Poll: When Would An Announcement Of e-DNA Positive For Sasquatch Be Made?

[WSA]

 

A point I can't avoid is the narratives of hunters who have considered shooting one, when they had an excellent opportunity to do it. Time and again, they've said the same thing. Consider the direct gaze Patty gave....if you can look at that and see anything but glaring anger, worry and doubt all rolled into one, you've never had your mother give you the same look. This is not scientific, I know, but it is a human reaction to a human interaction.    

[hiflier]

3 minutes ago, WSA said:

 

A point I can't avoid is the narratives of hunters who have considered shooting one, when they had an excellent opportunity to do it. Time and again, they've said the same thing. Consider the direct gaze Patty gave....if you can look at that and see anything but glaring anger, worry and doubt all rolled into one, you've never had your mother give you the same look. This is not scientific, I know, but it is a human reaction to a human interaction.    

 

I can see and understand that. Now, how about those quadrupedal bluff charges  

[WSA]

Hiflier, it is not genetically distinct at all. That is the hypothesis that fits the most data. This presents a real challenge to proponents, and an easy refuge for opponents.  Still, if it is , it is.  If this were an easy nut to crack, it would have been cracked a long time ago.   

[hiflier]

Maybe it was and no one would accept it?

[WSA]

I'll see your quadrupedal bluff charges and raise you one example of Chinese foot binding and a sword swallower. See what I mean?   

[hiflier]

Good grief, WSA, don't tell me BF's bind their feet and swallow swords too! MAN! These creatures can do EVERYTHING     All kidding aside you have a good point.

Edited November 28, 2018 by hiflier

[norseman]

42 minutes ago, WSA said:

 

Actually Gigantor, although this is one conclusion you could draw from the predicted result I described, I was hinting at another. (This, btw, assuming the "human" DNA doesn't match the control samples of any of the investigators) When your data repeatedly points you to a conclusion you don't want to accept, the natural tendency is to question the data, but instead, you probably should question the hypothesis. The hypothesis that the nDNA of a BF would be genetically distinct...or too similar to be readily distinguished...from H. sapien is probably something we should be questioning very seriously at this point. This is absolutely a bridge too far for a lot of people, and I get why.  All well and good, but the history of science is filled with examples of us trying to pound square pegs instead of realizing the hole we need is square too. This, to my mind, is one of those times.

 

Its not a bridge too far. Its a false narrative.

 

Patty and her kind will not be the exact same DNA as a Homo Sapien Sapien. We see that fact in the morphology alone. Patty is not walking down Main Street USA unnoticed..... and for good reason.

 

My DNA test puts me at like at 80 percent NW Europe and 20 percent Central Western Europe. (British Isles and Switzerland). If you tested a native American on the reservation across the river? His DNA is going to look vastly more different and local than mine.

 

DNA has been refined to a razors edge. We have also mapped the genomes of both Neanderthals and Denisovans. They are now easily distinguishable between us and them and also hybrids in the current Human population have been identified.

 

If samples are simply coming back Homo Sapien? Its contaminated plain and simple. 

 

REAL Bigfoot DNA will FLOOR science.....TRUST  ME. Its NOT going to look like a contaminated sample. It will be distinctive and new and earth shattering.

[WSA]

Hiflier...As a species, we are incredibly plastic.  Probably the only species to match us in adaptability are dogs, which makes you wonder (not!) at the affinity we have to them. BF and dogs? Not so much, if you believe what is reported. 

 

We'll see Norseman, I hope. Take this point though...those species you mentioned, they are genetically distinct from humans, and they all share a characteristic. Yes, that's right, they are extinct and we (and BF) are not. Raise any conclusions? It does for me.

Edited November 28, 2018 by WSA

[norseman]

8 minutes ago, WSA said:

Hiflier...As a species, we are incredibly plastic.  Probably the only species to match us in adaptability are dogs, which makes you wonder (not!) at the affinity we have to them. BF and dogs? Not so much, if you believe what is reported. 

 

We'll see Norseman, I hope. Take this point though...those species you mentioned, they are genetically distinct from humans, and they all share a characteristic. Yes, that's right, they are extinct and we (and BF) are not. Raise any conclusions? It does for me.

 

But they are NOT extinct. They live on in certain populations of modern Humans. Close cousins interbreeding back into our line.

 

Sorry WSA..... but if Patty chose to breed with you? You would not live through the experience. She would crush you. 

 

So what conclusions can we draw from those facts? Well It would seem to me that Sasquatch is a distinct species from Humans and not as closely related as some people would think. And if it was possible that Sasquatch could interbreed with Humans? We would have detected hybrids in the Native  population already.

 

It didnt happen. So why didnt it happen?

[WSA]

Norseman, right, and  I should have also pointed out the fact you just raised. Those species interbred and reproduced with some ancestors of ours, and this would tend to show those hominoids were not a distinct species. But in a larger sense you've only just defined the human genome as to include those ancestral species...something that we already knew. It does nothing to show that the present hypothetical BF genome is genetically different from modern humans. Presumably, if it is not distinct, and it includes that ancestral DNA as well.

 

As for whether I can mate with Patty, or than any other human can mate with any other existing BF is really not of any consequence. What matters is, at one point, they very well possibly could have before the branches diverged. Put another way, a great dane stud is not likely to mate with a chihuahua....but a few humdred generations ago, they no doubt probably could.  More to the point, the DNA of both are identical, or so close as to not matter. What nature tells us is when two mammals CAN mate, they will. 

 

And look, I get that your solution to the BF puzzle is to plug one. I have no qualms at all with that course of action if you or anyone else is willing to go there.  What you can't do, or probably shouldn't do, is to think that the human characteristics of the species needs to be downplayed or ignored, either subconsciously or deliberately.  If you are going to do it, I'd just say you need to own the fact that there is some likelihood (and we could debate the % of that probability, endlessly, with no conclusion) one would test out as H. sapien. 

[hiflier]

So, WSA are you saying that there is a possibility that results may come back Human but it could still mean Humans as we know them or Humans as we DON'T know them? This is all well and good but food for thought might be that even if the determination from the testing comes back ALL Human then must we assume or accept that it was Humans as we know them that made the nests? Or are folks still going to hold out for the Humans as we don't know them aspect and therefore keep the BF concept alive and effectively unresolved?

 

I don't think holding out for Human but with differences is out of the question. But would those "differences" be enough to rule unknown primate? The differences could be so subtle as to lead to an infinite debate in science that would only be settled if Norseman, or a Norseman type person (should one exist ), bring a specimen in. And if the DNA is that close where would it place the harvester legally?

 

I tend to agree with Norseman on this one. The DNA will, or should be, different enough to call BF a new species and not just a variation of modern Homo sapien. And on moral grounds alone science may fight for that categorization. It would certainly help because if the government side of things would ever become part of the debate then it would be better for government to NOT have Sasquatch be determined as only a close variation but rather to have it decided that it was NOT Human.

 

In either case, which of you lean toward the thought that, whether Human or not, the actual builder or builders of the nests could be revealed?  Because there is no doubt that Humans were at the site and that bears were at the site. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by hiflier

[WSA]

All I'm saying Hiflier is that if you test enough DNA thought to originate from Sasquatch and it keeps turning up "human", you need to let the data make your conclusions, ruling out all other reasonable possibilities. 

 

It is easy to predict, if BF is confirmed, it will challenge the sociological criteria of what constitutes a "species", at the least. At most, we might find that the biological criteria need to be revised as well. So far, in historical human existence, it has been very easy to distinguish what we don't consider to be human. If it doesn't act or look like us to some (very uncertain degree) it isn't. Although we've been mistaken about that time and again, we learn nothing and keep on doing it.  A tragic mistake it always is too, that has given rise to some pretty extreme and cruel results as it has been applied to other races, we all know. A BF genome that proves essentially identical to modern H. sapiens would call the whole premise into question like nothing else could. What would point out the inherent commonality of humans more than to have it shown, yet again, you REALLY can't judge a book by its cover?  

 

That any can seriously claim a biped, four-limbed animal can't be human because it happens to have more hair and grows larger than modern humans just seems to me to be a cultural obstacle that needs getting over. Science and biology are full of examples of why that could be an erroneous conclusion, and probably is in this instance. Humans act like apes all the time, to an impartial observer. We aren't though, as we've been able to distinguish through biological analysis. That a BF does too (behave like an ape) sometimes is no more important for purposes of classification if the DNA tests out to be the same. You could look at a primitive man acting even MORE ape like than we do today. Same conclusion.

But you could throw out all of this and only listen to the people who've had both superficial and prolonged contact with these animals. Almost overwhelmingly, their impression is this is no dumb ape species we are dealing with. That counts for something.

Edited November 28, 2018 by WSA

[norseman]

52 minutes ago, WSA said:

Norseman, right, and  I should have also pointed out the fact you just raised. Those species interbred and reproduced with some ancestors of ours, and this would tend to show those hominoids were not a distinct species. But in a larger sense you've only just defined the human genome as to include those ancestral species...something that we already knew. It does nothing to show that the present hypothetical BF genome is genetically different from modern humans. Presumably, if it is not distinct, and it includes that ancestral DNA as well.

 

As for whether I can mate with Patty, or than any other human can mate with any other existing BF is really not of any consequence. What matters is, at one point, they very well possibly could have before the branches diverged. Put another way, a great dane stud is not likely to mate with a chihuahua....but a few humdred generations ago, they no doubt probably could.  More to the point, the DNA of both are identical, or so close as to not matter. What nature tells us is when two mammals CAN mate, they will. 

 

And look, I get that your solution to the BF puzzle is to plug one. I have no qualms at all with that course of action if you or anyone else is willing to go there.  What you can't do, or probably shouldn't do, is to think that the human characteristics of the species needs to be downplayed or ignored, either subconsciously or deliberately.  If you are going to do it, I'd just say you need to own the fact that there is some likelihood (and we could debate the % of that probability, endlessly, with no conclusion) one would test out as H. sapien. 

 

My wanted to shoot one has nothing to do with my position of what they are.

 

I think Sasquatch is very much a seperate species from Humans.....absolutely. BUT! They will be the closest living species to humans once they are discovered. The Chimpanzee will absolutely lose that distinction. That doesnt mean that there wasnt much closer species to us at one point in history.

 

It just means that there is a very large gap now. And another bipedal Hominid is going to cleave that gap down between a Human and a quapraped Chimp. No doubt about it....

 

And following your nature point. Obviously Humans and Sasquatch cannot mate because they had thousands of years to do so (Berengia land bridge 20,000 years?). We have no evidence DNA or otherwise of that ever happening.

 

Lastly there are genetic differences between Humans and Neanderthals. And those differences are borne out in morpholgy. And morphologically speaking Patty exhibits more distinct characteristics than either Humans or Neanderthals or our relationship with each other. Way more!

[hiflier]

At some point in our history- and lineage- sophisticated tool manufacture and use along with making fire became a reality. Those advancements are lacking in BF as far as we know and for how long, depending on the age of the creature's line. And those elements may always BE lacking. The reason for that is something that may show up in DNA and for sure in an exam of its brain. An undeveloped pre-frontal cortex could end up being the deciding factor on Human or no, even if DNA is nearly identical. This has been discussed before but I thought it a good time to reintroduce it.

Edited November 28, 2018 by hiflier

[WSA]

Norseman...until you make a side-by-side genetic comparison, morphology don't mean squat to a geneticist.  I could put a Kalahari bushman next to a Victorian Lord and superficially they would look as different to the eye as Patty is to you.  Conclusions like these that are based on superficial morphological differences are like that...prone to error.  When other data supports a different conclusion, morphology needs to take a back seat.

 

But to go where you are going...are you saying Neanderthal was not a human, in the broadest sense of the term? If a Neanderthal was, why not a BF? Only our innate xenophobia keeps us from making this very small step to a very logical conclusion.  

 

Hiflier....IF the DNA is identical, what difference is it to us if one human species uses technology, and one does not? That is one question we need to ask, I think. As I said, it would challenge our criteria of what defines a "human".  Tool use, or not, is a sociological adaptation. Yes, it is enabled by biological adaptations...thumbs and brain stucture to name just two, but if an animal had everything but the technology AND identical DNA, is the animal still human? I'll not offer an opinion on that, as it is a different question than the one I pose: Is it possible, or even likely, the BF shares our genome? My answer is, it is certainly possible and the more DNA samples thought to be from BF that are sequenced and found to be nearly identical to human we get, the more probable it becomes. Don't let your preconceptions about what a Sasquatch genome "should" look like get clouded by preconceptions or by how the animal appears.