Leaderboard

To TBRC and anyone who supports them, You guys should be ashamed not proud. First off you guys aren't military, you didn't have an "operation" you went and sat in the woods, and "bravo team", "foxtrot team", that just sounds silly. Congrats you guys managed to open fire on a rare creature who is probably more human than you, yep your group rocks! Now let's look at what this wounded BF has probably dealt with, first a painful gunshot wound, it's probably now infected or gangrenous and if it's still alive is suffering greatly and it's family doesn't know what to do. Wow you have drops of blood, now they can be tested and the results can be inconclusive or human, another dead end! All to be the first to "get the body" at the expense of a poor BF that wants to be left alone. TBRC use a camera not a gun, and before you sleep at night think about how much pain and agony you caused this poor creature, and for what?

I am not even sure what you think I I think it said. The implication seems pretty simple to me. It increases survival so it is selected for. That is why the inclusion of two facts that haplogroup H is now more common and yet one of the newest. The main theme of the study was that it increased survival. The fact that correlation doesn't always prove causation is why I said "may be selected for as some seem to be" in the following quote. They only talked about one cause so the implication seems obvious. I don't buy that there wouldn't be independent gene flow that didn't include haplogroup H so the implied selection pressure from increased survival seems like a logical deduction to me. There are always alternative possible causes and I wasn't sure they eliminated them which is the only reason I qualified it with "seem to be". There is no question that some mitochondria are selected for. That was just an extreme example. If they weren't, there wouldn't be such a thing as mtDNA specific to a species. They would evolve independently like species do. Species only very rarely start with two animals. Our mitochondria indicates that our species is only very roughly 200,000 years old based on when we all share a single common ancestor yet there were many ancestor 200,000 years ago. The other mitochondria were logically lost by selection. It is simple biology that I was talking about. Natural selection increases the frequency of some traits. Founder effects can amplify that effect. I was giving the range from practically zero modern human nuDNA in a population to 100 percent if it is an evolved modern human. The "quite a lot" example was meant to imply anything in between. That sounds more like argument from incredulity. I don't know where your implication for a stable population comes from. I didn't claim to know the percentage of bigfoot that share the same mtDNA or how much variation is found in them. I don't get the reason to include "stable population" since I didn't imply it. Stable is just a relative thing. Populations don't stop evolving. I was just giving the possible explanation for them to have a high percentage of the same mtDNA. It just seemed like something that a lot of people would have a problem accepting without understanding how it could happen. If they didn't have modern human mtDNA and logically at least a small amount of modern human nuDNA, this would should be a whole lot simpler to prove assuming valid DNA to start with.