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

[norseman]

Im well aware of that story. I live across the river from the Colville Reservation.

 

The problem is there is no evidence that Patrick was anything except Homo Sapien.

[WSA]

Who is tweaking the DNA of Sasquatch? Really? Like the whole natural selection process is new to us here? Folks, this is basic. I feel like I've landed in a flat-earth convention. There is no "who", but a "what" and that would be, umm, that whole "red in tooth and claw" thingy.

 

Again...let's take is slowly...the manipulation of any species through selective breeding is not an exotic concept. All Gregor Mendel did with his peas, or what generations of dog breeders have done to the wolf is only an accelerated, enhanced mimicry of what natural environments do to organisms 24/7, over much longer spans of time.  If you don't understand the parallels, one to the other, I guess we're done.  But it you are still with me...

 

The. Point. Is.  

 

If an organism has sufficient pressure to adapt, and is left alone long enough to do it, morphology changes will out, and these changes might not result in species differentiation through identifiable genetic changes. Or, to echo MIB's excellent point, the genetic changes may occur on the genome in isolated places that might not be detected by the sample taken.

 

As for whether modern humans could breed with modern Sasquatch? There is nobody alive today who knows the answer to that one, definitively. If you say you do know that, I sure hope you've published your findings because I will pay whatever fee required to get my hands on that.  If you haven't, and you cite no other scientifically plausible theory other than, "I don't think so", you've got nothing substantive to contribute, sorry.  

 

   

 

[David NC]

Norseman you very well could be right in your theory comparing it to the wolf and domesticated dog. A wolf could breed with a dog and have pups if it chose to, but they choose to reject dogs and usually kill them if they are in their territory. Take your theory and plug Sasquatch in for the wolf and plug humans in for the domesticated animal and you have a very good fit. We just need to figure out who domesticated us ; } .

[Twist]

My ex wife tried to domesticate me.......obviously she failed hence the “ex” part! 

[WSA]

I think what you say is true David, but I'm not really trying to make a point about behavior. We have ample enough proof that H. sapiens could mate with other H. sapiens, but choose to kill them instead. At times, I think we prefer it that way!  If anything though, the fact that BF avoids us and at times appear hostile to us (and we to them, I'm sure) only reinforces  the possibility that they ARE us, in more ways than we want to admit. 

 

I've always felt that if you want to get inside the mind of Sasquatch, you better think in terms of natural selection and adaptive outcomes, AND try to see past what are....really and truly....minor physical differences. I'm bound to have some here scoff at that idea, but no, it's true. There are way more similarities between the physical appearance of a Sasquatch and humans than there are differences...at least on a superficial level, and superficial is the best we have right now. What skews that appreciation is the cultural differences...which I grant you are ginormous... and they always do. Again, the image of the European explorer encountering Amazonian natives. "We" never got past those superficial differences, both melanin-based and cultural.   

[hiflier]

I think domestication to be an anthropological viewpoint. What I mean by that is we are using domestication synonymously with our advanced lifestyle which is a subjective viewpoint- we are using ourselves and what we do to animals we depend on as the definition of domestication. In an OBJECTIVE sense a pride of lions is domesticated unto themselves. A hive full of bees is domesticated unto themselves. And Sasquatch would be domesticated among themselves as well. Humans can domesticate just about anything. As far as domestication of Humans by Sasquatch in a habituation scenario? Depends on who started it. Someone finds out they have Sasquatches on the property and so leave food- or objects. So, domestication comes down to something that is mutually beneficial.

 

I taught my dog to bring me my slippers. And as long as he does he will receive treats. Sometimes he will initiate it and sometimes I will. But in the beginning it was handing off lots of treats during the teaching process. But if he ever stops? He's outa here!........... Just kidding 

Edited November 30, 2018 by hiflier

[Big Stinky]

I am assuming we are referring to this OP nest study but Jeff Meldrum mentions the E-DNA results in this recent blog interview. According to him primate results were found but it was presumed human. The E-DNA only targets a single Mt gene ( 16S ribosomal RNA) so obviously if the unknown subject is very close to human and only a small gene sequenced it would be useless.

 

http://drjradiolive.com/11-28-18-700-pm-et-dr-jeffrey-meldrum-science-of-sasquatch/

 

Stinky

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Big Stinky

[norseman]

5 hours ago, WSA said:

Who is tweaking the DNA of Sasquatch? Really? Like the whole natural selection process is new to us here? Folks, this is basic. I feel like I've landed in a flat-earth convention. There is no "who", but a "what" and that would be, umm, that whole "red in tooth and claw" thingy.

 

Again...let's take is slowly...the manipulation of any species through selective breeding is not an exotic concept. All Gregor Mendel did with his peas, or what generations of dog breeders have done to the wolf is only an accelerated, enhanced mimicry of what natural environments do to organisms 24/7, over much longer spans of time.  If you don't understand the parallels, one to the other, I guess we're done.  But it you are still with me...

 

The. Point. Is.  

 

If an organism has sufficient pressure to adapt, and is left alone long enough to do it, morphology changes will out, and these changes might not result in species differentiation through identifiable genetic changes. Or, to echo MIB's excellent point, the genetic changes may occur on the genome in isolated places that might not be detected by the sample taken.

 

As for whether modern humans could breed with modern Sasquatch? There is nobody alive today who knows the answer to that one, definitively. If you say you do know that, I sure hope you've published your findings because I will pay whatever fee required to get my hands on that.  If you haven't, and you cite no other scientifically plausible theory other than, "I don't think so", you've got nothing substantive to contribute, sorry.  

 

   

 

 

Dogs are not created by natural selection!

 

You cannot have your cake and eat it too!

 

 

 

 

[WSA]

Again. Again.....

 

Norseman, I know you get this.  If UNnatural selection can create the physical characteristics of a separate dog breed, a similar process takes place in nature using natural selection. The morphologic changes to the organism that results can potentially be just as profound, albeit they happen over much longer time intervals.  It is the entire premise of evolutionary theory.  Is this not an axiomatic statement? It is..  

 

Hiflier, I'm making no point about domestication of dogs. I only use this analogy to point out how animals of the same species can diverge physically under artificial selection that can occur under natural selection pressures. 

 

I suppose this thread is not the place for a prolonged discussion of speciation, and I should just S.T.#.U. 

[norseman]

5 hours ago, David NC said:

Norseman you very well could be right in your theory comparing it to the wolf and domesticated dog. A wolf could breed with a dog and have pups if it chose to, but they choose to reject dogs and usually kill them if they are in their territory. Take your theory and plug Sasquatch in for the wolf and plug humans in for the domesticated animal and you have a very good fit. We just need to figure out who domesticated us ; } .

 

I dont think its Dogs vs Wolves.

 

I think its Wolves vs Coyotes. Or Wolves vs Dire Wolves.

 

Two distinct species related as cousins and one fills a much larger environmental niche than the other.

 

No need for a Alien spacecraft and DNA labs..... its just Mother Nature.

 

 

[David NC]

Norse I do not believe in alien space craft and dna labs. I do believe there are natural aspects to this world that we do not understand and for the most part are unseen and we do not know the effect that it can have/has had on the physicality of our natural world.

All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.^[7] Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

We still cannot explain this fusion of chromosomes. Both of these ancestors are commonly called humans today. We already know that this world has been a melting pot of genetics from the beginning.

The Sasquatch are our wild cousins.

 

[hiflier]

8 hours ago, Big Stinky said:

I am assuming we are referring to this OP nest study but Jeff Meldrum mentions the E-DNA results in this recent blog interview. According to him primate results were found but it was presumed human. The E-DNA only targets a single Mt gene ( 16S ribosomal RNA) so obviously if the unknown subject is very close to human and only a small gene sequenced it would be useless.

 

http://drjradiolive.com/11-28-18-700-pm-et-dr-jeffrey-meldrum-science-of-sasquatch/

 

Stinky

 

 

OK. Human. I may be jumping the gun here but does this signal 'end of story'? In a sense it would certainly seem that way with the "sense" being in regard to the e-DNA marker, or at least the marker that showed up. And this outcome is fine with me- I accept it. It follows then that evidently Humans made the "nests". Which means we don't have to call them nests anymore. Back a few pages I posed the question something like who were these people that made the structures? Why did 'they' break off the huckleberry shoots at 6-7 feet up (according to Dr. Meldrum) instead of cutting them as some were quite thick? And also, some of the structures were apparently in a state of decomposition signaling that they were not all made in the same time frame- or perhaps even in the same year. The impression I got was that the "freshest" structures numbered around 5-6.

 

It is still a mystery as to the party or parties responsible for the building of these things and that the state of decay seems to indicate that the site had been possibly visited and structures built on more than one occasion. Maybe over the course of several years or more? So it is still a very intriguing and specific phenomenon with its own equally intriguing and specific set of questions which would be good to have answers to. I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread and, even more that that, everyone's input. It may not be at the point where it goes down the page yet, which is its inevitable future,  But at least for now I cannot see it going much further or deeper that it has already gone. Nature will eventually swallow up those nest-like structures but the whole thing still remains extremely interesting. Sure would like to know who built 'em. And why. 

Edited December 1, 2018 by hiflier

[Bluegrassfoot]

Spoiler

 

Forgive me if I'm exactly repeating someone else, as I didn't get to go back over all 15 pages.  

 

Opinions vary, but lets say Homo sapiens have been in the Americas for at least 20,000 years.  If during that time, even one male Sasquatch successfully mated with a modern human female, and produced a fertile, female Sasquatch-human hybrid,  then it is completely possible that there are lines of Sasquatch out there that have mitochondrial DNA indistinguishable from modern humans (It would BE modern human mitochondria DNA).   As long as that first generation hybrid female produced a successive line of female offspring to pass on her mitochondrial DNA, the modern human mDNA would be propagated into the larger Sasquatch population.  And, for the most part, human phenotype would be lost as the hybridized female line bred back to the males of the larger Sasquatch population. 

[Old Time Lifter]

1 hour ago, Bluegrassfoot said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Forgive me if I'm exactly repeating someone else, as I didn't get to go back over all 15 pages.  

 

Opinions vary, but lets say Homo sapiens have been in the Americas for at least 20,000 years.  If during that time, even one male Sasquatch successfully mated with a modern human female, and produced a fertile, female Sasquatch-human hybrid,  then it is completely possible that there are lines of Sasquatch out there that have mitochondrial DNA indistinguishable from modern humans (It would BE modern human mitochondria DNA).   As long as that first generation hybrid female produced a successive line of female offspring to pass on her mitochondrial DNA, the modern human mDNA would be propagated into the larger Sasquatch population.  And, for the most part, human phenotype would be lost as the hybridized female line bred back to the males of the larger Sasquatch population. 

 

Is it just me or does it seem we are really jumping the gun trying to plot out how BF crossed with humans when we can't even show there ARE BF... all this trying to account for the lack of BF dna seems like miles and miles of special pleading.

 

You're going to have to have a body folks.

 

And IF THERE are BF I don't think they are capable of crossing with humans any more than a gorilla is capable of crossing with humans.  But, we'll never know until we have a body.  Until then all this is wild (and imho) and unproductive speculation.

 

14 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I dont think its Dogs vs Wolves.

 

I think its Wolves vs Coyotes. Or Wolves vs Dire Wolves.

 

Two distinct species related as cousins and one fills a much larger environmental niche than the other.

 

No need for a Alien spacecraft and DNA labs..... its just Mother Nature.

 

 

 

Actually, wolves and coyotes can cross and have fertile offspring.  Red wolves seem to be simply a hybrid animal and not a species.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2099192-red-wolf-may-lose-endangered-status-because-its-just-a-hybrid/

[Twist]

46 minutes ago, Old Time Lifter said:

 

Is it just me or does it seem we are really jumping the gun trying to plot out how BF crossed with humans when we can't even show there ARE BF... all this trying to account for the lack of BF dna seems like miles and miles of special pleading.

 

You're going to have to have a body folks.

 

 

QFT.  Not just you.