norseman Posted December 1, 2024 Admin Posted December 1, 2024 5 hours ago, hvhart said: Neanderthal differs from human in this 220 base region by one mutation, chimp by 10 mutations. So chimp is definitely distantly related, but Neanderthal and my samples (with one mutation each) are closely related to the modern reference sequence. Can you tell in what areas the differences are?
guyzonthropus Posted December 1, 2024 Author Posted December 1, 2024 I still hold that sasquatch represent an amalgam of pre-sapiens hominid that made it over the Bering straight in time to get caught up in the selective factors that brought about the north American megafauna, and through their hominid cognition used both cooperative behaviors and a generalists omnivorous diet to survive first the mega predators and then the Younger-Dryas extinction event. Although I suppose there could be some sapiens mixed in. "Hey, dja see that cute little hairless dwarf that just crossed the land bridge? "
Huntster Posted December 1, 2024 Posted December 1, 2024 23 minutes ago, guyzonthropus said: I still hold that sasquatch represent an amalgam of pre-sapiens hominid that made it over the Bering straight in time to get caught up in the selective factors that brought about the north American megafauna............ What era would that have been? How long ago?
hvhart Posted December 1, 2024 Posted December 1, 2024 18 hours ago, norseman said: Can you tell in what areas the differences are? 12S rRNA positions 880-1100. See my slide with the mutations.
guyzonthropus Posted December 3, 2024 Author Posted December 3, 2024 I would think mid to late Pleistocene, though I'm not sure at what point those specific selective factors would have began to have a diminished impact. 1
Popular Post Darby Orcutt Posted January 7 Popular Post Posted January 7 On 11/10/2024 at 10:27 AM, wiiawiwb said: I've thought the same for years. Perhaps all of the human contamination or unknown primate results are each a dead end but in the interest of finding the truth it seems logical to keep test results where they can be accessed at a later date. All (eventually) of my results will be made openly available. I have also reached out to investigate every case of alleged "human... or unknown primate results" that I have heard of, over many years. @MIB used above the word "lore" to describe these results - and that is overwhelmingly what such results appear to be. In most cases, I have found that the DNA tests that supposedly had these results were not even conducted. Todd Disotell did conduct many analyses, some with "human" results, but did not retain any data. IIRC, Sykes (at least, for what he published) did not receive any results of this nature. The one thing the Ketchum folks did correctly was finally share their data - which is why we know that their conclusions are completely wrong, as @hvhart did the Herculean task of reanalyzing everything (I independently reanalyzed much of their data and my analyses concur with Hart's species identifications 100%). I know of only two other DNA tests with such "odd" results that appear to have actually been completed on North American samples, but the sequences were never shared for either of them and have not been retained. If *anyone* has sequences or lab reports regarding the genetic analysis of alleged Sasquatch samples, please reach out to me - but I have come to think that we are indeed practically at square one not just for retaining sequences, but for even doing much generating of sequences to begin with (and I'm glad to be working to fill this gap). 2 3
NorCalWitness Posted January 7 Posted January 7 13 hours ago, Darby Orcutt said: All (eventually) of my results will be made openly available. I have also reached out to investigate every case of alleged "human... or unknown primate results" that I have heard of, over many years. @MIB used above the word "lore" to describe these results - and that is overwhelmingly what such results appear to be. In most cases, I have found that the DNA tests that supposedly had these results were not even conducted. Todd Disotell did conduct many analyses, some with "human" results, but did not retain any data. IIRC, Sykes (at least, for what he published) did not receive any results of this nature. The one thing the Ketchum folks did correctly was finally share their data - which is why we know that their conclusions are completely wrong, as @hvhart did the Herculean task of reanalyzing everything (I independently reanalyzed much of their data and my analyses concur with Hart's species identifications 100%). I know of only two other DNA tests with such "odd" results that appear to have actually been completed on North American samples, but the sequences were never shared for either of them and have not been retained. If *anyone* has sequences or lab reports regarding the genetic analysis of alleged Sasquatch samples, please reach out to me - but I have come to think that we are indeed practically at square one not just for retaining sequences, but for even doing much generating of sequences to begin with (and I'm glad to be working to fill this gap). The Sasquatch community is a toxic hellhole of charlatans, hucksters, dimwits and insane people. We do not deserve you. We are very blessed to have your attention on this phenomenon. Thank you for your work. Looking forward to seeing what evolves from it.
hvhart Posted January 7 Posted January 7 14 hours ago, Darby Orcutt said: All (eventually) of my results will be made openly available. I have also reached out to investigate every case of alleged "human... or unknown primate results" that I have heard of, over many years. @MIB used above the word "lore" to describe these results - and that is overwhelmingly what such results appear to be. In most cases, I have found that the DNA tests that supposedly had these results were not even conducted. Todd Disotell did conduct many analyses, some with "human" results, but did not retain any data. IIRC, Sykes (at least, for what he published) did not receive any results of this nature. The one thing the Ketchum folks did correctly was finally share their data - which is why we know that their conclusions are completely wrong, as @hvhart did the Herculean task of reanalyzing everything (I independently reanalyzed much of their data and my analyses concur with Hart's species identifications 100%). I know of only two other DNA tests with such "odd" results that appear to have actually been completed on North American samples, but the sequences were never shared for either of them and have not been retained. If *anyone* has sequences or lab reports regarding the genetic analysis of alleged Sasquatch samples, please reach out to me - but I have come to think that we are indeed practically at square one not just for retaining sequences, but for even doing much generating of sequences to begin with (and I'm glad to be working to fill this gap). Thank you, Darby, for attempting to get us on track. It just takes better organization, record keeping and communication on top of good science. Best of luck! 1
Recommended Posts