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

[norseman]

Nature finds a way.

If Sasquatch can or has mated with Human women or vice versa?

Our evidence should be stacking up in maternity wards across the country!

I'm a rancher.....i find it rather dubious that a 800 lbs Sasquatch can breed to a 125 lbs woman and.....

1 ) She lives through the encounter.

2 ) She shares enough gene pool with the beast to create a fetus.

3 ) She lives through delivering the baby.

This is putting the article aside, in which she will ONLY carry a female hybrid baby to full term. (Neanderthal and Human)

And If you get too closely related to us? Then why are they 8 ft tall, eat raw fish, sleep in snow drifts and leave 18 inch foot prints around???

That's not human, thats not half human......and its paternal side logically should be even farther removed. Was the mystery Ape man in question that spawned Sasquatch with human woman.........12 feet tall? Was it some sort of Gigantopethicus? How on earth did it breed to a human female resulting in a pregnacy and birth.

Why arent human women who are being raped by Orangs not giving birth?

The scenario is unworkable.

The beast you saw had to be a species unto its own. Do you honestly think it came from a human mother like your own? And remember we lose men too.....

 

No need to get too explicit, but the fact that these critters may be 8' tall doesn't mean there's no way they could breed a 125 pound woman.

 

And no one suggests it's common, just trying to explain the different facial features - some more ape-like and some more human-like.  I would expect if it were even possible, of the few to be born, very few of them would survive.

 

For a few thousand years, the narratives have been consistent - the Big'uns take human women.  I can't change that - and to ignore it is a personal choice.  They've reportedly been taking human women for some purpose.  One can only guess why.  Then, we hear occasional narratives NOT of the common, primitive ape-like faces, but these occasional narratives describe a more human face - and I'm just trying to suggest a possibility to account for that.  I exclude NOTHING.  How could most BF have buttugly ape faces, and on occasion, a more human-like face?

 

If the BF can mate and produce - even - sterile offspring - they they're a type of close relative, possibly a hybrid in of itself - hybrid in terms of NOT being an ape, but maybe close enough to man to mate and produce offspring like the donkey and the horse can produce sterile offspring.. 

 

This gigantopithicus idea that has been thrown out there by some is just crazy - the gigantopithicus was an ape.  BF is not an ape.  It's not h.sapiens, but it's not an ape, either.  To make it even worse - the experts don't have diddly squat on the gigantopithecus!  A few teeth and a partial jaw?  They don't know squat about gigantopithecus - except it was big.

 

It wasn't long ago we had the diprotodon, basically a five foot tall wombat, a nine foot tall bird called a moa, a North American wooly rhino, a giant elk some six plus feet tall at the shoulders with over 9 feet width of antlers, the giant sloth about 12 feet tall, sabre tooth tiger, and mastadons - but the only thing some folks than think of that may be a BF is the big ape of the day - although nothing is known about it as no bones exist.

 

BF is one, strange critter.  Hopefully, one day in the near future, someone will bring one in - and I'd bet a two-dollar cup of coffee that on that day, what they find will raise more questions than get answered.

Nobody is going to know exactly what it is until we have its DNA sequenced.

But I think the Giganto theory is way less crazy by multitudes........than the human hybrid one. It never made sense to me that two species would spawn a third seperate one. And now we know for a fact that human wombs did not carry Neanderthal hybrid boys to full term. In my opinion that crushes the human hybrid theory.

And great apes attempt and sometimes succeed in raping human women. So I have no illusions that no matter what Sasquatch is it is probably attracted to ovulating human women.

No fire or tool manufacture. And looking at PGF limb proportions and mid tarsal breaks and compliant gait? I think this species is well removed from the genus Homo.

[Guest BDK]

I'm of the it wouldn't work camp, and usually attribute the stories of them taking humans, female or male, only as aside where the parts might line up but genetically there is just no way. They may see a human they want to mate with but nothing comes of it.

Unless they are closer to us than Neanderthals and that's just hard to believe.

[MIB]

I don't think the hybrid hypothesis is dead.  I don't think this new "info" either strengthens it or weakens it.   It won't be proven 'til it's proven and it won't be disproven 'til something else is proven, everything else falls between empty conjecture and special pleading.   How rational an explanation seems to you or to me has no bearing at all on whether it is correct or not.  If you want answers, do field work.   There is not one iota of truth to be found on the net which did not come from the field first.

 

MIB

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I'm of the it wouldn't work camp, and usually attribute the stories of them taking humans, female or male, only as aside where the parts might line up but genetically there is just no way. They may see a human they want to mate with but nothing comes of it.

Unless they are closer to us than Neanderthals and that's just hard to believe.

Since Zebras and Horses can produce offspring and we are closer to an Australopithecus than horses and zebras are to each other it is completely within the realm of possibility, if not necessarily a probability.

 

The real question do the offspring survive to maturity and can they produce viable offspring.

The line between us and an Australopithecus is somewhat arbitrary and is based mostly on the premise that they are not our direct ancestors. 

 

Something that could interbreed with them was.

 

And due to the branchiness of the hominid family tree there are lineages that have not been discovered or classified correctly.

[FarArcher]

I don't keep up with this stuff - but I've always thought that some of these archaeologists and anthropologists were a bit quick on the trigger to make the next big discovery and get their name attached to it.  

 

As we all know, most fossil homos are coming out of Africa, from Chad, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, and South Africa.  And every time we turn around, another species has been discovered.  There would be a fragment with some little nuance, and they'd name a whole new species.  Such excitement.  Yawn.

 

But something's changed, and a lot of those "species" may be eradicated from the record due entirely to a phenomenal discovery in (Russian) Dmanisi, Georgia.  Pretty much in one locations, they found five 1.8 million year old skulls, most entirely complete - an elderly male, two adult males, one female, and one juvenile of unknown sex - all of them Homo Erectus, but the skulls vary so much that they demonstrate that many of the so-called African species are just simple variants of the same species.  And here is the proof.

 

Now, we can probably trim off the record the H rudolfensis, the H gautengensis, H ergaster, and the H habilis.  Four species.  Aren't species.

 

That's what happens when these guys get in a hurry to get their name attached to some new discovery.  

 

So forgive me if I don't jump at some of the mankind/fossil/genetic postulations made a few years ago, and then just fall off the earth.  

 

That's how I maintain what little sanity I still have.

 

MIB is already where I stand as well.  We'll see, when we see.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

What Im super curious about now? Is why.... what evolutionary reason is there? Why abort only the males? Why not both sexes?

 

Regarding humans,  it's a known fact that male infants have a higher mortality and morbidity rate than female infants. This phenomenon is also observed in non-human animals. Males are the weaker sex, per science.

 

Mutations are known to occur with sex chromosomes and with the autosomes.  So on a molecular level, it's not as clear cut as

 

 

Male neanderthal (NxNy) +  Human female (HxHx) = Female (NxHx)   or Male (NyHx)

 

or

 

Human Male (HxHy) + Neanderthal Female (NxNx) = Female (HxNx) or Male (HyNx)

 

 

and because each parent contributes 23 chromosomes to the offspring, that increases the chance of mutations, etc.

 

Also, mutations, point deletions, etc. can result in "good things" or in "bad things". If the result is "good", such as the CCR5-A32 gene mutation, it's not considered a 'disorder' or an 'abnormality'.  But if the result is "bad", meaning it is not compatible with life, then it is called a 'disorder' or an 'abnormality'.

 

Going back to the CCR5-A32 gene mutation. It is the gene mutation that makes 10% of all modern day white Europeans immune to the Plague. Plague wiped out an estimated 60% of the European population in the Middle Ages. Meaning most of the current white European population is descended from the Plague survivors. So why do only 10% of the white Europeans currently have that gene mutation?

 

If everything was clear cut-neat and tidy, nearly 100% of today's white European population should have the CCR5-A32 gene mutation. Is it because the people with that gene are hideously unattractive and never mated enough to produce offspring? Is it because they die off from other things? Is it because over the last 700 years the mutation un-mutated? And if it can mutate, then un-mutate, could it re-mutate?

 

Again, nothing is clear cut-neat and tidy. Lots of hypotheses. Lots of theories. But are conclusions based on hypotheses and theories definitive "truths/facts" or are they merely conclusions based on hypotheses and theories?

Edited April 11, 2016 by ChasingRabbits

[Yuchi1]

Perhaps, instead of anguishing over where we came from, it would be more prudent to consider where we (as a species) are headed?

[WSA]

Chasing Rabbits: Your scenario for plague survivor mutations follows from a presumption that 100% of Europeans were exposed to plague, doesn't it? Although the waves of plague pandemics were devastating, it did not reach a significant percentage of the population. (You know, it is always the ones who break out in pustules that get all the attention!)

 

Norseman: As to your theory, I'd just say "perhaps." I'm not certain you can extrapolate it to all hominids, but how could we know? We are only moving imaginary players on a board we have designed using uncertain information. "All" mules are supposed to be sterile, but that has been shown to be less than certain.

Edited April 11, 2016 by WSA

[salubrious]

 

No fire or tool manufacture. And looking at PGF limb proportions and mid tarsal breaks and compliant gait? I think this species is well removed from the genus Homo.

 

 

Just FWIW, humans can duplicate the 'compliant gait' and the mid-tarsal break with a fair amount of ease. In fact that is the natural way humans walked without shoes.

 

The 'mid-tarsal break' is something that occurs in the track as a result of the gait.

[ShadowBorn]

What Im super curious about now? Is why.... what evolutionary reason is there? Why abort only the males? Why not both sexes?

I am not up on this chromosome stuff, like the x and the y. But if evolution had a reason for selecting males to abort then the females, then some thing took place for it to happen, If the male is there to fertilize the female egg, but nature selected that  Neanderthals males to be the weaker of the species then the females then who are we to argue if the males were selected. Some change took place at some time with in our history of evolution that made us what we are. We do not know if these creatures took part in that change or that we took part in their change. But one thing is for sure that there is a history of an evolutionary tree of our formation. Hey! some thing took place. 

[JDL]

 

 

If that were the case? We would have extinct Mystery Ape man DNA in us.....1-10 percent or at least Native Americans.....and WE would be the Sasquatch!

Thats how it seems to have played out in reality.

Our DNA does include that of an unidentified antecessor, plus Neanderthal, plus Denisovan.

http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-sex-lives-1.14196

No.

The unidentified species bred with Denisovians, and not us directly. If any of that mystery DNA is shared through Denisovians to Australian or Melanasian populations your article did not say.

 

Guess you're right.  Looks like speculation is that Homo Heidelbergensis might be the unidentified species.

[norseman]

And that of course makes the most sense JDL. Homo Erectus might be the other candidate but I think that is a genetic stretch.

[norseman]

What Im super curious about now? Is why.... what evolutionary reason is there? Why abort only the males? Why not both sexes?

Regarding humans, it's a known fact that male infants have a higher mortality and morbidity rate than female infants. This phenomenon is also observed in non-human animals. Males are the weaker sex, per science.

Mutations are known to occur with sex chromosomes and with the autosomes. So on a molecular level, it's not as clear cut as

Male neanderthal (NxNy) + Human female (HxHx) = Female (NxHx) or Male (NyHx)

or

Human Male (HxHy) + Neanderthal Female (NxNx) = Female (HxNx) or Male (HyNx)

and because each parent contributes 23 chromosomes to the offspring, that increases the chance of mutations, etc.

Also, mutations, point deletions, etc. can result in "good things" or in "bad things". If the result is "good", such as the CCR5-A32 gene mutation, it's not considered a 'disorder' or an 'abnormality'. But if the result is "bad", meaning it is not compatible with life, then it is called a 'disorder' or an 'abnormality'.

Going back to the CCR5-A32 gene mutation. It is the gene mutation that makes 10% of all modern day white Europeans immune to the Plague. Plague wiped out an estimated 60% of the European population in the Middle Ages. Meaning most of the current white European population is descended from the Plague survivors. So why do only 10% of the white Europeans currently have that gene mutation?

If everything was clear cut-neat and tidy, nearly 100% of today's white European population should have the CCR5-A32 gene mutation. Is it because the people with that gene are hideously unattractive and never mated enough to produce offspring? Is it because they die off from other things? Is it because over the last 700 years the mutation un-mutated? And if it can mutate, then un-mutate, could it re-mutate?

Again, nothing is clear cut-neat and tidy. Lots of hypotheses. Lots of theories. But are conclusions based on hypotheses and theories definitive "truths/facts" or are they merely conclusions based on hypotheses and theories?

It would seem Neandethal Y chromosomes had mutations the triggered human women's auto immune system that aborted hybrid male fetuses. Edited April 11, 2016 by norseman

[norseman]

What Im super curious about now? Is why.... what evolutionary reason is there? Why abort only the males? Why not both sexes?

 

Regarding humans,  it's a known fact that male infants have a higher mortality and morbidity rate than female infants. This phenomenon is also observed in non-human animals. Males are the weaker sex, per science.

 

Mutations are known to occur with sex chromosomes and with the autosomes.  So on a molecular level, it's not as clear cut as

 

 

Male neanderthal (NxNy) +  Human female (HxHx) = Female (NxHx)   or Male (NyHx)

 

or

 

Human Male (HxHy) + Neanderthal Female (NxNx) = Female (HxNx) or Male (HyNx)

 

 

and because each parent contributes 23 chromosomes to the offspring, that increases the chance of mutations, etc.

 

Also, mutations, point deletions, etc. can result in "good things" or in "bad things". If the result is "good", such as the CCR5-A32 gene mutation, it's not considered a 'disorder' or an 'abnormality'.  But if the result is "bad", meaning it is not compatible with life, then it is called a 'disorder' or an 'abnormality'.

 

Going back to the CCR5-A32 gene mutation. It is the gene mutation that makes 10% of all modern day white Europeans immune to the Plague. Plague wiped out an estimated 60% of the European population in the Middle Ages. Meaning most of the current white European population is descended from the Plague survivors. So why do only 10% of the white Europeans currently have that gene mutation?

 

If everything was clear cut-neat and tidy, nearly 100% of today's white European population should have the CCR5-A32 gene mutation. Is it because the people with that gene are hideously unattractive and never mated enough to produce offspring? Is it because they die off from other things? Is it because over the last 700 years the mutation un-mutated? And if it can mutate, then un-mutate, could it re-mutate?

 

Again, nothing is clear cut-neat and tidy. Lots of hypotheses. Lots of theories. But are conclusions based on hypotheses and theories definitive "truths/facts" or are they merely conclusions based on hypotheses and theories?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-neanderthals-likely-fathered-few-kids-modern-humans-160112568.html

The Neanderthal Y chromosome was genetically distinct from any seen in modern humans. This suggests that this El Sidrón male's lineage is extinct, without any living carriers in modern humans. It remains uncertain how much other Neanderthal Y chromosomes resembled or differed from this one.

Further analysis revealed that genetic mutations might explain why this Neanderthal Y chromosome was lost in modern humans. Three mutations seen on this chromosome generate molecules that can trigger immune responses from women during pregnancy that can lead to miscarriages, and two of these three mutations are unique to Neanderthals.

The researchers suggest that such genetic incompatibilities between Neanderthals and modern humans may have helped drive these lineages apart by discouraging interbreeding between them.

"We should pay attention to the potential role of immune incompatibilities in population isolation," study lead author Fernando Mendez, a population geneticist at Stanford University, told Live Science.

[guyzonthropus]

Mutations are only good or bad , in nature anyways, as determined by the environmental selective factors in the current ecology of the time, aside from deleterious mutations that inhibit/prohibit actual functional survival. In a dynamic or shifting ecology what would normally be a negative factor may prove out to be the one thing that allows for effective existence in the new context even though in an overall sense doesn't particularly advance the nature of the creature, yet enables the individual to survive and thereby breed, thus passing on the new genetics while the others have perished. Sure that's an extreme example compressed into a single generation, but it illustrates the idea...

I think what norseman was getting to in one post was that a human female would have difficulty carrying to term, much less giving birth to, a half sasquatch baby due to the size. In light of the nature of most fellas, I would think that male humans coupling with female sasquatch would be far more apt to prove viable, and more likely as well, for that matter....I know any of my younger brothers would be more inclined to sleep with a she-foot than either of my sister's agreeing to comply with a big male..Well at least one of my sisters....¿;~)

In regards to the y chromosome, it's been noted that it contributes to an inherent physical weakness on some levels...

With the plague example, certainly the post-plague recovery of the population was comprised of both those exposed and survived people and those from regions not effected ether to such a degree or at all..with so much open territory afterwards, those from healthy regions with undiminished numbers, the draw of better lands would be irresistible and quickly filled once deemed safe. I love the pustule reference! Made me think of Hotbubonicbabes.com and perkypustules.com....sorry...