Bigfoot Dna

[ShadowBorn]

 

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 you have this wrong and here is why. Genes are not turned on by mtDNA or anything like this.Genes are turned on by protiens within the cell.

Here is some info: http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news31

 

http://www.washington.edu/news/2012/09/05/millions-of-dna-switches-that-power-human-genomes-operating-system-are-discovered/

[Guest Divergent1]

That's interesting and I'm sure there is a lot more to learn, but the mtDNA produces the tRNA and the rRNA that produce the proteins that tell the DNA how to code or build itself.That's basic genetics.

[ShadowBorn]

That's interesting and I'm sure there is a lot more to learn, but the mtDNA produces the tRNA and the rRNA that produce the proteins that tell the DNA how to code or build itself.That's basic genetics.

All I can is thanks . This has really helped me learn more about myself and us as humans and how our bodies operate. Now again I hve to say that you are wrong again. DNA and RNA is part of the same except that DNA holds the info while RNA assist in execution of the orders of the protein. I believe, it does not matter but here is a link to this info: http://biology.answers.com/cell-biology/dna-vs-rna

 

The only thing that I can see with these creatures , and some thing did create these creatures out of humans . The genes had to of been worked on some how at one time with in a human. Like seeing these seven foot people or people with a lot of hair, overly strong, you name it. It had to of been turned on some where in our DNA TO HAVE CREATED THESE CREATURES. Just from reading there are some thing like 2- million genes and we have only seen what around 200,000. So think about that , we have not even made any progress  with understanding our genes. But we are understanding how it works and who knows what has been done that has not been reported. Just a thought.

 

So is it possible that these creatures could have been us at one time and had some how ,in our own DNA split and created them? who knows but it is odd that so many sample does come back as human and has been written off as contaminated.

[Guest DWA]

There is a far more parsimonious solution:  not us, not made by us, and got here by a mechanism we haven't found the evidence to nail down yet but Bering Land Bridge and even evolving here are prominent possibilities.   The NA prosimian fossil record, the presence of numerous monkeys in Central and South America, and a pretty reliable visual report of a SA non-human hominid by at least one scientist, make the latter a possibility that we just haven't found the evidence to confirm yet.

[Guest Divergent1]

Exactly, i can't say for certain what the logistics were for how it happened but evolution could have done the job just as well. There is no need to bring in the GMO theory.

So is it possible that these creatures could have been us at one time and had some how ,in our own DNA split and created them? who knows but it is odd that so many sample does come back as human and has been written off as contaminated.

I think a more likely scenario is that they might be one version of the conglomeration of inbreeding between hominid lines over time. They haven't found the fossil evidence but they have found genetic evidence that other lineages existed.

[Yuchi1]

Truth never changes.

 

Technology does.

 

Problem appears, technology may be telling us things we aren't capable of handling, psychologically, for now.

[Guest Divergent1]

To be honest, if BF is found to be a GMO built by aliens, I don't think I'll have an issue with it. I just don't think that's the simplest explanation to end up with a sasquatch. I'll ask Sasfooty to ask one of her sasquatch neighbors if they have any creation stories of their own and get it straight from the source.

[Guest]

That should settle things then....

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Here's the deal. Bigfoot as a regular animal is an imaginary animal. They possess night vision, super speed, super strength, cold weather adaptation, human intelligence, crazy mental awareness, unnatural behavior, exist all across the continent ect ect. Believing that they're real and are regular animals requires some serious faith. Add all of that to the fact that there is a lack of clear footage, no unique DNA, no body and it's no wonder that it's dismissed by nearly every scientist. Bigfoot just doesn't fit into the real world.

 

Here's the interesting thing though. These animals really do exist across the continent and they aren't imaginary. I think Dr. Fahrenbach was really onto something with those hair samples. The morphology of purported Sasquatch hairs is that of a human, yet it has enough subtle differences where you can tell it's Sasquatch hair. The DNA results are the same. A few noticeable differences, but still within the range of human. 

 

You can rule out a hybrid because we don't have any of their DNA mixed in with out own. Native American people look like regular humans, not Sasquatch. 

 

There's only one possibility remaining and there are reports to back it up.

Edited May 18, 2015 by OntarioSquatch

[BigTreeWalker]

I think your going to have to explain that reasoning to me.

Is a horse a hybrid because it has a mule or a hinny for an offspring?

[southernyahoo]

My understanding is that all DNA will contribute to the whole of an organism. The mitochondrial DNA which exists in organells outside the nucleous of each, cell provides the energy each cell needs. There are hundreds more copies of the mtDNA in each cell than there is nuclear DNA (nuDNA) from each chromosome. This is why the mtDNA is often easier to get from small samples. The mtDNA doesn't recombine when an egg is fertilized, so each newborn gets it's mtDNA from it's mother only. This is why mtDNA provides deep maternal ancestry information.

 

Bigfoots DNA should not match modern human under comprehensive testing, and should be noticably different if it hasn't had a common ancestor for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

Ketchum attempted sequencing of the entire mitochondria for numerous samples and could not find the necessary divergence. This would point to significant differences in the nuDNA to account for the hair, brutish size and unsophisticated life style, provided the mtDNA is from BF.

 

DNA experts are quick to point out that you don't actually have to change much in the genome to create a new species, as one could note from the diffrences between us and other apes.

[BigTreeWalker]

Southernyahoo, Was that explanation aimed at my rhetorical question? Which by the way the answer is no.

[SWWASAS]

Here's the deal. Bigfoot as a regular animal is an imaginary animal. They possess night vision, super speed, super strength, cold weather adaptation, human intelligence, crazy mental awareness, unnatural behavior, exist all across the continent ect ect. Believing that they're real and are regular animals requires some serious faith. Add all of that to the fact that there is a lack of clear footage, no unique DNA, no body and it's no wonder that it's dismissed by nearly every scientist. Bigfoot just doesn't fit into the real world.

 

Here's the interesting thing though. These animals really do exist across the continent and they aren't imaginary. I think Dr. Fahrenbach was really onto something with those hair samples. The morphology of purported Sasquatch hairs is that of a human, yet it has enough subtle differences where you can tell it's Sasquatch hair. The DNA results are the same. A few noticeable differences, but still within the range of human. 

 

You can rule out a hybrid because we don't have any of their DNA mixed in with out own. Native American people look like regular humans, not Sasquatch. 

 

There's only one possibility remaining and there are reports to back it up.

How can you rule out human/BF hybrid because we don't have their DNA mixed with ours,   when we do not have accepted BF DNA to compare it with?    You cannot make a comparison until you have both.   The relatively recent capabilities with nuDNA to trace back origins has yielded some strange results.     But you need accepted type samples to make much sense of it. 

[Guest DWA]

Here's the deal. Bigfoot as a regular animal is an imaginary animal. They possess night vision, super speed, super strength, cold weather adaptation, human intelligence, crazy mental awareness, unnatural behavior, exist all across the continent ect ect. Believing that they're real and are regular animals requires some serious faith. Add all of that to the fact that there is a lack of clear footage, no unique DNA, no body and it's no wonder that it's dismissed by nearly every scientist. Bigfoot just doesn't fit into the real world.

 

Well, this is a common misconception.  I call sasquatch the "median ape;" it's the others that are by comparison weird specialists.  (H. sapiens, no one would predict.  We are super weird.)

 

The first four "possessions" you list are standard issue for many animals, and I mean all four in the same animal.  What sasquatch have been observed doing is incredible for humans, garden variety for primates.  "Human intelligence" isn't borne out by the evidence, and neither are the others except "exist all across the continent," a distinction shared by many "lesser" species.

Edited May 18, 2015 by DWA

[BigTreeWalker]

You can rule out a hybrid because we don't have any of their DNA mixed in with out own. Native American people look like regular humans, not Sasquatch. 

 

Let me state this in a different way. If they are the hybrid we wouldn't have any of their DNA, only our own. But the way you stated that we are the hybrids.