ShadowBorn Posted January 29, 2016 Moderator Posted January 29, 2016 ^^^ Now I am trying to stay grounded on this subject ^^^^ But If we are to believe Darwin and his theory of evolution that we all came from primates and this is how science seems to believe we were created. Then how was the primate created at lets say 50 -60 million years ago. If science is right and everyone seems to think that it is, primates came into the picture of earth at or around 47 - 50 million years ago. The first primate to inhabit were possibly the Lemurs and lorises what ever they are. From there the tree of life for us human begins and as usual it all starts in Africa. So if there are traces of this creature the traces would be in Africa where most of the human creation started. Like it has been said that all roads lead to Africa and this is where life began. Now we may say that we have all DNA samples of all living creatures in a gene pool but that is being way to arrogant. I say this since new DNA sample are being added to the gene pool each month and maybe each week. So we cannot come out and say that we have all DNA samples in a gene pool collected. Since I can say that do you have mine or yours collected in that gene pool. If a sample comes back unknown and you have more then one sample with the same results that match with the same result of unknown . Then that sample should be added to the gene pool and not be discarded. It just makes sense. IMO. If the sample keeps coming contaminated with human DNA mixed and does not match the people who have handled the sample then we have a sample that is mixed with an unknown entity and human that some how needs to be explained by science. This is what is not happening in science and they have dropped the ball on the proper handling of the DNA. Talk about alt right stalling science , no proper handling of the samples leads to misrepresentation of the sample that can be vital to the existence of a new species. A species that might have a family tree of its own making. The trouble that I see with is that what made them if they found that they were to exist and had there own tree of life. Again can not stress that this is all theory and my own opinion.
southernyahoo Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 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. Indeed, Bigfoot should be exposed with very little mtDNA if they were not human. The CO1 gene and the cytochrome b region of mtDNA that Sykes used would have allowed him to distinguish between modern human and Neanderthal, but it wasn't there for those samples. People should take the human result more seriously in my opinion. While some samples can be mishandled and contaminated, it is also a good point that when targeting a specific loci, the makers will be present for both contributors if they are the same species or very similar and not when they are vastly different species. This is why we have species specific primers. 1
SWWASAS Posted January 29, 2016 BFF Patron Posted January 29, 2016 There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding on this forum about how DNA works. Having done the human DNA genome tests to determine my ancestry I learned a lot I did not know. Even though there is no question I am human, there are certain designated markers that are evident if your ancestry was at a specific time and place in human history. Those markers went back to before my ancestors were homo Sapiens. I have Neanderthal DNA. I was able to compare the ancestry of my paternal and maternal lines. In only a few cases were the markers the same. In other words in only a few cases were my paternal and maternal ancestors at the same place at the same time. Certainly they had to be same place same time for me to be conceived in modern times. Some here seem to think that human and animal DNA is significantly different. "The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168).These 'Human Accelerated Regions' (HARs) provide clues into our evolution. (Photograph: Image by Owen Booth.) " So there are only a few short DNA sequences that have changed since our species diverged. These things are called Human Accelerated Regions, and those are located to differentiate humans from other animals with common ancestry. What people seem to be missing here is that an unknown bipedal mammal with common ancestry at any point, the DNA is going to look very similar to human. Without an accepted BF DNA type, DNA labs are not going to know where to look for markers that differentiate BF from other species with common ancestors. They can tell you it is not a chimpanzee or not a human because they know where to look for markers that define the chimpanzee and human. That is why we get so many unknown species results or suggestions of human DNA contamination. It looks sort of human but is missing some modern human markers but yet contains strange ones. I think some here expect some kind of red light and alarm to go off to alert a lab they have found an unknown species. Does not work that way. Most labs would likely assume contamination when something strange is sequenced. 3
xspider1 Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 They can tell you it is not a chimpanzee or not a human because they know where to look for markers that define the chimpanzee and human. That is why we get so many unknown species results or suggestions of human DNA contamination. It looks sort of human but is missing some modern human markers but yet contains strange ones. I think some here expect some kind of red light and alarm to go off to alert a lab they have found an unknown species. Does not work that way. Most labs would likely assume contamination when something strange is sequenced. Great post, SWW. I've been trying to imagine if there could be a circumstance under which a DNA lab might come back and say: "Hey! You discovered Bigfoot". It looks like that just can't happen without being able to reference the DNA from a type specimen.
Guest DWA Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 You guys gonna hurt yourselves with all this DNA theorizing! Not needed. And yes. No one will accept DNA results that did not come from a type specimen. Nature of the, pardon the pun, beast. DNA determines what already-known species you are. OK, you can be determined a new species by DNA. But only if: a specimen is in hand; DNA is taken from that specimen; consensus is a clean read on the sample; ...and the animal was previously determined to be a member of an existing species. In fact this is how most "new" species, of mammals at least, are "found."
hiflier Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) Hello All, "Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?" Yes. But it's for the simple reason that it's like anything else. Money. Not the lack of it but more that there isn't a means to control it to make money off of it. Think about the bigger stuff that involve a couple of little somethings called revenue and profit. Think of the reason behind Prohibition. Once how to "legally" funnel the money was established then alcohol was...wait for it...legal again. Same with the newer marijuana laws and the biggest economic ball of wax for profit and revenue there ever has been....warfare. Sasquatch, if it's real, will be another control the wealth game. Once that's in place then we will get our proof. In the meantime the race is on for us to somehow scoop those that would try to funnel any monies to be made to the top. Same old same old. This principle has not and will not ever change. First get the resources out of the habitat and while at it figure a way to keep all the revenue and profit from a Sasquatch disclosure. Yep, I'm a cynic, and to long in the tooth to not get this. Of course now I'm a crackpot- but I'm a wise and learned crackpot. Besides most crackpots are considered outside the status quo and sheesh, who wants to belong to THAT crowd. Edited January 29, 2016 by hiflier 3
norseman Posted January 29, 2016 Admin Posted January 29, 2016 There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding on this forum about how DNA works. Having done the human DNA genome tests to determine my ancestry I learned a lot I did not know. Even though there is no question I am human, there are certain designated markers that are evident if your ancestry was at a specific time and place in human history. Those markers went back to before my ancestors were homo Sapiens. I have Neanderthal DNA. I was able to compare the ancestry of my paternal and maternal lines. In only a few cases were the markers the same. In other words in only a few cases were my paternal and maternal ancestors at the same place at the same time. Certainly they had to be same place same time for me to be conceived in modern times. Some here seem to think that human and animal DNA is significantly different. "The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168).These 'Human Accelerated Regions' (HARs) provide clues into our evolution. (Photograph: Image by Owen Booth.) " So there are only a few short DNA sequences that have changed since our species diverged. These things are called Human Accelerated Regions, and those are located to differentiate humans from other animals with common ancestry. What people seem to be missing here is that an unknown bipedal mammal with common ancestry at any point, the DNA is going to look very similar to human. Without an accepted BF DNA type, DNA labs are not going to know where to look for markers that differentiate BF from other species with common ancestors. They can tell you it is not a chimpanzee or not a human because they know where to look for markers that define the chimpanzee and human. That is why we get so many unknown species results or suggestions of human DNA contamination. It looks sort of human but is missing some modern human markers but yet contains strange ones. I think some here expect some kind of red light and alarm to go off to alert a lab they have found an unknown species. Does not work that way. Most labs would likely assume contamination when something strange is sequenced. So basically what you are saying is that its useless in this line of work?
georgerm Posted January 29, 2016 Author Posted January 29, 2016 Good work SWWA. One problem is many of us, including my self, think that every last gene on the DNA strands can be laid out for examination and comparison. Example. Let's take a colorful Indian beaded purse. Every bead or gene is showing, and we can visually see them all at once. Now we hold two purses side by side, and if some beads are in different patterns or colors then we have different purses or species. Since the bigfoot bead pattern matches no other primate's seems like we could identify bigfoot. What's the problem with this picture? One problem is we have 3.2 billion human genes or 3,200,000,000 beads on a purse. A semitruck could probably fit in this purse. Seems like some are saying we can't see all the beads or genes all at once. We can only see a square inch at a time. If this portion matches, it may or may not be the same purse or species. Mammal Homo sapiens 3,200,000,000 3.2Gb Homo sapiens estimated genome size 3.2 billion bp[55] Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome[56] Another example of stalled science. 1
SWWASAS Posted January 29, 2016 BFF Patron Posted January 29, 2016 There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding on this forum about how DNA works. Having done the human DNA genome tests to determine my ancestry I learned a lot I did not know. Even though there is no question I am human, there are certain designated markers that are evident if your ancestry was at a specific time and place in human history. Those markers went back to before my ancestors were homo Sapiens. I have Neanderthal DNA. I was able to compare the ancestry of my paternal and maternal lines. In only a few cases were the markers the same. In other words in only a few cases were my paternal and maternal ancestors at the same place at the same time. Certainly they had to be same place same time for me to be conceived in modern times. Some here seem to think that human and animal DNA is significantly different. "The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168).These 'Human Accelerated Regions' (HARs) provide clues into our evolution. (Photograph: Image by Owen Booth.) " So there are only a few short DNA sequences that have changed since our species diverged. These things are called Human Accelerated Regions, and those are located to differentiate humans from other animals with common ancestry. What people seem to be missing here is that an unknown bipedal mammal with common ancestry at any point, the DNA is going to look very similar to human. Without an accepted BF DNA type, DNA labs are not going to know where to look for markers that differentiate BF from other species with common ancestors. They can tell you it is not a chimpanzee or not a human because they know where to look for markers that define the chimpanzee and human. That is why we get so many unknown species results or suggestions of human DNA contamination. It looks sort of human but is missing some modern human markers but yet contains strange ones. I think some here expect some kind of red light and alarm to go off to alert a lab they have found an unknown species. Does not work that way. Most labs would likely assume contamination when something strange is sequenced. So basically what you are saying is that its useless in this line of work? Nope, when you bring that body into a lab and the body is accepted as a BF, they will run DNA tests with different labs compare results, and then declare which markers differentiate BF from other similar species including our self. 1
BigTreeWalker Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 I have to wonder if any lab has run a full genome test on any sample that came from and unidentifiable source. Or do they just quit at a certain point after finding markers similar to an existing organism? If they were to run these samples all the way through, would they find the differentiating markers? The answer is probably yes, but it's also true that they wouldn't be recognized for what they were. But agreed a type specimen is needed to make it worthwhile to do a full genome test. Then they could say for sure which markers makes this organism different.
ShadowBorn Posted January 29, 2016 Moderator Posted January 29, 2016 But when there is nothing to compare these new DNA strands too it can only mean new species. If you find Human DNA mixed in with these strands then that means that some how humans were involve with the evolution of this creatures existence. Just like you have found out that you were mixed with Neanderthal DNA which says that some how your ancestry must have come from Europe where Neanderthal was found in what northern France I believe . This only means that your family ancestry migrated from Africa to Europe and that on your mother side which is best for MTDNA show this. Our MTDNA will show our linage of where we came from , which I bet was asked of you to either ask if you wanted to go with the NUDNA or the MTDNA. The father DNA does not show as much as the mother DNA does as far as heredity goes and where our linage come comes from. I am just not buying it .I am sticking to my guns that these creatures are in their own family tree and that some how they had crossed with humans at some time and point and place in evolution. Whether they played a part in our creation or we played a part in their creation. But there was a split some where before 50 million years ago and these creatures have figured out how to survive the times that the earth was going through it's changes. Even during the times of the extinction of dinosaurs and even during the times of the great flood. I believe that some thing has been trying to destroy this creatures DNA and has not succeeded through out time but they have learned how to survive. It is our DNA that is in them that has taught them how not to be destroyed . But this is all theory again and a hypothesis on my part, but I feel like it is a pretty good one and a good explanation to why they have not been found besides why science has stalled. Maybe this could be why that when giant bones that look human are found are kept hidden in back rooms in museums never to be revealed. Even though that it might be the find of the century science find it best to stall and slow the process of finding the truth since they already know the truth. Just my two cents of opinion which seems not to mean much to anyone here.
hiflier Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) Hello ShadowBorn, ....Just my two cents of opinion which seems not to mean much to anyone here. LOL, nor does mine- but I don't care a whit about that. Look all this talk about DNA and ancestry , lineage, who created who and from where is good but we have things that are real clues if one considers the creature real. Eyeshine. The Tapetum Lucidum. Does anyone think that it is at all an important clue to Sasquatch lineage. I mean we can talk about stalled science all we wish but there are so many things that are very blatantly staring us right in the face and this is one of them. Someone or a group could gang up on the research and look as far back in time as possible to see what science says about this attribute, it's beginnings, and some of the ancient lines that led up to the ability currently. That HAS to be at least one thing that we could do. If it's a dead end so be it. The important thing is to see where and how that characteristic came into play and why Humans and nearly all other primates with the exception of a couple of Lemurs and perhaps a Loris DON'T have it. If Sasquatch is a puzzle that science ignores the only thing to do is take things piece by piece and study those different pieces individually. Other than that we're spinning our wheels here. Edited January 29, 2016 by hiflier
norseman Posted January 29, 2016 Admin Posted January 29, 2016 There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding on this forum about how DNA works. Having done the human DNA genome tests to determine my ancestry I learned a lot I did not know. Even though there is no question I am human, there are certain designated markers that are evident if your ancestry was at a specific time and place in human history. Those markers went back to before my ancestors were homo Sapiens. I have Neanderthal DNA. I was able to compare the ancestry of my paternal and maternal lines. In only a few cases were the markers the same. In other words in only a few cases were my paternal and maternal ancestors at the same place at the same time. Certainly they had to be same place same time for me to be conceived in modern times. Some here seem to think that human and animal DNA is significantly different. "The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168).These 'Human Accelerated Regions' (HARs) provide clues into our evolution. (Photograph: Image by Owen Booth.) " So there are only a few short DNA sequences that have changed since our species diverged. These things are called Human Accelerated Regions, and those are located to differentiate humans from other animals with common ancestry. What people seem to be missing here is that an unknown bipedal mammal with common ancestry at any point, the DNA is going to look very similar to human. Without an accepted BF DNA type, DNA labs are not going to know where to look for markers that differentiate BF from other species with common ancestors. They can tell you it is not a chimpanzee or not a human because they know where to look for markers that define the chimpanzee and human. That is why we get so many unknown species results or suggestions of human DNA contamination. It looks sort of human but is missing some modern human markers but yet contains strange ones. I think some here expect some kind of red light and alarm to go off to alert a lab they have found an unknown species. Does not work that way. Most labs would likely assume contamination when something strange is sequenced. So basically what you are saying is that its useless in this line of work? Nope, when you bring that body into a lab and the body is accepted as a BF, they will run DNA tests with different labs compare results, and then declare which markers differentiate BF from other similar species including our self. What if its only a biopsy dart's small tissue sample???? Thats my question. Can DNA crack the case without the body?
ShadowBorn Posted January 29, 2016 Moderator Posted January 29, 2016 Hiflier This researchers video shows very definitive eye shine where the eyes are the size of gulf balls or bigger with blinking in a banded house. The camera is facing the house while there is a background light behind the camera. The size of the creature must be at least 8' tall well beyond a doorway. The only way I can describe the eyes is that they were very round and glowing white but very different from how you would see a cats eyes or a dogs eye reflection. It is very eerie to look at those eyes. Solid round white eye's facing forward. I do have permission to post it, I just need to convert it off the VCR and place it on a CD so that I can post it. It is very convincing video of eye shine by these creatures and this researcher deserves credit for the work that he has done. If it was not for him I would have not had my first up close encounters with these creatures. I believe I have thermo of one running from us as the guy with the thermo turn to get thermo of the visitation we were having back in 2001.In my case I feel like I have grown up a lot in this field and am still learning and have much more to learn. The one thing I really need to learn is how to be humble.
aether-drift Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 It has stalled because despite the efforts of the NAWAC, Olympic Project, BFRO, and many other earnest researchers out there, we still don't have a single piece of hard evidence to work with. If there were a definitive type specimen or even unambiguous DNA evidence, we could then do things like: * Habitat mapping * Species population estimation * Primate cladistics (assuming DNA) and calculation of genetic distances to humans/chimps/Neanderthal, etc. * Physiology and size range * Ecosystem impacts * Sexual dimorphism studies * Behavioral, family group, kinship analysis * Species protection programs But no science can be done at this point because THERE IS NOTHING TO STUDY - except some really awesome stories. I'm very open to the idea of sasquatches being real, but until we have actual proof, the only "science" is in the form of chasing shadows. Honestly, if the NAWAC guys can't bag a type specimen, I'm having a hard time believing it can be done (assuming there is an extant species.) 1
Recommended Posts