Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest LAL]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/science/polar-bears-did-not-descend-from-brown-bears-dna-study-indicates.html?_r=0

[southernyahoo]

I'm not sure that MK gets all this though and she seems to think that she needs continuous interbreeding to explain the results that she has, thus she keeps referring to BF as a hominin/human hybrid. But that's really misleading as all those results really need is a hybrization event somewhere in the past. It would be like calling Europeans Neandertal/Human hybrids. Technically that might be true, but it would be very misleading.

I wouldn't be too sure she doesn't understand the interbreeding. Remember she tested many samples for breeders. You might look into the recombination that occurs in the X chromosome. A first generation hybrid female would have a copy of X that is pure human from moma and a recombined copy of X from papa. Enough data on the X and Y chromosomes would provide the smoking gun on what she claims.

This is a good tutorial on how that works.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/extras/molgen/auto_dna.html

[Guest Tyler H]

Well, my knowledge of genetics is limited too. I'm coming at it from a anthropological background and not a technical one so I could be misunderstanding how this works as well. So if GenesRUs or tomafoot or one of the other genetics experts could correct me if I'm mistaken I'd appreciate it.

At first glance it would seem that it would be a 1 in a million chance, but if something happened like the scenario I proposed above where a genetic bottleneck was created (in this case by the Bering landbridge) so that only a small group of BFs, all with the human mtDNA, migrated in to North America, then it wouldn't be chance at all. All of the BFs in NA would be descended from that "queenly" line.

Comparing this scenario to the Neanderthal one isn't a perfect analogy. A better one would be if a population of surviving Neanderthals were found in the Pyrenees or someplace and you could trace their female ancestors back in an unbroken line to a coupling between a male Neanderthal and female modern human, say 20,000 BP, then their mtDNA would be human even though their nuDNA (which is what matters) would be Neanderthal (with maybe 2-3% human just like our nuDNA is 2-3% Neanderthal).

BTW, when I use the term "human" here I'm using it in the popular sense of anatomically modern humans, i.e. Homo sapiens. Technically Neanderthals are "human" too.

Getting back to MK's results, if she is showing multiple human Eves, then that would require the continuous inbreeding that some have suggested (or more likely contamination from multiple human sources).

I'recentyl reread Stubstad report on her early results, I have to say there are a lot of problems with it that suggest to me that she may not understand paleogenetics very much at all. I hope that some of her co-authors are experts in this area.

"All of the BFs in NA would be descended from that "queenly" line."

Ok, but as soon as one of them had a mother that was the result of the union of two sasquatch (ie, no HSS female) we lose that 100% pure human mtDNA, do we not?

[Guest]

LaL- thanks for staightening me out with the link.

[Hairy Man]

Tyler H - There would be no sasquatch in North American that wouldn't have HSS female mtDNA.

[Guest]

Regarding some of the comments above.

There are actually no grounds on which to state that there is not a 'purer' sasquatch lineage still in existence.

Let's call this purer proto-BF 'Unknown Hominin'.

And let's accept that Ketchum's November comments can be backed up with her results. In other words, we accept that one or more hybridization events between male UH and female human took place around 15K YBP.

But something had to give rise to the UH male individual(s) mating with female human(s): a male UH and a female UH, of course.

There is no reason to believe that male UH's would simply just stop breeding with female UH's; this would be rather unnatural.

What is really in question is whether the hybridization event(s) of 15K years ago occurred in North America, or instead in Asia, Eurasia, etc.

Edited January 11, 2013 by corvus horribilus

[southernyahoo]

Regarding some of the comments above.

There are actually no grounds on which to state that there is not a 'purer' sasquatch lineage still in existence.

Let's call this purer proto-BF 'Unknown Hominin'.

And let's accept that Ketchum's November comments can be backed up with her results. In other words, we accept that one or more hybridization events between male UH and female human took place around 15K YBP.

But something had to give rise to the UH male individual(s) mating with female human(s): a male UH and a female UH, of course.

There is no reason to believe that male UH's would simply just stop breeding with female UH's; this would be rather unnatural.

What is really in question is whether the hybridization event(s) of 15K years ago occurred in North America, or instead in Asia, Eurasia, etc.

Corvus, I think it would be the " progenitor maternal lineage" that we would be in search of. The mtDNA doesn't recombine so you would just get one or the other. A sample size of 108 or 9 apparently didn't find it.

[Guest]

A sample size of 108 or 9 apparently didn't find it.

Which could point towards the hybridization event(s) occurring outside of NA.

We should keep in mind also what Stubstad has reported, namely that whilst two of the mtDNA tests produced very similar results, a third was some fifty+ bases away (IIRC - I skim-read his article). This is very interesting.

FWIW, the mtDNA difference between HSS and H Neanderthalensis is I believe just above 200 nucleotides, on average.

<controversial>Whatever mated with the female human 15000 years ago has to be quasi-human - and almost certainly Homo classifiable - in order to explain the fertility aspect.</controversial>

You might even argue that proto-BF was closer genetically than H Neanderthalensis is to HSS based on the important but thus far ignored fact that, whilst the presence of 1-4% HN dna in Europeans suggests that HSS and HN interbred, male HN sexual encounters with female HSS did not give rise to offspring (otherwise we should see HN mtDNA in modern day humans).

Food for thought.

[Guest Theagenes]

"All of the BFs in NA would be descended from that "queenly" line."

Ok, but as soon as one of them had a mother that was the result of the union of two sasquatch (ie, no HSS female) we lose that 100% pure human mtDNA, do we not?

Exactly. That's why I saying that it would only work if the only BF females that migrated to N. America were ones with the HSS mtDNA. If you had any pure BF females over here breeding as well that could cut it off. That's why the Bering land bridge idea seems like the only plausible mechanism that could cause something like that. Only one small related clan of BFs with the human DNA migrates across the land bridge---maybe even 50 or less. Their pure BF cousins are left behind in Asia and eventually are cut off when the sea levels rise (becoming the yeren, almas, etc.). SO all the N. America BFs would be descended from that small group with human DNA that migrated over. It seems far-fetched, but it's possible model for what she may be suggesting.

Now if she's got multiple human "Eves" that's harder to explain with a non-contamination scenario and may be why we're hearing about continued hybridization up to the present. I doubt anyone is going to buy that though when the simplest explanation is that she just has multiple samples from multiple modern humans.

Regarding some of the comments above.

There are actually no grounds on which to state that there is not a 'purer' sasquatch lineage still in existence.

Let's call this purer proto-BF 'Unknown Hominin'.

And let's accept that Ketchum's November comments can be backed up with her results. In other words, we accept that one or more hybridization events between male UH and female human took place around 15K YBP.

But something had to give rise to the UH male individual(s) mating with female human(s): a male UH and a female UH, of course.

There is no reason to believe that male UH's would simply just stop breeding with female UH's; this would be rather unnatural.

What is really in question is whether the hybridization event(s) of 15K years ago occurred in North America, or instead in Asia, Eurasia, etc.

Again, this is all hypothetical assuming her results are correct.

You're right about the UH continuing to breed with UH. The UH is not really unknown. It's BF. It was BF 15,000 years ago and it's BF today. It's just got a little Homo sapiens in the woodpile that's all. That's why I say her calling BF a hybrid is misleading.

Why can there be no "pure" BFs in North America? Well I suppose theoretically there could be, but then you would think out of her 100 BF samples MK would have gotten one. Instead they were all human mtDNA. So it seems unlikely there are any pure BFs in N. America if we're assuming she's correct. That's why I suggest that the hybridization event probably had to happen in the Old World. Let's say you had a large group of a thousand or so pure BFs that migrate over at the end of the last ice age. And then they bred with the early Native Americans who also came over. In that case you would still have plenty of "pure" BF females over here breeding as well. Any lineages with human DNA would eventually be swamped by the pure BF DNA. This is what Bart was suggesting. It's why you don't find any modern Europeans with fully Neanderthal mtDNA even though they may have a Neanderthal ancestor in their line way, way back.

Which could point towards the hybridization event(s) occurring outside of NA.

Almost a certainty for this scenario to work.

We should keep in mind also what Stubstad has reported, namely that whilst two of the mtDNA tests produced very similar results, a third was some fifty+ bases away (IIRC - I skim-read his article). This is very interesting.

Stubstad's reports unfortunately make no sense at all I would not put any stock in them. It seems clear that he didn't understand the inforamtion he was getting and then googled a few articles which he though were relevant but they weren't and he misunderstood what they were saying. If I get a chance this weekend I'll repost his report and deconstruct it. I'd like for some of the DNA experts to weigh in it.

FWIW, the mtDNA difference between HSS and H Neanderthalensis is I believe just above 200 nucleotides, on average.

<controversial>Whatever mated with the female human 15000 years ago has to be quasi-human - and almost certainly Homo classifiable - in order to explain the fertility aspect.</controversial>

Not controversial at all. You're absolutely right. For this scenario to work it almost certainly has to be in the Homo genus.

You might even argue that proto-BF was closer genetically than H Neanderthalensis is to HSS based on the important but thus far ignored fact that, whilst the presence of 1-4% HN dna in Europeans suggests that HSS and HN interbred, male HN sexual encounters with female HSS did not give rise to offspring (otherwise we should see HN mtDNA in modern day humans).

Except that MK said it was more distant than Neanderthal and Denisovan. There is a new study out suggesting that some African populations interbreed with another hominin (as yet unidentified) more distant than Neanderthal or Denisovan. The likely candidates include H. Heidelbergensis and H. Rhodesensis so these would also be the most likely candidates for MK's BF hominin (or a group of hominins descended from them that migrated into Asia and got taller and hairier).

Food for thought.

Certainly is.

[Guest]

Has anyone else viewed the youtube interview I believe titled Bigfoot and Native Americans? A researcher discussed that in her studies she comes across info that NA were not simply raped, but that there were voluntary unions between BF and NA. Male and female on both sides.

Another researcher went into how early explorers documented their encounters during the 19th century with NA tribes which the NA looked to have mixed with something due to their height and hair in places (thick hair) which wasn't the norm for NA's.

I can so imagine that in different times BF and NA were familiar with each other, marriage, or something to the effect between our two species wasn't so strange.

I have this hypothesis because of the many varieties of dogs, that early man was into genetics in their own way. Would it not be feasible that they saw a benefit to having a little squatch in the bloodline?

I also can imagine that if BF are confirmed in this day...LOL...you may think it's funny but, there will be men and women willing to mate with a BF!

Concerning the details of the Sierra incident, something has recently jumped out at me.

I don't believe it was well known that squatch would switch from bipedal to quad so readily. Yet it's in Justins account that the adult when shot did so.

If it's true he wasn't into BF, how would he know to use this?

[southernyahoo]

<controversial>Whatever mated with the female human 15000 years ago has to be quasi-human - and almost certainly Homo classifiable - in order to explain the fertility aspect.</controversial>

Precisely why I'm not pro-kill, among a myriad of other reasons evidence wise.

[AaronD]

^ Interesting take on it DZ

[Guest Theagenes]

Has anyone else viewed the youtube interview I believe titled Bigfoot and Native Americans? A researcher discussed that in her studies she comes across info that NA were not simply raped, but that there were voluntary unions between BF and NA. Male and female on both sides.

Another researcher went into how early explorers documented their encounters during the 19th century with NA tribes which the NA looked to have mixed with something due to their height and hair in places (thick hair) which wasn't the norm for NA's.

I can so imagine that in different times BF and NA were familiar with each other, marriage, or something to the effect between our two species wasn't so strange.

If MK gets more than one haplotype and they're from the Native American haplotypes, then this might explain that.

I have this hypothesis because of the many varieties of dogs, that early man was into genetics in their own way. Would it not be feasible that they saw a benefit to having a little squatch in the bloodline?

There might have been genetic advantages for both us and them. There's some speculation that Europeans might have picked up some disease immunities from Neanderthal.

I also can imagine that if BF are confirmed in this day...LOL...you may think it's funny but, there will be men and women willing to mate with a BF!

Of that I have no doubt.

Concerning the details of the Sierra incident, something has recently jumped out at me.

I don't believe it was well known that squatch would switch from bipedal to quad so readily. Yet it's in Justins account that the adult when shot did so.

If it's true he wasn't into BF, how would he know to use this?

Or he shot a bear that went from standing to all fours.

[Guest]

"All of the BFs in NA would be descended from that "queenly" line."

Ok, but as soon as one of them had a mother that was the result of the union of two sasquatch (ie, no HSS female) we lose that 100% pure human mtDNA, do we not?

That is correct assuming the unidentified progenitor race made it over the Bering land bridge and intermingled with the established hybrid. It's my understanding that it is the hybridization that makes it sasquatch, sasquatch=unkown+human according to Dr. Ketchum.

Edited January 12, 2013 by CTfoot

[Guest]

.

I don't believe it was well known that squatch would switch from bipedal to quad so readily. Yet it's in Justins account that the adult when shot did so.

If it's true he wasn't into BF, how would he know to use this?

We don't know what knowledge he had of BF at the time of his interview..