Bigfoot Dna

[Guest Divergent1]

Nothing about Patty looks human to me other than walking on two legs.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Visually, the main difference between humans and Sasquatch is the hair distribution. The walking gait and limb proportions seen in the PGF are almost identical today's humans, which is why people think it's a human in a suit. I find it interesting that certain academics who have an interest in the subject claim that Sasquatch could be Gigantopithecus when they have the PGF right in front of them to study. It really brings into question how helpful a degree in a relevant field of study really is when it comes to Bigfoot.

 

Going just by looks, one can reasonably say that the PGF subject isn't human, but the DNA might tell a different story. There's no way to prove that the human result from Sasquatch DNA samples is accurate, unless there's an actual specimen to get the DNA from directly. I'm confident that only a body will solve this mystery for those who can't figure it out. Saying that Sasquatch are human because of the results of hair samples apparently isn't good enough when contamination is seen as the most likely cause.

[Guest Divergent1]

I think you need to do more reading about DNA, especially the differences found between chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans. I could try to explain here but I don't want to bother if no one will read it.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121106201124.htm

 

Humans share over 90% of their DNA with their primate cousins. The expression or activity patterns of genes differ across species in ways that help explain each species' distinct biology and behavior.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I understand what you're saying. The problem is that Sasquatch's looks are deceiving to even high level academics. Expecting to find DNA that's similar to a chimp or gorilla seems to be one of the problems in Bigfootery right now. 

[Guest Divergent1]

Ontario, like I said, you need to read more in depth on the DNA subject. When looking for bigfoot you expect to find hominid DNA that is unique.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Again, I understand what you're saying, but this point I think you're just choosing to ignore other possibilities.

 

People can search all they want for unique DNA for Bigfoot, but I'm pretty sure no one will find it.

[BigTreeWalker]

The problem with DNA is that you have to know where to look to make comparisons between close species. This is a very interesting article about human and primate comparisons.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Quote from website:

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA.

End quote.

What I understand from this is that the differences between humans, chimps, and bonobos is in a different place on the DNA than is the difference between these three and gorillas. So where and how far do we have to look to find the differences in bigfoot DNA. Is the testing that is being done more than just your normal run of the mill CSI testing used to verify diffences between human individuals?

Hopefully there are those that go the extra mile, but is that the case with all the tests that have been done?

[Guest Divergent1]

Again, I understand what you're saying, but this point I think you're just choosing to ignore other possibilities.

 

People can search all they want for unique DNA for Bigfoot, but I'm pretty sure no one will find it.

They find it for other cryptid species. I don't know why bigfoot would be any different even if he is a GMO.

What I understand from this is that the differences between humans, chimps, and bonobos is in a different place on the DNA than is the difference between these three and gorillas. So where and how far do we have to look to find the differences in bigfoot DNA. Is the testing that is being done more than just your normal run of the mill CSI testing used to verify diffences between human individuals?

Hopefully there are those that go the extra mile, but is that the case with all the tests that have been done?

From what I understood, that's what Sykes is doing with Zana's descendent's DNA.

[Guest Divergent1]

I've spent a good bit of free time the past few days reading up on the imprinted gene theory that might have implications that could explain Zana's and her children's appearance and behavior and bigfoot's reported traits. I can follow what I'm reading but I can't say I understand it well enough to try to explain with any depth why I think there might be a connection. It could explain what happens when two or more different types of hominids intermingle and the resulting residual traits that they leave behind in a blended population.

 

http://changelog.ca/quote/2012/07/01/imprinted_genes_the_placenta_and_the_brain

 

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n4/full/ng.3222.html

 

Complex human traits are influenced by variation in regulatory DNA through mechanisms that are not fully understood. Because regulatory elements are conserved between humans and mice, a thorough annotation of cis regulatory variants in mice could aid in further characterizing these mechanisms. Here we provide a detailed portrait of mouse gene expression across multiple tissues in a three-way diallel. Greater than 80% of mouse genes have cis regulatory variation. Effects from these variants influence complex traits and usually extend to the human ortholog. Further, we estimate that at least one in every thousand SNPs creates a cis regulatory effect. We also observe two types of parent-of-origin effects, including classical imprinting and a new global allelic imbalance in expression favoring the paternal allele. We conclude that, as with humans, pervasive regulatory variation influences complex genetic traits in mice and provide a new resource toward understanding the genetic control of transcription in mammals.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

They find it for other cryptid species. I don't know why bigfoot would be any different even if he is a GMO.

Due to cost and effectiveness, DNA testing on cryptozoological samples is done on mitochondrial DNA. When you genetically engineer an organism, the changes are done on the nuclear DNA because that's where the blueprint is for what an animal will look and act like. If Bigfoot is a hybrid or genetically engineered human, the mitochondrial DNA might show that they're human, depending on when the modifications were done or when the hybridization occurred. In those two instances, the mtDNA of Bigfoot will be indistinguishable from that of a regular human's.

Unusual traits such as night vision, cold weather adaptation, super speed ect. suggest that Bigfoot might not be real, unless of course one looks at alternate explanations. There have been a lot of samples tested in the past decade and the results were always that of a known species, which suggests that Bigfoot is either not real or it's a known species that went through some non-evolutionary changes.

[Guest Divergent1]

I can tell that you didn't read my links.

 

Ontario, all I can say is your understanding of mammalian genetics is a lot worse than mine. The mtDNA is responsible for producing the RNA that makes the nuclear DNA code appropriately.

 

http://www.bioinformatics.org/tutorial/1-1.html

 

The significance of a DNA is very high. The gene's sequence is like language that instructs the cell to manufacture a particular protein. An intermediate language, encoded in the sequence of Ribonucleic Acid (RNA), translates a gene's message into a protein's amino acid sequence. It is the protein that determines the trait.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. You're posting random things now.

[Guest Divergent1]

Nothing I posted was randon at all, I'm trying to help you understand. Everything I provided is relevant for what you propose. You think the mtDNA is human. The human mtDNA won't turn on the right genes in the nuclear DNA if all they ( as in some black op human group) did was genetically modify a few things.

 

I think we can clone things, but not very well past the cellular stage. They are thinking about bringing back the woolly mammoth, but that will take successive generations of modifications to allow an elephant to finally gestate and deliver mammo/elephant ( basically an elephant that looks like a mammoth) .

 

Suggesting aliens did it when reports of ape men have been around for hundreds of years doesn't seem reasonable. I also provided links for the imprinted gene theory that is directly related to how bigfoot could possibly be the hybridization of something and still have the human mtDNA that you think it has but it's related to evolution, not alien agendas.The mtDNA might show up as human but it still wouldn't be exatly like HSS or any other primates.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

It is random. It sounds like you're taking information from random articles and misinterpreting them to fit your argument. It's clear that you don't want to have any real discussion on this.

[Guest Divergent1]

No I'm not,  I'm looking for articles that explain how it might possibly work in this situation without it being an artifically created being made by aliens. How is that misinterpretation?