Twist Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) DNA talk always confuses me, so much....science involved it makes my head spin. When searching to understand it a little more, specifically in relation to what MIB was posting I found the following link with a summary that also follows: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020751901003575 Abstract DNA sequence divergence at internal transcribed spacer regions (ITS-1 and ITS-2) was compared with divergence at mitochondrial cox1 or nad4 loci in pairs of congeneric nematode species. Mitochondrial sequences accumulate substitutions much more quickly than internal transcribed spacer, the difference being most striking in the most closely related species pairs. Thus, mitochondrial DNA may be the best choice for applications in which one is using sequence data on small numbers of individuals to search for potential cryptic species. On the other hand, internal transcribed spacer remains an excellent tool for DNA diagnostics (quickly distinguishing between known species) owing to its lower level of intraspecific polymorphism. I take this to mean that when speaking of mitochondrial DNA, if BF is a separate species from ourselves it should show and be obvious, if they are the same species as us then it may be very muddy waters to differentiate us from them. Edited January 29, 2016 by TWlST
ShadowBorn Posted January 29, 2016 Moderator Posted January 29, 2016 I don't love that and while this is off topic I think it's a common misunderstanding of the skeptic position (at least mine). I see no evidence for the existence of sasquatch. I'm not HOSTILE to the idea of being wrong, I would love to be wrong. But, whereas some people see a set of footprints as definitive, I see it as a question mark. Folks who think that scientists are against the idea of sasquatch baffle me, scientists are curious people who love a good mystery. IF someone actually did come up with an interesting dna sample disotell, sykes, and host of other geneticists would be all over it. I know we're easy targets but obviously it's interesting or else I wouldn't be a paid member here. I'm not rooting against you, I'm just looking for evidence that is strong enough to interest science. Stories are nifty, a thousand stories are nifty but they don't amount to evidence. Bodhi I do know that you are not being hostile to the idea of being wrong and being sceptic is the only way to be in this field. Science loves mystery since it loves to solve mystery or should I say the whys/hows. Right ! Now look at it this way, back in the 1700 to the 1800's these creatures were being shot. Now if these creatures were being shot and reported as being shot. ( and we know this how? ) By news paper clippings back then. Now I am not sure that they are going to make up stories like this, there has to be some factual events that back up these stories. IMO Correct ! Now if these stories are real which I believe they are and what I know to be true. Then science has already studied these creatures back then, but have kept it from the world. Now this is just theory but if you think about it hard enough can be possible. There could be bones stored away in museums of these creatures in back rooms where they are locked and stored collecting dust, never to see the light of day. Through out time these creatures have learned to evade us. Now this is not toward you Bodhi but a thought that I have on the DNA. If DNA has markers that can be matched, why can we not match our own DNA markers with what created us? If we were to do this, would this not match those unknowns? We can match our own ancestry to where we came from , but what about how we were made and to what family of species were we split from? Maybe these are dumb questions but I really would like to know. If it was not for the BFF I would have not learned as much as I have now. There are great people here who are very knowledgeable. Thank You
georgerm Posted January 29, 2016 Author Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) Bodhi: I see no evidence for the existence of sasquatch. I'm not HOSTILE to the idea of being wrong, I would love to be wrong. But, whereas some people see a set of footprints as definitive. In the study of bigfoot's habits and body, we have weak evidence, evidence, strong evidence, and no evidence. Dr. Meldrum has written much on foot prints so please read up. Being a PHD and an expert in foot mechanics, Meldrum explains how bigfoot's foot shape, bones, and arch makes a different impression when compared to humans. In addition nonhuman dermal ridges are present among other differences. Please reply to the DNA question and what you can learn from Meldrum. Simple Definition of evidence .............. : something which shows that something else exists or is true : a visible sign of something : material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something Edited January 29, 2016 by georgerm
Twist Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) Bodhi: I see no evidence for the existence of sasquatch. I'm not HOSTILE to the idea of being wrong, I would love to be wrong. But, whereas some people see a set of footprints as definitive. Dr. Meldrum has written much on foot prints so please read up if you expect us to take your comments seriously. Being a PHD and an expert in foot mechanics, Meldrum explains how bigfoot's foot shape, bones, and arch makes a different impression when compared to humans. In addition nonhuman dermal ridges are present among other differences. Please reply to the DNA question and what you can learn from Meldrum. Simple Definition of evidence .............. In the study of bigfoot, we have weak evidence, evidence, strong evidence, and no evidence. : something which shows that something else exists or is true : a visible sign of something : material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something Dr. Meldrum may have written a lot of on footprints but it is all speculation at this point regarding how it proves BF to be a real flesh and blood creature. Its a rather crude statement to make that someone can not be taken serious on this board just because they do not yet believe the supposed evidence presented, even if a scientist backs it up. Its perfectly acceptable to be skeptical and question the supposed evidence until it is a proven fact. Edited January 29, 2016 by TWlST 1
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 DNA talk always confuses me, so much....science involved it makes my head spin. When searching to understand it a little more, specifically in relation to what MIB was posting I found the following link with a summary that also follows: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020751901003575 Abstract DNA sequence divergence at internal transcribed spacer regions (ITS-1 and ITS-2) was compared with divergence at mitochondrial cox1 or nad4 loci in pairs of congeneric nematode species. Mitochondrial sequences accumulate substitutions much more quickly than internal transcribed spacer, the difference being most striking in the most closely related species pairs. Thus, mitochondrial DNA may be the best choice for applications in which one is using sequence data on small numbers of individuals to search for potential cryptic species. On the other hand, internal transcribed spacer remains an excellent tool for DNA diagnostics (quickly distinguishing between known species) owing to its lower level of intraspecific polymorphism. I take this to mean that when speaking of mitochondrial DNA, if BF is a separate species from ourselves it should show and be obvious, if they are the same species as us then it may be very muddy waters to differentiate us from them. More simply, they are not the same species. But if they can interbreed that muddies the waters and means the DNA is highly similar and we were the same species at some point. The problem is the divergence. There is some anecdotal evidence from native stories and cultural knowledge that there have been offspring. Here is the YouTube talk show with the story https://youtu.be/2Q32XgJBJtE Species should not be able to breed outside the species but you have the mule, donkey, and horse which illustrates why and at the same tie how you may still be able to produce an offspring. Just to illustrate the idea of DNA and relatedness. If the offspring where viable and could survive to reproduce that would muddy the waters for scientists, however.
Twist Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) Thank you Mega for that, so based on that we really need to be relating Humans and BF as possibly the same genus but a different species. That still does not change the fact that what I posted above specifically states that Mito DNA is effective at determining a cryptic species, which is an even more specific group within in a genus. Edited January 29, 2016 by TWlST
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Likely, but I suspect reality is stranger than fiction. There was a much better video but I can't find it. Described a modern abduction with offspring of a native group where they child was hairy and grew to 6 foot but dies by the age of six. Very specific to an actual tribe and historic period. There is a Russian or Siberian variation where Bigfoot creatures are kidnapped and held as slaves, including as sex slaves for the common use of men in the village. Offspring again resulted and there where extremely ugly offspring with highly recessed foreheads. They actually went and dug up the remains of at least one of the children and had a picture of the skull. Very unusual skull, no area for a frontal lobe. Both are fact based and would be able to be researched as the facts were specific. I have actually met an individual like this, so perhaps besides a Australopithecus type or Homo Habilis type other wild man types may exist and I would suspect residual Neanderthal populations that actually meld into our own modern populations and are actually able to have limited success with reproduction as this may be the blurred boundary; our closest "cousin". In fact Neanderthal a certain percentage genetics are present in modern populations. Perhaps the boundary is still being breached?
Oonjerah Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 ^ Cryptic Megafauna, "There is some anecdotal evidence from native stories and cultural knowledge that there have been offspring." Coincidentally, I watched that 2-part video a few days ago. Very disappointing! In part 2, it does finally mention a human-bigfoot descendant, who says, "Hi. You can call me the big ugly Indian!" Mullis talks hybrid. Haven't seen him deliver. If there are hybrids, and we can learn from them, that'd be terrific!
Twist Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 When it comes to reality being stranger than fiction, we can definitely agree! As far as information about the hybrids you have encountered before, I would be interested to look into it if you come across that information again. Sounds interesting at the least.
BigTreeWalker Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) Critic Megafauna, So are we determining species of living individuals by the shapes of their skulls?.... Just wondering. And the Russian individual you are talking about is Zana. Edited January 29, 2016 by BigTreeWalker
Twist Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Critic Megafauna, So are we determining species of living individuals by the shapes of their skulls?.... Just wondering. Cryptic can speak for himself, but to be fair, I would not take from his post that he is implying a skull shape is determining a species. It could however, at least give clues to the origin or heritage of a particular being. Its not far fetched to at least suppose the origins of something based on physical traits, especially if the backstory is congruent.
BigTreeWalker Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 I am amazed at how we can take such a variety of scientific facts and come up with such a hodgepodge of pseudo science. Science must be failing miserably in order for all these human genetic ancestors to be extant in the world today.
Twist Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Science has already failed us when so much of the BF traits include portals, psychic talk, heightened vision, smell, hearing, ability to leap buildings in a single leap, and of course eat 1 million zagnut bars and not gain a pound etc..... What i was getting at is not to jump to conclusions based on a statement or inference someone made. Because I see a kid with red hair and think he could be Irish does not mean I am considering all red heads Irish. That said, yes I believe BF can leap buildings in a single leap. 1
BigTreeWalker Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 I was addressing what I said to Cryptic Megafauna's post. However, science is not failing us when it comes to portals, mind speak, or any of the paranormal things spoken of. Currently there is no way to scientifically test for those things. Some of the other items could be tested if we had a cooperative live sasquatch. I'm curious how those people that C M saw would react if you told them they looked like pre-human ancestors. Like to see the reaction.
georgerm Posted January 29, 2016 Author Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) More simply, they are not the same species. But if they can interbreed that muddies the waters and means the DNA is highly similar and we were the same species at some point. The problem is the divergence. There is some anecdotal evidence from native stories and cultural knowledge that there have been offspring. Here is the YouTube talk show with the story https://youtu.be/2Q32XgJBJtE Species should not be able to breed outside the species but you have the mule, donkey, and horse which illustrates why and at the same tie how you may still be able to produce an offspring. Just to illustrate the idea of DNA and relatedness. If the offspring where viable and could survive to reproduce that would muddy the waters for scientists, however. Thanks Cryptic, Twist, and Bigtree. Bigfoot's DNA must relate to the Gorilla's somewhere along the evolutionary tree. Gorillas are divided into two species now and they may or may not be able to interbreed. Do we know? Are the offspring sterile like mules? Anyway, science has led us to reclassify the primates. Bigfoot fits in there some where, and it's still unclear why we don't know where. Why? "Historically humans and their extinct ancestors were classified in the Family Hominidae while all great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans) were classified in the Family Pongidae. However, biomolecular and genetic research along with recent fossil evidence have identified new similarities between species, leading to the reclassification of chimpanzees and gorillas into the Family Hominidae.", cited web page. CLASS: Mammalia ORDER: Primates FAMILY: Hominidae GENUS: Gorilla SPECIES: gorilla & beringei "In 2001 mitochondrial DNA research and morphological variances have led to the scientific reclassification of gorillas. Under the new classification gorillas are divided into two species, the eastern gorilla (Gorilla beringei) and the western gorilla (Gorilla gorilla). It is thought that the two species diverged from one another about 2 million years ago and both have two subspecies." read more: https://seaworld.org/en/animal-info/animal-infobooks/gorilla/scientific-classification Edited January 29, 2016 by georgerm
Recommended Posts