southernyahoo Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 The latest Asian fossil finds with DNA results could wind up being a tidy explanation for Samurai Chatter........ 1
Yuchi1 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (OT) LCB, Your post illustrates a progression through the cycle of thinking and emotions that most normal (emphasis added) people experience. It isn't the end of the world (discovery), one way or the other. My personal interest has been tempered by time to that of a more steady and pragmatic approach. The endemic dust-up episodes (SS/DD), in Sasquatchery have probably done more for people exiting the so-called BF Community than anything else. Filtering the attitudes, egos & agendas can become an endeavor in and of itself. Hang in there. The enduring aspect of BFF & BFRO is their archival repository as IMO, there's probably a lot more unread history than new ideas. Keep the faith.
southernyahoo Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 On 7/12/2017 at 0:12 AM, norseman said: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150122-is-this-a-new-species-of-human I read things like this and it feels like they are describing a being that fits our bigfoot so well. As if it's something they would say while examining a complete specimen. I revert back to the mitochondrial DNA though, and think how they'd get around having to call it human. They might have to come up with a new criteria to distinguish species, which would likely be a political can of worms IMO. Quote "What we have seen is an unknown group for us," she says. "It's not H. sapiens and it's not H. neanderthalensis. They have a mixture of something very primitive, which is currently unknown. We cannot go further to say it's a new species because we need to compare it to other things." They might actually fit an existing species. "They could even be Denisovans," adds Martinón-Torres. The Denisovans co-existed and even interbred with us. But hardly anything is known about them. The only fossils come from a cave in Siberia and consist of two teeth and a tiny finger bone. DNA analysis revealed that they were distinct from both Neanderthals and modern humans but had aspects of both.
Guest Cricket Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 1 hour ago, southernyahoo said: I read things like this and it feels like they are describing a being that fits our bigfoot so well. As if it's something they would say while examining a complete specimen. I revert back to the mitochondrial DNA though, and think how they'd get around having to call it human. They might have to come up with a new criteria to distinguish species, which would likely be a political can of worms IMO. Except for the size. They look to be within the size range of the comparison teeth. The criteria for distinguishing species is: "A biological species is a group of populations that can actually or potentially interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and which are reproductively isolated from populations in other species." (Wolpoff,1999:42). Without an extant creature or DNA, that is impossible to determine, so there are other species definitions for fossils: "Evolutionary species: A single phylogenetic lineage of ancestral-descendent populations evolving separately and maintaining its identity from other such lineages, with its own evolutionary tendencies and historical fate," and "Phylogenetic species: A group of individuals meeting two criteria: (1) the identity of the group can be diagnosed by at least one shared unique feature, and (2) the group must be monophyletic so that there is a parental pattern of ancestry within the group, but not beyond it." (Wolpoff:1999:46). So I would ask, what new criteria is called for? Wolpoff does not believe Neanderthals are a separate species from humans, based on the presence of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans signalling the ability to interbreed (see the biological species definition above). I should add that the Phylogenetic species is determined by cladistic analysis. I've posted a couple times on cladistics for those who are truly interested in evaluating how these relationships are typically determined. I could repost that info if you'd like. I would urge anyone to at least become reasonably familiar with what cladistics is and what it does because I think it's relevant to this kind of discussion.
Yuchi1 Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 All of the warts aside, that's likely what Ketchum was onto when she ran the complete genome. 1
LeafTalker Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 Cricket, do you know about Patrick? He was reported to have been the offspring of a First Nations woman and a Bigfoot man. Here's some information on Patrick: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/fusch.htm Scroll down to "The Stick Indians of the Colvilles" in Chapter 4.
Guest Cricket Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, LeafTalker said: Cricket, do you know about Patrick? He was reported to have been the offspring of a First Nations woman and a Bigfoot man. Here's some information on Patrick: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/fusch.htm Scroll down to "The Stick Indians of the Colvilles" in Chapter 4. I saw something about this (can't remember where) but not in such detail, thanks. Well, if there are descendants still alive today, there are DNA tests that could be done. And has anyone done a search for the caves??? The account says they used the caves in that area. Edited July 15, 2017 by Cricket
LeafTalker Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 Mary Louise, Patrick's daughter, would be about 95 years old now, if she's still here. And it sounds like Madeline, Mary Louise's younger sister, had a difficult life, so she might not be here now, either.
southernyahoo Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 On 7/14/2017 at 10:35 AM, Cricket said: Except for the size. They look to be within the size range of the comparison teeth. The criteria for distinguishing species is: "A biological species is a group of populations that can actually or potentially interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and which are reproductively isolated from populations in other species." (Wolpoff,1999:42). Without an extant creature or DNA, that is impossible to determine, so there are other species definitions for fossils: "Evolutionary species: A single phylogenetic lineage of ancestral-descendent populations evolving separately and maintaining its identity from other such lineages, with its own evolutionary tendencies and historical fate," and "Phylogenetic species: A group of individuals meeting two criteria: (1) the identity of the group can be diagnosed by at least one shared unique feature, and (2) the group must be monophyletic so that there is a parental pattern of ancestry within the group, but not beyond it." (Wolpoff:1999:46). So I would ask, what new criteria is called for? Wolpoff does not believe Neanderthals are a separate species from humans, based on the presence of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans signalling the ability to interbreed (see the biological species definition above). I should add that the Phylogenetic species is determined by cladistic analysis. I've posted a couple times on cladistics for those who are truly interested in evaluating how these relationships are typically determined. I could repost that info if you'd like. I would urge anyone to at least become reasonably familiar with what cladistics is and what it does because I think it's relevant to this kind of discussion. Cricket, I was primarily referring to criteria used with DNA for species delineation. Mitochondrial DNA genes are used , and a divergence threshold has to be met, to call it a new species. So what would we do if the scenario below was true for bigfoot? Quote This influx of hominins would have been small enough that it did not result in a large impact on the Neanderthals' nuclear DNA. However, it would have been large enough to completely replace the existing mitochondrial lineage of Neanderthals, more similar to the Denisovans, with a type more similar to modern humans.
Guest Cricket Posted July 16, 2017 Posted July 16, 2017 4 hours ago, southernyahoo said: Cricket, I was primarily referring to criteria used with DNA for species delineation. Mitochondrial DNA genes are used , and a divergence threshold has to be met, to call it a new species. So what would we do if the scenario below was true for bigfoot? I would still refer to the biological species definition regarding indications of interbreeding. The mitochondrial DNA had to get there somehow, and that would be interbreeding. If that has happened, then they aren't separate species.
southernyahoo Posted July 16, 2017 Posted July 16, 2017 That's where I'm at with this too. I've kind of lost hope in finding divergence in DNA unless it's in the nuclear DNA where there is so much more study required and so little of it used for species ID.
norseman Posted July 16, 2017 Admin Posted July 16, 2017 How is this creature interbreedable with a Human? When we were barely able to breed with Neanderthals? Of which no male viable offspring survived? If the female Neanderthal is at the outer edge of compatibility with a human male? Patty is off the charts. I found this.... http://news.softpedia.com/news/Woman-Jobs-Made-Us-Human-41655.shtml
SWWASAS Posted July 16, 2017 BFF Patron Posted July 16, 2017 Looking at the human / neanderthal interrelationships, if you use the general rule of thumb that successful interbreeding of species points directly at close family tree connections, one only has to find progeny of supposed BF/human hybridization and we can be reasonably certain we and BF are on the same branch of the family tree someplace. Such progeny are more myth than available for study. Sykes sure blew the Zana case out of the water which sure seemed like it might produce that connection. .
Guest Cricket Posted July 16, 2017 Posted July 16, 2017 36 minutes ago, norseman said: How is this creature interbreedable with a Human? When we were barely able to breed with Neanderthals? Of which no male viable offspring survived? If the female Neanderthal is at the outer edge of compatibility with a human male? Patty is off the charts. I found this.... http://news.softpedia.com/news/Woman-Jobs-Made-Us-Human-41655.shtml Hi norseman, I, myself, don't advocate for any particular scenario, BUT as I explained to DWA a little while back, I merely want to: "...emphasize that whatever scenario one proposes—and anyone can propose whatever scenario they want--it will have implications, and a coherent proposal attempts to address these. And the difficult part of primate evolution (or any animal’s lineage) is that what appears to be a solution to one issue inevitably creates many more issues than it solves. But that’s what makes it fun, right?..." When anyone proposes something, whatever that may be, I think it's more useful to say OK, let's walk through it. After all is said, that helps to separate the more plausible scenarios from those that are obviously much more problematic.
norseman Posted July 16, 2017 Admin Posted July 16, 2017 We encourage debate here at the BFF, so long as people remain civil and do not make it personal. I think I'm well within those lines. I find the Bigfoot hybrid preposterous. Looking at Patty as a hybrid and then imaging a human mating with something much more archaic than Patty to create Patty? Yah....I'd say that hypothesis is problematic. Even more problematic is that the hybrid hypothesis guts what little evidence we do have about Bigfoot. Meldrum postulates Bigfoot has a much more ape like foot and leaves a "mid tarsal break". Well.....um if Bigfoot is basically human? We have a problem. Night Vision? 8 ft tall and 800 lbs? Infrasound? I won't even go further because it gets weird. People are frustrated with DNA results.....I get that. But you cannot give a species a ton of non human physical attributes and still call it human. It doesn't work that way in nature. 1
Recommended Posts