeping up with the modern times well back then of corse but still would be concidered modern times wait when was the wheel carved out err beat out? any ways could be a possabilty just saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She refuses to release any data for independent verification.

She'll milk this for all the publicity she can, then we'll learn that it was just bad science, or no science at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is egotistical of me as a member of the human race, but I hate the idea of a human having sex with a primate. (Yes, I know we are all primates, but a non-human pri mate and a human mating is very creepy.) I personally don't like the idea. I still think she should release her findings if she really has something. The fact that she won't is it a little suspicious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see your still kicken Stardrive. Yes I'm still looking for any sign of the big guy every chance I get, still haven't found anything.

My computer croaked but I'm still above ground. Nothing yet eh? No luck here either :whistle: Good to see you're still around Evan.

I think that's a good call Stardrive. Sykes seems like he's mentally stable at least, and his professional credentials makes Ketchum's look like akindergartner's.

I'm sure Sykes will show Ketchum how real scientist do this sort of thing. I hear his timeline is only a couple of months to wrap things up and publish his findings in December. Make one wonder whats taking Ketchum so long.

I'm waiting to see what Dr.Sykes finds. From what I understand he has more samples and they have the proper providence. I beginning to wonder if the peroxide hadn't leaked into Dr.Ketchums brain... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is egotistical of me as a member of the human race, but I hate the idea of a human having sex with a primate.

We had a fascinating discussion about that subject but the thread got closed:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=217343&hl=%20sex%20%20with%20%20bigfoot&st=0

Edited by Sweetpumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Male Nephilim/annunaka + human female = bigfoot. explains the years the things been playing around in my deer trails, and they said I was crazy! ;P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might have been answered already and if so Im sorry but what is needed for DNA?, is it just a hair, because I know you can get it from blood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might have been answered already and if so Im sorry but what is needed for DNA?, is it just a hair, because I know you can get it from blood

Hair, cheek swab, blood, etc.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.