Bigfoot Dna

[indiefoot]

Saskeptic, why do you make the assumption that there would be "reproductive isolation". If they were reproductively compatible 10 or 50 or 100 thoundsand years ago, why would that necessarily change because of hair or height.

Edited to add "necessarily"

Edited October 13, 2010 by indiefoot

[Drew]

Hi Vilnoori,

I think I see your point, so allow me to paraphrase and please correct me if I go astray.

As a hypothesis, you are suggesting that "bigfoot" may be in fact be modern Homo sapiens, but of a subspecies or race that has developed some form of gigantism and hairiness and completely eschewed technology? If so, I'm sure we can agree that the divergence between that form and the rest of us modern humans must have occurred some time ago, resulting in perhaps (at least) tens of thousands of years of reproductive isolation. Thus, I would expect that DNA from such individuals might come back "human" from only a very coarse test, as in "more human than this rhinoceros to which we compared it." But shouldn't a level of testing to distinguish between say chimps and humans be able to produce a result like "human, but really odd human"?

We know they are not human, based on alleged foot morphology. 10 or 20 thousand years would not be enough time to develop a completely different foot, with a Mid tarsal break like a gorilla. This would mean, they diverged from humans, then regressed back to Ape foot morphology within 20,000 years. No, I don't think they could be humans based on this fact alone. Am I correct in that Saskeptic? Wouldn't a completely different foot from a human indicate a separate species?

[Guest]

Jodie I'm not sure about the deceased relative idea, though at least they would be thinking human and going that route which would be good. Do you have to give a provenance/reason for a sample? Just leave it a mystery. I like the idea of saying it was on a native mask, or something, and you want to know if it is human, what type of human, or animal, or, it was on your damaged RV or property or something and you want to find the culprit. I don't know. lol

If I use the University of SC, I would have to give a reason, unknown genetic syndrome would be vague enough for them to refer for sequencing and they would use primers for human sequencing. That would cost more than $200.00. I could do like you suggested and split the sample up. If it doesn't run more than $200.00 per sample on average I think I could send it to 4 different labs using different reasons, if any was needed. I'm afraid I would get 4 different unknowns back. At least with sequencing they would be asking questions and looking further, and as you said, no bias since you haven't mentioned bigfoot. If you can assume it is as close to us as the great apes, that might not be a bad way to start. I just don't have a big old hair ball handy to send.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Jodie

[Guest parnassus]

Parnassus, I have seen what he has said about his testing of bigfoot samples, and it did not convince me he was on the level. He may be a specialist for testing primate DNA but I have no guarantee that he is as good with human mtDNA and Y-chromosome testing. He doesn't seem to combine his DNA testing (and just what test is it) with any other sort of test. If sasquatches exist and, based on foot morphology and other behaviour, they are actually a descendant of H. erectus, or H. sapiens neanderthalis, or simply some large undiscovered tribe of H. sapiens sapiens that happens to have giantism and be extra hirsuit, how can we distinguish them from modern populations? We have nothing at this point that says definitively what these creatures are. It all comes down to the preconceptions of the person doing the testing as to what tests to conduct, and his preconceptions seem to lie with a possible non-human great ape such as Giganto. He doesn't seem to be testing for anything else. And as for cost, well, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." And if there is, I would highly suspect it.

As far as I know with Dr. Ketchum, she got DNA results that pointed to human (as I would fully expect based on foot morphology from the tracks), and yet the hair morphology was way too large. That got her attention and she decided to investigate further.

Vil, with all due respect, you refer to genetic tests and testing in ways that make me suspect that you don't really have an informed idea of what is involved in species identification. If I might ask, what is your relevant educational background or training? Basically some anthropology? Do you really think that a forensic lab or a veterinarian is going to be better at identifying a "descendant of neanderthalis" than Todd Disotell?

I agree with you in one way, I think, in that what will inevitably come from all this is just human DNA and/or non primate DNA. That is what Ketchum has, as I have noted and you have noted. And I will go back to my prediction, that Ketchum and Paulides will try to sell you the idea that Bigfoot is a human "variant" ie homo sapiens sapiens and point to a few polymorphisms that make this DNA "different." As I mentioned previously, from a marketing point of view, this is brilliant, but from a scientific point of view, it is ridiculous. If you'd like know why it's ridiculous, you could ask Jeff Meldrum.

To summarize, I understand that you don't trust "science," but it really seems that your advice on lab selection is just based on that and not on any real knowledge of what they do.

[Drew]

Parnassus,

They can't say it is a H sapiens sapiens variant.

If they do, they will have to throw out ALL the footprint work that Jeff Meldrum has done.

That is not the foot of H. s. sapiens.

[Guest]

Saskeptic, why do you make the assumption that there would be "reproductive isolation". If they were reproductively compatible 10 or 50 or 100 thoundsand years ago, why would that necessarily change because of hair or height.

Sorry, I could've been more specific. There would have to be some degree of reproductive isolation to perpetuate the physical differences. Otherwise we'd expect those differences to be "bred out" of the bigfoots as they intermingled with humans who lacked those squatchy traits. If we are to assume that bigfoots breed with bigfoots and make baby bigfoots, and that this has been going on for a looooong time, then that represents reproductive isolation from the rest of us non-bigfoot Homo sapiens. The degree of genetic divergence between these two forms of humans should be readily apparent.

That divergence, however, does not have to mean that (eww) bigfoots and other humans cannot interbreed. In fact, we would assume that they could if we were to catalog bigfoot as a type of aberrant Homo sapiens.

Of course, there are some major anthropological, anatomical, and cultural obstacles to this idea. For example, any interpretation of bigfoot as some kind of human (sapiens, erectus, etc.) is problematic due to the lack of cultural artifacts associated with bigfoots. A Homo bigfoot ancestor would have been a skilled tool user and maker, and it's very difficult to conjure a scenario in which it would have been advantageous to get big and hairy whilst abandoning ages and ages of technological advancement.

[Guest parnassus]

We know they are not human, based on alleged foot morphology. 10 or 20 thousand years would not be enough time to develop a completely different foot, with a Mid tarsal break like a gorilla. This would mean, they diverged from humans, then regressed back to Ape foot morphology within 20,000 years. No, I don't think they could be humans based on this fact alone. Am I correct in that Saskeptic? Wouldn't a completely different foot from a human indicate a separate species?

Drew, everything that has been touted as lay or scientific knowledge about bigfoot shouts non-human. Yet Ketchum and Paulides are going to say that bigfoot is human with a few polymorphisms and unusual hair. It will be interesting to see the reaction, because it really means throwing out all of the accumulated Krantz, Bindernagel, Meldrum, Fahrenbach stuff, saying all that was ridiculous hoaxery and ignorance, and starting all over again, based on a Biscardi-like sideshow.

If Disotell ever gets ahold of the DNA, he'll tell you "Whoa, Nellie, wait a minute, that DNA is just normal for the offspring of a man from Northern Germany and a woman from Beijing."

It will make for some interesting Honobia Bigfoot Conferences, I'll say that. LOL.

Edited October 13, 2010 by parnassus

[Guest]

We know they are not human, based on alleged foot morphology. 10 or 20 thousand years would not be enough time to develop a completely different foot, with a Mid tarsal break like a gorilla.

Nor a saggital crest, nor a massive body frame, nor long arms, nor any of that bigfooty stuff. You're right that the alleged physical attributes of bigfoots indicate that they are quite anatomically distinct from Homo sapiens. But as long as we're special pleading, we can simply invoke punctuated equilibrium to account for dramatic change in a relatively short period of time.

[Guest parnassus]

We know they are not human, based on alleged foot morphology. 10 or 20 thousand years would not be enough time to develop a completely different foot, with a Mid tarsal break like a gorilla. This would mean, they diverged from humans, then regressed back to Ape foot morphology within 20,000 years. No, I don't think they could be humans based on this fact alone. Am I correct in that Saskeptic? Wouldn't a completely different foot from a human indicate a separate species?

Drew, everything that has been touted as lay or scientific knowledge about bigfoot shouts non-human. Yet Ketchum and Paulides are going to say that bigfoot is human with a few polymorphisms and unusual hair. It will be interesting to see the reaction, because it really means throwing out all of the accumulated Krantz, Bindernagel, Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Patterson, Freeman stuff, saying all those footprints, film, analysis, speculation, etc was ridiculous hoaxery and ignorance, and starting all over again, based on a Biscardi-like sideshow. Based on hearing him go ballistic when "humanity" was discussed, I'm guessing Meldrum will not go gently into that good night.

If Disotell ever gets ahold of the DNA, he'll tell you "Whoa, Nellie, wait a minute, that DNA is just normal for the offspring of a man from Northern Germany and a woman from Beijing."

It will make for some interesting Honobia Bigfoot Conferences, I'll say that. LOL. I'm stocking up on popcorn.

Edited October 13, 2010 by parnassus

[Drew]

Nor a saggital crest, nor a massive body frame, nor long arms, nor any of that bigfooty stuff. You're right that the alleged physical attributes of bigfoots indicate that they are quite anatomically distinct from Homo sapiens. But as long as we're special pleading, we can simply invoke punctuated equilibrium to account for dramatic change in a relatively short period of time.

Giving you punctuated equilibrium as the reason for the change, the change still equals a new species, correct?

In other words, if the change was so significant, including changed foot morphology, saggital crests, breasts protruding from the stomach, hair coverings, ability to detect infrared spectrum (wrt camera detection), this would be a distinct species, and claims of H. s. sapiens would be incorrect.

[Guest]

this would be a distinct species, and claims of H. s. sapiens would be incorrect.

Yes and no. There's a lot of apparent morphological divergence* between any of us and "Patty." By and large such differences would place us in different species, perhaps different genera. But I'm sure those more genetically inclined than myself could provide examples of tremendous morphological divergence within a species too, so it doesn't follow that the H.s.s. hypothesis is necessarily flawed from the get-go.

That said, if something like Patty was the same species as you and I , we would still expect it to be quite distinct genetically. Just because it's not different enough to be another species does not mean that it's not distinct enough to pop out as something unique in analysis.

*Of course, "Patty" isn't really that different from us. We know, for example, that her limb proportions, height, etc. fall into a normal human range. She looks hairy, she has big feet, and an oddly shaped head. Other than that how different is she really?

[Guest]

Of course, there are some major anthropological, anatomical, and cultural obstacles to this idea. For example, any interpretation of bigfoot as some kind of human (sapiens, erectus, etc.) is problematic due to the lack of cultural artifacts associated with bigfoots. A Homo bigfoot ancestor would have been a skilled tool user and maker, and it's very difficult to conjure a scenario in which it would have been advantageous to get big and hairy whilst abandoning ages and ages of technological advancement.

I guess you would assume that but I don't necessarily think technology has so much to do with intelligence as it does creativity. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't science say that with the Neanderthals, they didn't find any evidence of cave wall painting, adornment, that kind of thing despite the fact they had many other things in common with us before we absorbed them? I vaguely remember reading something about ochre and flowers found at a burial site but nothing else.

If the environment dictates anything to do with evolution, I can see how it might be better to be brawny than brainy. If any kind of major cataclysm happened today I could see bigfoot surviving better than we would. Our way of life is very fragile. I could even see us as an evolutionary dead end considering how physically ill adapted we are to live in Earth's environment without accessories.

[Guest]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't science say that with the Neanderthals, they didn't find any evidence of cave wall painting, adornment, that kind of thing despite the fact they had many other things in common with us before we absorbed them?

I don't know. I picture Neanderthals painting stuff, burying their dead, worshipping stuff, keeping an oral history, etc. But the real survivalist skills they had, e.g., flaking stones to make spearheads and making fire, would be very difficult to envision jettisoning. Neanderthals are actually a great example. Presumably in response to environmental changes, they did get super brawny relative to their predecessors. As far we can tell, they actually expanded in range in the face of some of the most challenging ice ages the Pleistocene dished out. They didn't do that by being mini Incredible Hulks, they did that by making tools that could help them harvest the largest terrestrial animals on the planet and by skillfully using fire. If you get big and hairy but give up your spears and your fire then you're just another thing for Neanderthals to hunt. It's very difficult to envision a selective advantage to giving up human technologies when it was exactly those technologies that gave us such a tremendous advantage in the first place.

[Guest]

I don't know. I picture Neanderthals painting stuff, burying their dead, worshipping stuff, keeping an oral history, etc. But the real survivalist skills they had, e.g., flaking stones to make spearheads and making fire, would be very difficult to envision jettisoning. Neanderthals are actually a great example. Presumably in response to environmental changes, they did get super brawny relative to their predecessors. As far we can tell, they actually expanded in range in the face of some of the most challenging ice ages the Pleistocene dished out. They didn't do that by being mini Incredible Hulks, they did that by making tools that could help them harvest the largest terrestrial animals on the planet and by skillfully using fire. If you get big and hairy but give up your spears and your fire then you're just another thing for Neanderthals to hunt. It's very difficult to envision a selective advantage to giving up human technologies when it was exactly those technologies that gave us such a tremendous advantage in the first place.

Maybe brawn is a disadvantage, no need for weapons, no need to imagine or develop anything else to make life easier.

[southernyahoo]

Drew, everything that has been touted as lay or scientific knowledge about bigfoot shouts non-human. Yet Ketchum and Paulides are going to say that bigfoot is human with a few polymorphisms and unusual hair. It will be interesting to see the reaction, because it really means throwing out all of the accumulated Krantz, Bindernagel, Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Patterson, Freeman stuff, saying all those footprints, film, analysis, speculation, etc was ridiculous hoaxery and ignorance, and starting all over again, based on a Biscardi-like sideshow. Based on hearing him go ballistic when "humanity" was discussed, I'm guessing Meldrum will not go gently into that good night.

If Disotell ever gets ahold of the DNA, he'll tell you "Whoa, Nellie, wait a minute, that DNA is just normal for the offspring of a man from Northern Germany and a woman from Beijing."

It will make for some interesting Honobia Bigfoot Conferences, I'll say that. LOL. I'm stocking up on popcorn.

Considering that chimps are somewhere around 98% identicle to humans geneticly, It is certainly logical to presume that sasquatch DNA would be even closer. I expect that sasquatches are in the genus Homo but would be classified as a new hominid. Hell, there has even been some scientists pushing to re-classify chimps within the genus Homo based on their DNA.

I don't think Ketchum is influenced by Paulides' beliefs at all, she will stick to the facts presented by the physical evidence and what the DNA says it is, and I don't think she would publish something that wasn't distinctly unique. If that is still within the realm of human then maybe we will re-define what "human" really means.