The Genetic Markers Of A Sasquatch

[hiflier]

This thread is directed at any biologists or someone with a strong background in genetics. Can one or more genetic markers in a genome be predicted? Since nearly all primate genomes are now in the GenBank's worldwide collection of DNA sequences then the markers that distinguish one species of primate from another are known and available to researchers. That being the case could one use the data to determine the markers one might expect to find that would separate a Bigfoot from a Human. An example might be a relaxed opsin gene in a primate's DNA sequence that could indicate a tapitum lucidum for night vision. Or perhaps a gen sequence that indicated an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex. Maybe one that one would expect to find in a primate that has full body hair. Can these types of genes be looked for and isolated for verification? If such genetic markers were found to be activated in the Human genome what would it indicate

 

If the genetic markers one would expect to find in a Bigfoot could be predicted or predetermined then how far would such a theory go when looking at an alleged Bigfoot sample? Can specific genes be targeted in order to see if and when they were switched on and for how long? One would think that if a genetic marker could be predicted to be present then would the search of a suspected sample's genome be able to zero in on such indicators such as size, skeletal development, diet, whether there are canines or not, and other such isolated characteristics? Of course this would be aimed at suspected North American Bigfoot samples only since the closest markers would be Human ones. Alleged BF samples supposedly contaminated by Humans and tossed would be the focus. And of those Human "contaminated" samples, are they contaminated because they ONLY showed Human? Looking at this idea as a different approach to what might be expected as a genetic marker that would separate a Bigfoot from a Human.

 

I would think there would be perhaps one or two sequences in the Great Apes that a Sasquatch might have which could be mixed into the Human genome that would result in producing certain characteristics that a Bigfoot has that is different than us. Some consistent .01% outlier in the Human genome? Could something like that be determined or hypothesized ahead of time that would result in physical differences between Humans and Bigfoot?    

Edited June 24, 2019 by hiflier

[MIB]

My best semi-educated guess is "no".    Remember that there are at least 2 pieces, DNA and RNA.   Think of one as the code, one as the code reader.   With a different reader, the same code might manifest quite differently.    It seems like, from what I've been reading, genetic code -> physical characteristics is much less deterministic than what we believed we would find.   You might say we can interpolate but not extrapolate, in other words.   Unfortunately, without a type specimen, we're limited.   We can probably tell that we're looking at something novel only because it does not have a match in GenBank, but so far as looking at a piece of DNA and predicting .. without knowing the species already .. what color hair or how long, size, weight, eye color, etc ... is a bit beyond the science.   More than that, some good scientists say it will stay beyond us because ... basically like algebra, we're looking for a unique solution but we have 2 variables and only 1 equation.    

 

In other words, I believe us amateurs are looking for certainty where the data / science does not support that certainty.  

 

MIB

[9-dot]

In our human genotype comprised of 22 chromosomes plus X and Y we have something like 3 billion base pairs.  Research has made for mapping of markers (areas of our DNA in which the location and function of the genetic code is known), but unless 30 years of research has passed me by (a definite possibility) we have identified a small percent of the potential markers in our genotype.  Forensic DNA testing is commonly only done for 10's of markers.  I think forward modelling of Sasquatch DNA would be fruitless - I actually think that nearly all forward modelling in science is misplaced, but then I am a plodding deductive scientist - I gather data, erect hypotheses to account for that data (all the data), gather additional data to reject some of the hypotheses, and hopefully ultimately arrive at a good hypothesis (one that adequately accounts for the data without cutting myself with Occam's Razor). 

To this end I think that we are missing great chances for Sasquatch DNA study.
I have lost count of the number of DNA studies performed on alleged Sasquatch DNA - approaching 100, mostly on hair samples, but also a few on blood, saliva, and purported flesh.  Study of the mitochondrial DNA from hair samples has returned results ranging through opossum, bear, deer, raccoon, and Homo sapiens.  The numerous mitochondrial studies that have concluded as coming from Homo sapiens have been judged by many to have been due to human contamination.  But in at least a few of these studies markers found in all humans (that is ALL HUMANS) are missing from the supposed "human" contamination.  This is an issue not adequately explained by any Sasquatch DNA skeptic, here or anywhere.  And that is without bringing nuclear DNA into the discussion.

It has become a fairly easy thing to unzip human DNA strands and match those strands to unzipped strands from Bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, various species of monkeys - even fishing worms, if one is inclined to do that.  What we find:  we share genetic code with Bonobos and chimpanzees at around 97.6% (I keep reading 99.1% on sites like Wikipedia, but I have been unable to find the research supporting that), gorillas 96%, gibbons 94.7%, rhesus monkeys 91.1%, capuchin monkeys 84.2%, prosimian galago 58%.

From these types of studies we can hypothesize regarding the proximity and approximate ages of departure for evolution regarding these close relatives to humans.  Then there is the issue of Homo sapiens living contemporaneously with Denisovans and Neanderthals and with Homo sapiens displaying much Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA.  By the definition of species to which I have always attached myself (and I always will for it is the only objective testable definition), Denosovans and Neanderthals are human species (or human subspecies) else how could their DNA be passed from generation to generation (through hundreds of generations) if not by producing viable offspring in each generation?

So - what would I suggest?  Simply this::  Unzip purported Sasquatch DNA strands and combine with unzipped human DNA strands.  Perform that test for a few examples, for 10's of examples, for hundred's of examples of purported Sasquatch DNA (I realize that the prevailing opinion on this site is that Sasquatch DNA is rare or non-existent - my retort au contraire).  Such study would  likely tell us how closely humans and Sasquatch are related and the approximate age where evolutionary divergence occurred.  Such study might even suggest genetic markers that define morphological differences - per Hiflier's quest.

Edited June 24, 2019 by 9-dot
correct grammar - correct trillion to billion

[hiflier]

MIB, you actually came out with an answer that was along the lines of what I've been mulling over but figured I would stick my neck out anyway. Nothing ventured, nothing gained as they say. 'Preciate your input.

 

Ya know, 9dot, when I clicked on this thread to see the responses I honestly thought I was going to be completely shot down in flames.  You're suggestion as follows:

 

59 minutes ago, 9-dot said:

So - what would I suggest?  Simply this::  Unzip purported Sasquatch DNA strands and combine with unzipped human DNA strands.  Perform that test for a few examples, for 10's of examples, for hundred's of examples of purported Sasquatch DNA (I realize that the prevailing opinion on this site is that Sasquatch DNA is rare or non-existent - my retort au contraire).  Such study would  likely tell us how closely humans and Sasquatch are related and the approximate age where evolutionary divergence occurred.  Such study might even suggest genetic markers that define morphological differences - per Hiflier's quest.

 

...is pretty specific and apparently sounds quite doable. It begs the question though that if unzipping a DNA helix to compare it to a zipped helix, which sounds common for species comparison, is it possible that someone has thought to do just that already? Maybe someone like primate geneticist expert, Dr. Disotell? Do you think it HAS been done recently or perhaps in the Ketchum SGP study? Would the sequences gained in an e-DNA sample be too short for this kind of comparison? Is a certain amount of degradation okay for general species identification but not good enough to where definitive matching or discovery of differences is possible? In other words, with the claimed degradation of the soil samples from the Olympic Project's "nesting" site would it be possible to definitively say Human but not definitive enough to say novel primate?

 

I guess it would make sense if that was the case. I would really prefer to know more about the results of all five samples as I would think any degradation wouldn't show as being almost identical across the samples although being exposed to moisture for say six months and being frozen for a year and a half would have some effect. Which leads to the next question. Would you have any estimates on how long DNA in soil would still be viable for reasonably good testing? Two months? Six? A year? I realize that soil type plays a part in the rate of degradation but the OP samples weren't exactly laying on the surface but were in soil under a foot or more of sticks and twigs while under a thick tree canopy with possibly good drainage in situ. Just a guess there but curiosity has been the bain of my existence since I could crawl and.....uh.....it's only gotten worse over the last six decades LOL.

 

And, BTW, thank you for responding to this....."quest".  

Edited June 24, 2019 by hiflier

[9-dot]

I apologize for my tardy response Hiflier.  I have been thinking about how I might answer your questions (and whether or not I could).

 

1st a disclaimer:  I was educated as a paleobiologist.  I have studied fossil invertebrate populations with regard to their specific variations (variations within a species due to ontogeny - that is growth from infant to adolescent to adult), parasitism by competing organisms, and evolutionary considerations as they impact our understanding of the genus, family, and order classifications in a particular class of invertebrates.  I have taken graduate level courses in genetics and evolution (but a long time ago - invertebrate zoology was one of my two minor subjects), BUT I AM NOT A GENETICIST!

So take what I might say with some healthy skepticism - and I welcome discussion from real geneticists (and I am guessing from your questions that you already know most, if not all, of what I am going to say).

 

Some good news:  With regard to DNA, hair is amazingly stable in a variety of environments that would be considered risky in other respects.  That is mainly due to the presence of cuticle, the outermost hard layer of a three-layered hair shaft (inner medulla, medial cortex, outer cuticle).  The cuticle protects the medulla, and the medulla contains a lot of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

 

Some bad news:  Nuclear DNA (nDNA or nuDNA) is lost in the process of cornification - in which protein cells become hair.  Although many people think that a follicle needs to be attached to a hair shaft for extraction of nDNA, nDNA has occasionally been extracted from the medulla of a hair shaft - sometimes months or even years after the hair has been pulled/shed from a human body - I guess this should be included under the "good news".  In most cases the best that one can expect from hair in terms of DNA is mtDNA.  mtDNA is not pertinent for ID'ing individuals, but works for ID'ing species (if that species' genome is included in an existing gene bank - and it should be useful as a match for higher classifications as well, such as genus, subfamily, and family).  According to at least two hair experts, Sasquatch hair commonly lacks a medulla, and, when present, the Sasquatch medulla is discontinuous and not prominent.  

A number of mtDNA studies of purported Sasquatch hair have suggested Homo sapiens, and the natural conclusion is human contamination.  There are a variety of methods for decontaminating DNA samples, and actually hair, again because of the protective cuticle, is especially prone to successful decontamination.  As I have said in other threads, there exist in all know human DNA (ALL HUMAN DNA) genetic markers that are unique to Homo sapiens, so any DNA researcher looking to verify human contamination or to suggest the existence of other than human DNA, must look for one, or a few, of those markers, else he/she is falling short of performing adequate study (trying to be kind here to past researchers - I would rather say #*&@&%$*!).

 

I think study of suspected Sasquatch hair is worth study, without regard to external environmental challenges and without regard to time in environment.  I am not like the body of posters on this site (mainly inductive reasoners - some brilliant, some notsomuch) that can run through a myriad of explanations and possibilities addressing a single data point.  I am admittedly not brilliant - I am a plodder.  I try to gather a lot of data and methodically work through that data to try to understand it (that's a tough thing in this Sasquatch world containing a fair bit of purely anecdotal data).  If I were confronted with testing old hair for DNA or making the determination no to do so because conclusive results might be unlikely, I would say do the analysis - one never knows what might turn up (my experience has been the more one learns, the more one realizes there is more to learn). 

I had planned to address your questions more directly, but I am running out of gas.  The subject does interest me, however, and I look forward to more communication with you.

[hiflier]

15 hours ago, 9-dot said:

The subject does interest me, however, and I look forward to more communication with you.

 

Thank you 9dot. Same goes for me. You may not be a geneticist but your explanations are clear which is a valuable thong to a an initiate like my self. We have taught ourselves quit a bit here and your clarifications are most welcome.

 

15 hours ago, 9-dot said:

According to at least two hair experts, Sasquatch hair commonly lacks a medulla, and, when present, the Sasquatch medulla is discontinuous and not prominent.

 

My understanding of the medulla aspects of a purported Sasquatch hair sample is that it lacks the medulla. Human hair has an anomalous medulla that sometimes presents as a discontinuous strand inside the inner cortex. Also, and probably the most important? Is the uncut end which seems to be what a lot of folks hang their hat on as well. But if a Human has long hair, say more than 12 inches long as an example, then there WILL BE uncut strands that have grown out and so are of a length of 2 to possibly 6 inches and so will also exhibit an uncut end from new hair growth at the follicle? Jut trying to firm up the possibilities of whether or not a suspected Sasquatch hair isn't a mistake  I have appreciated your responses and never a need to apologize for time off LOL. I would say more but for some reason I also find myself crunched for time

[Huntster]

On 6/26/2019 at 6:46 PM, 9-dot said:

........I was educated as a paleobiologist.  I have studied fossil invertebrate populations with regard to their specific variations (variations within a species due to ontogeny - that is growth from infant to adolescent to adult), parasitism by competing organisms, and evolutionary considerations as they impact our understanding of the genus, family, and order classifications in a particular class of invertebrates.  I have taken graduate level courses in genetics and evolution (but a long time ago - invertebrate zoology was one of my two minor subjects), BUT I AM NOT A GENETICIST!.......I

 

Please forgive me, but I quoted you in the hope that if you weren't monitoring the thread/forum, you'd get an email notifying you of being quoted........an alert.

 

I've been re-studying the Zana story and Bryan Sykes dna study on her progeny. The common disclaimer among sasquatch denialists on the results of his study have been, "See? She was an African slave woman gone feral." But Sykes has stated that her sub-Saharan links don't match thise known there now, and theirized that she came from a population that left Africa thousands of years ago and inbred in the Caucacus Mountains until her capture.

 

To me, this mirrors the Denisovan dna situation. Their dna traces were also a "ghost" until that 40,000 year old finger bone was unearthed in Denisova Cave, which tells me that sasquatch dna will remain a ghost until a fossil or carcass is produced.

 

At any rate, what is your thoughts on this?:

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/two-unknown-species-of-ancient-extinct-hominids-have-been-identified-in-modern-dna

 

The 'Ghosts' of 2 Unknown Extinct Human Species Have Been Found in Modern DNA

 

Moreover, I'm wondering if the dna results of Bryan Sykes on Zana's progeny and the dna results of Ketchum's Sasquatch Genome Project have been compared for similarities or matches?

[ShadowBorn]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 10:46 PM, 9-dot said:

A number of mtDNA studies of purported Sasquatch hair have suggested Homo sapiens, and the natural conclusion is human contamination.  There are a variety of methods for decontaminating DNA samples, and actually hair, again because of the protective cuticle, is especially prone to successful decontamination.  As I have said in other threads, there exist in all know human DNA (ALL HUMAN DNA) genetic markers that are unique to Homo sapiens, so any DNA researcher looking to verify human contamination or to suggest the existence of other than human DNA, must look for one, or a few, of those markers, else he/she is falling short of performing adequate study (trying to be kind here to past researchers - I would rather say #*&@&%$*!).

This statement means a lot does it not. Since mtDNA  in a way is declaring these creatures as a species " Humans " as long as one can decontaminate hair samples. Now am I hearing this right. That means that means that these so called researchers that are searching for an Ape are not really looking for their so called woodape/ ape. But are actually looking for some sort of Human that might not be on or in the GenBank yet. Am I reading this right. Why would this not be cleared right in the first place and why would they hide this fact. 

 

I have read about this research about testing hair and how contamination might not be possible . But I was not sure about it at the time. How could there be so many DNA testing of these creatures be contaminated as Humans . It is just not possible for them to keep coming back contaminated as humans and have to be thrown out. I am not sure if I am even thinking this right but there does seem to be some thing strange about your statement.

[hiflier]

Totally agree with your post, ShadowBorn    

 

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 10:46 PM, 9-dot said:

A number of mtDNA studies of purported Sasquatch hair have suggested Homo sapiens, and the natural conclusion is human contamination.  There are a variety of methods for decontaminating DNA samples, and actually hair, again because of the protective cuticle, is especially prone to successful decontamination.  As I have said in other threads, there exist in all know human DNA (ALL HUMAN DNA) genetic markers that are unique to Homo sapiens, so any DNA researcher looking to verify human contamination or to suggest the existence of other than human DNA, must look for one, or a few, of those markers, else he/she is falling short of performing adequate study (trying to be kind here to past researchers - I would rather say #*&@&%$*!).

 

On ‎8‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 10:59 PM, ShadowBorn said:

This statement means a lot does it not.

 

Indeed it DOES!

Edited August 27, 2019 by hiflier

[9-dot]

Sorry Hunster - I have not been monitoring posts of late (competing hobbies have distracted me).  I read with interest your quoted description of Zana.  I had read it a couple of years ago, but as I learn more about the issue my perspective changes.  Zana was special - her body (size/strength/speed) was outside the range of humans - not in the 99.9 percentile of humans , but beyond that - unlike anything ever known in terms of strength and speed.
I think you are on the right track regarding Denisovans.  Species is the only designation that can be objectively described (and really only among living populations).  Designation as to genus and higher classifications are purely subjective and exist only in the opinion of the "experts" (if anyone wants amplification of this I will try to provide it).  Given the specific vs. generic distinctions, I have long felt that anthropologists tend to be splitters, that is that they emphasize morphologic differences at too high a classification level (like genus or family).  I have felt that Denisovans and Neanderthals might really be found to be Homo sapiens (or a subspecies) if they were still extant and we could test that.  I feel the same regarding Sasquatch/Bigfoot.

In answer to Sykes and others comparing a genotype to Ketchum's genotype I am relatively certain it hasn't been done (and if I am correct in that thinking then I am sure it won't be).  A reasonable approach would be to add tentative Bigfoot genotypes to the GeneBank as X1078000, X1078001, or X1078002 for example, and then to compare future DNA samples against that genotype.  If consistent matches were found, that would represent incontrovertible evidence for Sasquatch (or some other unknown primate - choose your name).  That also will not be done (at least officially by Sykes or some other "respected" geneticist, but it could be done unofficially by NABS, Ketchum, or some other "unofficial' geneticist or group - but the results, even if earth shaking, would be ignored or criticized by academia).

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by 9-dot
Correct punctuation (editing is one of those other hobbies)

[wiiawiwb]

I enjoy following this thread even though the technical nature of DNA science is deep, profound, and beyond me. 

 

I've never viewed sasquatch to be a dumb ape interloping our forests of North America. To the contrary, I've always thought that it is so near human as to be indistinguishable at first genetic glance. That would explain the human contamination of DNA samples.

[southernyahoo]

On ‎6‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 11:21 AM, hiflier said:

 

 

I would think there would be perhaps one or two sequences in the Great Apes that a Sasquatch might have which could be mixed into the Human genome that would result in producing certain characteristics that a Bigfoot has that is different than us. Some consistent .01% outlier in the Human genome? Could something like that be determined or hypothesized ahead of time that would result in physical differences between Humans and Bigfoot?    

 

Yep.

 

http://iris.nyit.edu/~apetro01/old-postings-Fall-2011/Week-12/W12-C2/What-Makes-Us-Human-Sci-Amer-2009.pdf

[hiflier]

Very interesting, WSA, and exactly what I was getting at in what you quoted. Now here's the thing: This paper isn't that old really so would any effort in contacting the "author" regarding any suspected Sasquatch DNA genome work be of any use? Is there anything to lose by doing so?

[southernyahoo]

I guess you're asking me hiflier. I would guess that it would be of use if Katherin Pollard were presented with a genome to compare with humans an chimps, since she already has some target genes to look at. She would be one to know where some of those minute differences are that actually make a big difference in the bigger picture.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, southernyahoo said:

I guess you're asking me hiflier. I would guess that it would be of use if Katherin Pollard were presented with a genome to compare with humans an chimps, since she already has some target genes to look at. She would be one to know where some of those minute differences are that actually make a big difference in the bigger picture.

 

OOOOPS, sorry, southernyahoo, I had a WSA-senior-moment-carry-over from another thread. DANG! and I was doing so good as of late  So, should I draft an email and try to reach out? My gut says to maybe go for it and see what the reaction/response might be.

Edited August 30, 2019 by hiflier