Hybrid Hypothesis Dead, Done, Stick A Fork In It....

[norseman]

Jayjeti^^^^^^

1) Once again someone has acknowledged my comparison and then threw it out the window.... At no point do I claim Sasquatch has any relation to Neanderthals. What I am claiming is common sense. Neanderthals are roughly the same size and shape as us. They wore clothes, started fires and flaked stone tools like us. They likely possesed language like us. It is said that if you gave one a bath, a shave and a suit? The Neanderthal could walk down any side walk in the US and not draw any attention to himself. Obviously a half Human and half Neanderthal hybrid would be virtually undetectable to the naked eye in a human population if properly bathed and clothed.

Sasquatch? Not even close. And as a hybrid Sasquatch would be the result of a mating with a human mother and a very ape like archiac hominid. So 7 ft tall 600 lbs Patty whom if you dressed in a dress and high heels would cause a panic in public? Is HALF human.......holy moly....what did the paternal donor species LOOK LIKE King Kong?

This is where the train leaves the tracks for Sasquatch hybrid theories. We know now that Neanderthals were close cousins to humans but just barely enough to succesfully mate with. Morphologically speaking this would rule out any other successful interbreeding with a more archaic distant species that Bigfoot's daddy absolutely represents.

2) We also interbred with Denisovians. Melanasians carry up to 6-8 percent of their DNA. We do not have an answer yet if the Denisovian Y chromosome is extinct like Neanderthals in our own modern populations. But Denisovians like Neanderthals were close cousins to humans.

I guess what a person needs to ask themselves is what did BIGFOOT'S DAD look like if Bigfoot himself is 8 ft tall, 700 lbs, covered in fur, has a peaked head, has no fire, tools, shelter and throws 55 gallon drums of fuel off of Jerry Crew's construction site at Bluff Creek? And how did the human mother survive conception and child birth?

And more importantly? How did Bigfoot become its own species? Which did not happen with Neanderthal or Denisovian hybrids? Who were instead quickly assimulated into the human population. And what happened to the paternal donor species of Bigfoot?

There are a multitude of other "problems" with Bigfoot hybrid theory. But my comparison based on this latest genetic work is very valid. And it has nothing to do with Sasquatch being a Neanderthal. Not even close. Sasquatch is not morphological speaking even as a hybrid as close to humans as Neanderthals were.

If in doubt? Watch the PGF again.

Edited April 26, 2016 by norseman

[norseman]

...So it would appear that some brain advantages WERE developed on the Human branch. Projecting this onto the subject of Sasquatch if it has 23 pairs then uh-oh. If it has 24 then we should be able to out-smart it? It might explain the no fire/no wheel at least which if I were to extrapolate this as an indicator of chromosome development then I'll throw my hat in the ring for 24 pairs, i.e. LESS innovative brain function. So a creature who is more in the moment and relying on archetypal experience rather than thinking ahead and deficient, if not severely so, in the area of problem solving...

  

I've argued this until blue in the face.... the struggle for survival in the genus Homo was a grugde match with ultimately only one species coming out on top. Humans.Sasquatch, whatever it is seems to have side stepped this evolutionary war. But so did all of the rest of the great apes. Thats because they do not compete with us in our niche. Other Homo species with spears and fire? Did.Its not a coincidence, we are the only ones left standing.

I'm not getting the difference between what you said and what I said unless you were directing your comments to SWWA. In other words, I'm saying Humans would come out on top since a 24 chromosome-paired creature doesn't evidently possess the brain power needed for manufacturing tools for attack or defense- or even have the imagination to do so. Humans did- they beat everything and everybody Human or not.23 pairs wins out over 24 pairs and that's what I was saying. I took it a bit farther though by reversing that by saying since Sasquatch has no fire and no wheel then it must belong to the 24-pair line which lack the brain function of Humans.I also added in that if Sasquatch, despite it's primitive brain, has 23 pairs it should then test Human and so the DNA result people get wouldn't necessarily be wrong. Nonetheless, compared to Humans the creature is an imbecile. More animal than not. Smart yes, but severely lacking with perhaps only a little more imagination than a bear. In truth , if the thing exists, I think it should follow that it is indeed a 24 chromosome pair mammal.I agree with you though if you are only talking the Human line which pitted Humans against Humans or near Humans. That obviously wasn't what I was alluding to. My post was high-tech Humans vs. no-tech Sasquatch and that it might be an indicator of chromosome pairing differences. 23 vs. 24

I was adding to what SWWA said yes, sorry.

[norseman]

This is what Neanderthals looked like based on scientific reconstructions....they are basically Human.

Contrast this photo with the PGF. Keeping in mind Patty represents the HYBRID, and not the Paternal line like with the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals look MORE HUMAN than the "half human" Patty.....

Edited April 26, 2016 by norseman

[hiflier]

I was adding to what SWWA said yes, sorry.

No need! I was kind of assuming that was the case. BTW your research and explanation of the dynamics inolved in our lineage and the fine-tuned details of what could or couldn't occur has been exemplary. It's a great thread and I've thoroughly enjoyed it along with everyone's input. You've managed the thread and subject very well by keeping things narrow and focused on the OP. Much appreciated.

Edited April 26, 2016 by hiflier

[southernyahoo]

How about RNA? that might tell a different story but be harder to interpret.

 

It probably could make some difference in gene expression. There has to be plenty of that when comparing the genomes of humans and chimps. Perhaps a hybrid could have some "throw back" gene expression.

[norseman]

Hiflier,

Thank you.

Edited April 26, 2016 by norseman

[Yuchi1]

Sometimes, it might be prudent to carefully select the starting point for a (OP) theory.

 

What if BF is actually a human?

 

The fact no one has been able to bring one in for the past ~50 years is compelling evidence they exhibit a high degree of evasiveness hence, intelligence as to what "we" are and would mean to do with them.

 

Being transient in lifestyle is apparently a key to being elusive along with foregoing use of tools and implements that would disclose levels of habitation and possibly discovery.

 

Maybe, that's why the DNA always comes back "contaminated" by "human" DNA?

[SWWASAS]

Interesting discussion.       I have to correct something that was said earlier about Neanderthal DNA being in all humans.     That is not correct.   Neanderthal apparently originated  in Western Europe and one of several out of Africa human migrations would not have had any human/Neanderthal migration contact.    There were apparently several pushes of migration of of Africa and some of these headed East rather than North and West.       Probably due to drought cycles.    In my case my paternal side came out of Africa 20,000 years before the maternal side.   During the ice ages mountains were significant barriers to migration out of Africa and those likely headed East to the plains of Western Asia.      One or several groups of humans came out of Africa and migrated East into Asia then South into polynesia.  One marker group seems to have migrated back and forth between Asia and the Urals.   They just bounced back and forth for 10s of thousands of years in a nomadic existence.   I would guess that group is the present day Mongols.       So those that headed towards Asia have no Neanderthal DNA unless they have interbred with someone out of Europe later.    If as we suspect,  BF came out of Asia and crossed the Bering Sea land bridge it is entirely possible it had no contact at all with the Neanderthal species at any point.      Given the human migration vectors I would not bet BF has any Neanderthal DNA at all.      On the other hand gigantopithecus was found in Asia so if we are looking for a BF ancestor or member it it's family tree that is a more likely candidate.     BF may not be a direct descendant but they could be in the same family tree with one branch going erect primate and the other staying ape like.   Certainly the size similarity may mean something.   Just migrating out of SE Asia would provide a environmental push encouraging primate erect walking.     While the leafy tree jungle canopies of SE Asia would encourage a quadrupedal tree dweller,  swinging limb to limb move about,  migration into coniferous forests of Eastern Russian and and Alaska would promote ground locomotion simply because the coniferous trees would not support large heavy tree dwellers.     As the BF ancestor moved North and East it likely spent more and more time on the ground, lost the tropical fruits in the trees as a food source, and started the process of changing into an omnivore.    Since the migration hugged the coast, inland was heavily glaciated,  one would suspect that the availability of seafood might have encouraged animal protein consumption.        All unsupported theory but it fits what little we know.     

Edited April 26, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[FarArcher]

This is what Neanderthals looked like based on scientific reconstructions....they are basically Human.

Contrast this photo with the PGF. Keeping in mind Patty represents the HYBRID, and not the Paternal line like with the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals look MORE HUMAN than the "half human" Patty.....

 

 

Norse, I swear I'm not arguing against you for the sake of arguing, but there have been other renditions that look nothing like these.

 

I have read articles, National Geographic, and all the rest for years that basically said, "Give a Neanderthal a shave and a haircut, and he could pass unnoticed on the streets of New York."

 

That is a load of manure.  That is anthromorphism, or a tendency to make something that doesn't look like us - look like us.  In this case, it's just dishonest.

 

The Neanderthal eyes were so much higher on the head, strong protruding brows, and their eyes were 20% larger than human eyes - indicating they would be more successful as a primarily nocturnal hunter.  

 

Then, their entire skeletal features were much, much more powerful and much more robust.  These things were brutes.  When I see human muscle tone, with a human face, I just feel that is a most dishonest portrayal of what these things looked like.

 

One guy started with a clean sheet of paper.  Danny Vendramini delved into this and his determinations were much different than traditional "transitional species" work by mainstream anthropologists.  In his rather eye-opening book, THEM + US, one can see clearly that he tried to approach the task with unbiased honesty.

 

He had the same skulls and the same skeletal remains addressed from a viewpoint as to not bias appearances from a more gentle human standpoint, but to apply anthropological science to the bones and skulls.  He had renowned sculptor Arturo Balseiro laser scan the skulls and use NP theory and the latest computer technology to generate a new reconstruction.

 

Gentlemen, at least have a look at some of the things proposed in THEM + US, the renditions, and many of the determinations made by the author.  We may not agree with all of them, but it will enable one to approach the problem from a completely different angle, and at least be aware that there is another, equally possible range of differences.

 

Look at the skulls and then the facial presentations by Vendramini, and compare the skull and facial presentations supplied by those others who want them to look more human.

 

Then.  Look at the Vendramini presentations and compare to what you've seen in the field.  

 

I think the truth is somewhere in between mainstream and the Vendramini presentation.

[norseman]

This is what our closest Homo cousin looked like in the flesh?

I think this is psuedo science. Besides we have the Neanderthal genome and no where in it does it support cat pupil eyes and night vision. I reject his hypothesis.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

This is what I think a Neanderthal would look like.

Not an image of mine though.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[ShadowBorn]

Put longer hair on both of those and straighter legs and taller and you will have it. The It ! The freak of nature, But why is it here and how? We as humans split , from Africa. Ones humans went up through europe and spread and other humans went through central china and spread though there. My question is , were these creatures here when humans arrived  and were thriving? and that our illnesses brought them down until they started mating with us and their genes crossed with us . This is where this so call mutation starts among them but it was never in us. It also show that they were never in europe since there is no sign of Neandrothall in them or in the collected samples but does show Human. Strange in away. But again with the speculation and another theory or should I say hypothisis. It has to be proven.

 

Lets say that Humans did run into these creatures when they first ventured into these lands. I mean how did Humans make it here ,before the discovery of North America. When North America was discovered there were humans already living here , so how did they get here before discovery. Humans are resource full , I mean look at our selves at what we can do. So discovery of North America was made way before anyone else discovered it yet this fact has been hidden.

 

Why in central China are there talk of creatures like we have here. Some thing is not right here, yet there is a trail that we can follow. Look at the Yowie and where it's location is , how and why is it where it is? Could it be that this where it first started or is central China and maybe these creatures followed the Humans as they made their passage. Now this is our ancestors and I say this cause we are all related. It is hard to understand the journey they did to survive , as Humans found hope in certain areas of the world.

 

So if these creatures followed us but live the way they do then they must have chose to do so. Our path was meant for a different destiny that we are still in discovery. Many decisions can be made on what is being said.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Wouldn't be that hairy or even as little hair as we as it wore the same types of stuff as we did at that point.

The popularization of Neanderthal as a primitive ape type man occured initially at an earlier period in anthropology when they were seen as primitive ape men. Now we know they are the closest relation we have and are fully human.

They were also smarter, more creative, musical, artistic.

Socially they may have been simpler which may be where they lost the advantage.

Also were more cold adapted and for a more robust ice age environment.

We are more African type and heat adapted and we are in a warmer period so that also could have contributed to their decline.

[FarArcher]

Well, with eyes 20% larger than ours, I'd say that's a mighty big indicator that they excelled at night work in comparison to us.  

 

 

There was one thing that stood out to me when I saw that critter - and it was how high on the head his eyes were.  I mean, on up there where our forehead is.

 

We certainly don't have enough Neanderthal gene in us to prove or disprove that Neanderthal had cat eyes, but I likewise would think this is unlikely, and besides, cat eyes are not needed when your eyes themselves are so much larger.

 

It's possible humans were primarily diurnal, and Neanderthal were primarily nocturnal - to take advantage of the characteristics nature gave them.  They were much heavier and much more robust than us - again, giving them different capabilities than we had.

 

Shadowborn, I think anthropologists don't know as much as they postulate - which is why they have to keep backing up and changing their minds on who belongs where, and who went where, and when.

 

And the Out of Africa may be blown out of the water by the Petrolona Skull.

 

We don't know half of what we think we know.  Every time these experts come up with a timeline, a later discovery blows that timeline and all the accompanying assumptions out of the water.  The alternative is to ignore newer findings.

[norseman]

FarArcher:

We certainly don't have enough Neanderthal gene in us to prove or disprove that Neanderthal had cat eyes, but I likewise would think this is unlikely, and besides, cat eyes are not needed when your eyes themselves are so much larger.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project