Guest Silver Fox Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 Actually, all the stories I can think of that tell of surviving hybrid offspring do mention that they had viable offspring. Zana's offspring married into the village families and had a family burial plot. The Chelan, WA hybrid child also interbred with the village people and was smoothly incorporated into the tribe. Sure, the stories do not constitute credible evidence but DNA does. I do hope they sequence nuclear DNA in this case and have something solid to present. And as Bob pointed out if the ancestry of the sample sasquatch has a modern human female very near in the lineage the mDNA could be completely human while the sasquatch has nuclear DNA consistent with an archaic homo. The explanation does fit quite well. What is the Chelan, WA hybrid child? Thx.
JDL Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 Actually, all the stories I can think of that tell of surviving hybrid offspring do mention that they had viable offspring. Zana's offspring married into the village families and had a family burial plot. The Chelan, WA hybrid child also interbred with the village people and was smoothly incorporated into the tribe. Sure, the stories do not constitute credible evidence but DNA does. I do hope they sequence nuclear DNA in this case and have something solid to present. And as Bob pointed out if the ancestry of the sample sasquatch has a modern human female very near in the lineage the mDNA could be completely human while the sasquatch has nuclear DNA consistent with an archaic homo. The explanation does fit quite well. What does the predominantly human nature of these reported hybrids say about the dominance of human DNA in such cases?
Guest vilnoori Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) What is the Chelan, WA hybrid child? Thx. My mistake, it was the Colville Indians as recorded by anthropologist Ed Fusch, in his 1992 book, "S'cwene'yti and the Stick Indians of the Colvilles" where the story can be found in Chapter 4, page 18. The whole thing is found at Bigfootencounters.com under the Legends link. The hybrid child was called Patrick. Interestingly though possibly pure chance, none of Patrick's sons survived, only 3 daughters, 2 of whom grew up. One reproduced and the offspring were integrated into the tribe. This is a classic example of how the DNA could mingle within only two or three generations. Edited June 2, 2011 by vilnoori
Guest vilnoori Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 What does the predominantly human nature of these reported hybrids say about the dominance of human DNA in such cases? Apparently Patrick had many archaic features considered ugly, but he was very smart and affluent and married well. He had unusually long arms, his ear placement was different, he hunched over and had a sloping forehead. Patrick would have had completely human mDNA since his mother was Colville Indian, and he would have had half BF and half normal nuclear DNA. If this quite factual account exists, there could well be other events in time and prehistory that never made it to Western accounts but existed. The fact that both Denisova and Neanderthal strains have been found in human DNA in different localities in the world tells us that all the archaic homo lineages were genetically quite close and perhaps could interbreed more than we realize. It might have been separation of habitat, time and habits that kept the strains relatively pure in spite of some genetic compatibility. It happens in other animals all the time, such as Bobcats and Lynx and many birds.
JDL Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 Apparently Patrick had many archaic features considered ugly, but he was very smart and affluent and married well. He had unusually long arms, his ear placement was different, he hunched over and had a sloping forehead. Patrick would have had completely human mDNA since his mother was Colville Indian, and he would have had half BF and half normal nuclear DNA. If this quite factual account exists, there could well be other events in time and prehistory that never made it to Western accounts but existed. The fact that both Denisova and Neanderthal strains have been found in human DNA in different localities in the world tells us that all the archaic homo lineages were genetically quite close and perhaps could interbreed more than we realize. It might have been separation of habitat, time and habits that kept the strains relatively pure in spite of some genetic compatibility. It happens in other animals all the time, such as Bobcats and Lynx and many birds. Considering that Zana's offspring were all hairless, can we hypothesize that modern human characteristics are more penetrant?
Guest vilnoori Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Perhaps. If you have a good look around at your local mall, you will see that modern humans have many characteristics of archaic humans, including the great range in height, but they exist at the ends of the bell curve of averages in numbers. The phenotypes are all present in current populations, but for the most part they stay hidden, popping out only rarely. This even goes for divergent big toes!
Guest Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Do you have a link to a report on the DNA findings, that show the sample is human? or does it show that it is Bigfoot? My guess is the DNA came back human. Does the finding that all of these samples keep coming back human, dictate that Bigfoot must be some form of human? or does it dictate that humans are leaving the samples? If Bigfoot is a human, then what are we all wasting our time for? It occured in Snohomish county WA. Owen Caddy went and investigated after I asked him to because I was in CA at the time. He did so and sent the results himself. He also recieved the results and I have a copy of it at home. Coming back human all time... yes that is interesting... or is it a flaw in the process everyone is using?
Guest vilnoori Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 I keep saying over and over again that more indepth DNA work is required, like that done with the Denisova woman remains in Siberia. It was the Max Planck Institute that handled that one. If you get samples you must get your lab to read that work and do something similar. It will take a lot more effort but otherwise you will just get a "human" designation and nothing will come of it. All that for nothing.
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 I keep saying over and over again that more indepth DNA work is required, like that done with the Denisova woman remains in Siberia. It was the Max Planck Institute that handled that one. If you get samples you must get your lab to read that work and do something similar. It will take a lot more effort but otherwise you will just get a "human" designation and nothing will come of it. All that for nothing. I think that is true. Most of these DNA tests are just quick and dirties. MtDNA has 16,000 base pairs. Most tests just look at a few hundred. Nuclear DNA has 3 million base pairs. No way are these things Homo sapiens sapiens. That's just way too insane.
Oonjerah Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Bigfoot appears to be homo. ... Homo unclassificado? Homo elusory? 1
Bonehead74 Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 You know that every time someone necroposts, Dubya eats a kitten, right? Here's proof: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgByCZKlHrm0GyDY9Z3ybEG0lB87pe96mlykoJnazZDlDt7Q2puQ
Oonjerah Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 No, I didn't know that! Thank goodness, my cats won't have kittens.
Celtic Raider Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Actually, all the stories I can think of that tell of surviving hybrid offspring do mention that they had viable offspring. Zana's offspring married into the village families and had a family burial plot. The Chelan, WA hybrid child also interbred with the village people This line made me chuckle
Bodhi Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Here. From my site. A man associated with the Erickson Project has produced a major leak about the DNA. The DNA is very close to humans or Homo sapiens sapiens, at least the MtDNA is. Which doesn't seem to make sense. If they are nearly us, why no language, fire, tools? Why the primitive behavior? Why the primitive midtarsal break, lost 2.4 million YBP? Why the primitive saggital crest/nuchal crest? I don't get it. But if they are this close to us, then this adds weight to the stories of them breeding with us. The project favors the name Homo sapiens sesqueqiencis, which would make them a subspecies of us, like the Neandertals, although many now want to elevate Neandertal to full species. If BF's are really this close to humans, I expect this study to get ripped to shreds by skeptics. They will just say that the BF samples are all human remains or contaminated with human DNA, rendering the results useless. They are us. Incredible. There were plenty of reports that described sasquatches as having tools, fire, and weapons and living in villages. The word "sasquatch" comes from a Salish word describing creatures/animals/peoples which were hairy/long-haired, very tall and who lived in groups/villages with fire, tools, dwellings, etc. The modern, primate-like, bigfoot came into fashion with the story by william roe as told in an article by john green. So, as weird as it seems, it's consistent with the earliest descriptions of sasquatch as described by the native people. I'm looking forward to what comes forward on this sample, thanks for sharing this.
Bonehead74 Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 You guys understand that you're discussing the Ketchum DNA study, right? 2
Recommended Posts