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

[WSA]

Norseman, jeez buddy...it is just a THEORY, as is your point of view. Nobody is going to get to make the definitive argument as we well know. Obviously it struck a nerve with you, which is pretty baffling to me, but sure...over and out. Sorry this is not something you'll entertain.    

[WSA]

 

But sorry, couldn't resist this either....

 

 

 

 

[NatFoot]

2 hours ago, WSA said:

Norseman, jeez buddy...it is just a THEORY, as is your point of view. Nobody is going to get to make the definitive argument as we well know. Obviously it struck a nerve with you, which is pretty baffling to me, but sure...over and out. Sorry this is not something you'll entertain.    

 

You THEORY is so outlandish and not based on any facts/science at all. Might as well have been in the paranormal section.

 

What's baffling is that you actually believe what you spent all day saying yesterday. But, to each their own! 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

 

But sorry, couldn't resist this either....

 

 

 

 

 

Nature did not produce this. Your showing me domesticated dogs breeds....

[WSA]

Selection is selection though. No matter the driver. What it illustrates is how genetically plastic a species is, some more than others, sure.  I think there are like a dozen genes on the human genome that influence size. It is not as if there is no mechanism to drive this. 

 

What I'm hypothesizing is not some woo-woo paranormal theory. If you think that, you clearly need to read more on the subject.  Truth is...no matter how much anyone here (me included) wants to say they know, understand and can predict the genetic make-up of a BF, we should all know that is smoke shoveling. Unless you open your mind to what science has already taught us about species differentiation you will be completely surprised by what is discovered. Am I saying what I'm proposing is likely? I'm not even sure I can put a probability on it, but it is definitely on the table. Along with everything else. Until something concrete is found to the contrary, it is valid as any other.

[wiiawiwb]

I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak.  Genetically speaking, I haven't enough knowledge to rest on the head of a pin so I'll stay away from that except to ask--Has there ever been an instance where two closely-related mammals have been found to have identical DNA? For example, chimps and bonobo sure look alike to me but are not identical genetically. They share 99.7% but there is a difference nevertheless.

 

My best guess (and pure speculation) is a sasquatch will have nearly identical DNA to humans, and probably closer than anything else, but the genetic difference will be quantifiable and unlike any other mammal.

[MIB]

29 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

My best guess (and pure speculation) is a sasquatch will have nearly identical DNA to humans, and probably closer than anything else, but the genetic difference will be quantifiable and unlike any other mammal.

 

I suspect this will eventually be true, but it isn't yet.  

 

For species identification, only a few key locations within the genome are tested .. and this is done with mitochondrial DNA, not nuclear DNA.    The separation of human from chimp, for example, is determined by just a few known differences.    If bigfoot is closer to human than chimp, it may well be an exact match **on the tested locations** despite having significant other differences.   

 

In other words, we're not going to know for sure until someone has a reliable enough bigfoot DNA sample and a big enough checkbook to have the mt DNA fully mapped despite the superficial appearance of contamination.     Admittedly speculative, but I'm inclined to think it will not be until the analysis proceeds somewhat beyond what is normally necessary to separate human from other DNA that differences will start to become apparent.    At that point, the test for human will have to be revised to eliminate markers shared with sasquatch and vice versa.

 

MIB

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by MIB

[norseman]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

Selection is selection though. No matter the driver. What it illustrates is how genetically plastic a species is, some more than others, sure.  I think there are like a dozen genes on the human genome that influence size. It is not as if there is no mechanism to drive this. 

 

What I'm hypothesizing is not some woo-woo paranormal theory. If you think that, you clearly need to read more on the subject.  Truth is...no matter how much anyone here (me included) wants to say they know, understand and can predict the genetic make-up of a BF, we should all know that is smoke shoveling. Unless you open your mind to what science has already taught us about species differentiation you will be completely surprised by what is discovered. Am I saying what I'm proposing is likely? I'm not even sure I can put a probability on it, but it is definitely on the table. Along with everything else. Until something concrete is found to the contrary, it is valid as any other.

 

No its not. Dog breeds are specialized creatures that rely on their masters for survival. Not nature. If you turn either of those breeds out in nature? The wolf pack would reject them..... ask me how I know this.

 

And more importantly the Mastiff is no BIGGER than the Timber Wolf. So Man was able to select and breed characteristics than made dog breeds smaller.....but not bigger than the original natural breed which was a Wolf.

 

So I really so not even know how your domesticated bog breed analogy has ANYTHING to do with the subject at hand. 

 

Both Humans and Bigfeet are not domesticated pets. Nature made us this way. And NO HUMAN is 8 ft tall AND 800 lbs AND still runs down his dinner.

 

Your point is moot.

[WSA]

And you raise a good point MIB....mDNA vs. nDNA,  and the presumption they will test out to be the same species.  I'd say I'd be astounded if they were not, but then again...  (Let's not drag Dr. K into this though :-)  ) 

 

Something just really tweaks my ire about a group discussion dedicated, I'm told,  to the exploration of an unexplained phenomena but which considers something well within the experience of documented science to be too far "out there" to seriously discuss.  You don't know.. thus the "unexplained" part.  If I were here saying I think the BF species can levitate, time-travel or shape-shift, it would be one thing. I'm only hypothesizing the BF genome may be entirely so close to our own that a sample might be getting confused as human.  If you disagree, fine and dandy. Just don't tell me you "know" that is not possible, because there is plenty of good science that anyone can point to that will flatly contradict that.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak.  Genetically speaking, I haven't enough knowledge to rest on the head of a pin so I'll stay away from that except to ask--Has there ever been an instance where two closely-related mammals have been found to have identical DNA? For example, chimps and bonobo sure look alike to me but are not identical genetically. They share 99.7% but there is a difference nevertheless.

 

My best guess (and pure speculation) is a sasquatch will have nearly identical DNA to humans, and probably closer than anything else, but the genetic difference will be quantifiable and unlike any other mammal.

 

I think your right that the DNA will be closer to us than any other animal. But there will be absolutely differences in the DNA that any scientists can see.

 

Just like there are differences between Humans and Neanderthals and Denisovans.

 

The mind blowing part is that they think there are as of yet still undiscovered species we breed with. Blocks of archaic DNA that are neither Denisovan or Neanderthal.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2163910-our-ancestors-mated-with-the-mystery-denisovan-people-twice/

[WSA]

RE: Dogs, Norseman

 

The accelerated differentiation of wolves to modern dogs was completely artificial, no doubt about that. But it also mimics, albeit on a much, much more compressed timetable, the natural selection pressure in the wild. This is what I mean when I say, selection is selection. It is merely illustrating the plasticity of superficial characteristics within a species with very little, if any, genetic differentiation. That photo of the Chihuahua next to a Great Dane shows a relative size differentiation waaaay more dramatic than the one you posted of the woman and BF mock-up. Both the Chihuahua and the the Great Dane are of Canus Lupus Familiaris species.

 

Me myself, I want to avoid using "absolutely" and BF in the same sentence. Dammit, I just did it.

Edited November 29, 2018 by WSA

[norseman]

1 minute ago, WSA said:

RE: Dogs, Norseman

 

The accelerated differentiation of wolves to modern dogs was completely artificial, no doubt about that. But it also mimics, albeit on a much, much more compressed timetable, the natural selection pressure in the wild. This is what I mean when I say, selection is selection. It is merely illustrating the plasticity of superficial characteristics within a species with very little, if any, genetic differentiation. That photo of the Chihuahua next to a Great Dane shows a relative size differentiation waaaay more dramatic than the one you posted of the woman and BF mock-up. Both the Chihuahua and the Great Dane are of Canus Lupus Familiaris.

 

Sigh....

 

The woman and the bigfoot were both produced by natural selection! As two distinct species!

 

And the Mastiff? Is no bigger than the wild donor species which is a Wolf! If the wild donor species was the size of the Chihuahua? And humans made a Mastiff out of it? That would be miraculous.

 

But they didn't. So it is not.

 

The only way those two dog breeds exist is if a Human feeds them. They will never again run with the Wolf pack.

 

Not sure why you cannot see the fundamental flaw in your argument.

 

Show me two Canid species in the wild. And I will show you two distinct genomes. Wolf. Fox. Coyote. African Wild Dog. Etc. Etc.

 

 

 

 

[WSA]

You're working backward Norsemen. You come to your conclusion the woman and BF are different species and then look for the what supports that premise. Instead, think how they might possibly be the same species and look to precedent to support that.

 

You're also getting hung up on the idea that because dogs are not wild critters, their genetic history or the different physical characteristics within the species is not relevant to this idea. Whether a natural condition (like cold, heat, food scarcity, etc.) inhibits the mating/passing on of a mutation or trait, or if it is a dog breeder making the selection, it matters not to the resulting genome. Surely you know this, right? All selective breeding is  the accelerated and artificial mimicry of the natural selection process, done deliberately to achieve the desired trait. Is this somehow a radical concept, to you of all people?  I have no idea...nor do you...what natural selection pressures were brought to bear on the BF, or over how long a span of time.  It is not a stretch at all to hypothesize that a "human" (without putting a definition to that term) subjected to extreme environmental pressures, could  morph in extreme and unexpected ways over long enough a time period, and under the right conditions. 

 

Here's something to think about....H. sapiens, by virtue of the adaptations of walking upright and using fire/cooking meat were able to solve most of the adaptive challenges through technology. Yes, an Inuit might be squatter with a higher percentage of body fat than a jungle native, but basically they are not so far apart as to morphology. The Inuit's technology...things like sealskin boats, soapstone oil lamps, detachable ivory harpoon heads...all allowed him to inhabit those climes without drastic physical changes. Now...what if a variety of "human" didn't have that technological advantage...for reasons we don't yet know and understand...but still had those environmental challenges? What morphological changes does that species undergo? That is not a small question, and one that is very intriguing as it relates to our hairy friend.       

 

[norseman]

Quote

You come to your conclusion the woman and BF are different species and then look for the what supports that premise.

 

OF COURSE I DO! And thats because they look NOTHING ALIKE!!!! Hello!!????

 

Do you go into the forest and see a Badger and a Bear and wonder if they are the SAME SPECIES WSA!?

 

If your ridiculous Dog principle holds true to the woman and patty?

 

WHO is tweaking with their DNA.... like Humans are with Dogs?

[Oonjerah]

Norseman: "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?"

Colville indians, Patrick ... the story of Patrick says  It Happened.
Patrick: Human-Bigfoot Hybrid?

 

If Patrick was indeed half bigfoot, that makes bigfoot homo.
Still, I don't know that his mother's story was ever proven,
tho circumstances make it more than likely.

 

Patrick was said to have a particular talent ... one we don't mention
much except in the Habituators' part of the forum.

No one could beat him at poker.
Was he full on telepathic?

 

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Oonjerah
emphasis