The Genetic Markers Of A Sasquatch

[southernyahoo]

I think it would be interesting to at least know if she ever had an interest in cryptic hominid species like the hypothetical sasquatch. However I'm sure she might have limitations as to how much time or funding she could devote to that inquiry. It might be that she simply runs her computer program on already sequenced genomes so her work might not be too time consuming. 

 

The real labor in genome sequencing like what Max Plank institute does is time consuming and expensive. That would be the major obstacle to get over if we had a sample that was only hypothesized to be from a sasquatch. It would be difficult to aquire the funding for it.

[hiflier]

I just knew somehow that genetic science is much further ahead than I am which is why I started this thread: To specifically address the topic of discussion. The OP lays out the basis for my thinking.And while I don't understand much of the article I think I'm headed in the right direction. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30954-7   

 

That said:

 

"Summary

Denisovans are an extinct group of humans whose morphology remains unknown. Here, we present a method for reconstructing skeletal morphology using DNA methylation patterns. Our method is based on linking unidirectional methylation changes to loss-of-function phenotypes. We tested performance by reconstructing Neanderthal and chimpanzee skeletal morphologies and obtained >85% precision in identifying divergent traits. We then applied this method to the Denisovan and offer a putative morphological profile. We suggest that Denisovans likely shared with Neanderthals traits such as an elongated face and a wide pelvis. We also identify Denisovan-derived changes, such as an increased dental arch and lateral cranial expansion. Our predictions match the only morphologically informative Denisovan bone to date, as well as the Xuchang skull, which was suggested by some to be a Denisovan. We conclude that DNA methylation can be used to reconstruct anatomical features, including some that do not survive in the fossil record."

 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

Thank you for the up votes  So here's the crux of the thing. Does science have enough known genomes in the Homo lines to able to PREDICT what genetic information would have to be present in order to construct a Sasquatch type being? This has nothing to do with haplotypes which right now wouldn't be critical to know as that speaks to lineage. This is only about genetic markers that are in the different Homo genomes that sets each Homo species apart from each other.

 

I truly think there is enough information, or soon to be enough information that genetic projections could be made for a species thought to be Homo even though it is a cryptid. Genes for size, musculature, skeletal characteristics such as cranial shape and features, hair color and other such descriptions for Class A sightings could be entered into a sort of basic boilerplate genome program set up to accept such variables. Then specific phenotypes could be entered and have the program work backwards to create the genetic base pairs necessary that would produce the phenotypes.

 

Just in case anyone got lost in this line of thinking things generally work this way. There is a DNA helix to start with. Within that helix are separate groups of genes that are each made up of different amounts of base pairs. Those the base pairs make up  different genotypes that could be selected within each gene. Now, here come's the good part  a phenotype is the physical manifestation of a selected genotype. Red hair is a phenotype. Blue eyes are a phenotype. Canine teeth is a phenotype.

 

So I'm proposing that with enough genomes for comparison, whether Homo or Great Ape but especially Homo, that theoretical genomes might be theorized. Entering a phenotype such as a heavy brow ridge into the program will  the proper genotype that would be expected within the base pairs of a certain gene that contains options for the kind of brow that could get selected. I mean is this how science knows that Denisovans had a heavy brow from a finger bone? The quote from the article in my previous post would say "yes" as long as other comparative studies were part of the summary.

 

So....what about that Sasquatch? Does science have enough genome data over all to project a theoretical genome for a Sasquatch type creature? And if so, how would that theoretical genome stack up against current suspected Sasquatch DNA? These are the kinds of questions that I have had since the Ketchum/Sykes days but only recently educated myself enough to even know how ask them. To even begin to hypothesize such an idea of projecting what, right now, amounts to a virtually non-existent genome........or is it non-existent?      

Edited September 26, 2019 by hiflier

[hiflier]

So why am I so interested in this? It goes back to the Olympic Peninsula nests. When Dr. Meldrum announced the results of the e-DNA samples testing a year ago on a podcast he mentioned that the usual animals were found but also there was Human DNA found. Human DNA in the core samples from the soil under the nests. Dr. Disotell said the same thing three months later when interviewed by Laura Krantz on her "Wild Thing" podcast. He said Human DNA was found along with everything else. HUMAN DNA. Too degraded to determine whether there was any indication of a novel primate though.

 

I have thought a LOT about Drs. Meldrum and Disotell's statements. Then a few days ago it occurred to me that neither one said Homo Sapiens sapiens DNA. They only said Human. And since we all pretty much know now that Human has become an umbrella term for a number of different species of Homo it follows that saying "Human" doesn't necessarily mean Homo Sapiens. It only says Human. And when Drs. Meldrum and Disotell said there was Human DNA I TOOK IT TO MEAN Homo Sapiens when in fact they neither one actually came out and said Homo Sapiens.

 

One thing I've learned about science is that one should assume nothing. And I think I made a mistake in assuming that Human meant Homo Sapiens. The reasoning behind this is that the samples were reported to be too degraded to show novel primate but not so degraded that they didn't show Human. My thinking began to consider whether or not the samples were so degraded that they didn't show Homo Sapiens sapiens specifically either?

 

So I thought that line of questioning fit in nicely with this Sasquatch genetics thread which is why I exhumed the thread and added in what I've been studying. I thought it made better sense to have such things here instead of somewhere else further out of context. Maybe either Dr. Meldrum or Dr. Disotell could stop by and clear this up and address some of the other hypothetical things this thread has presented?

Edited September 26, 2019 by hiflier

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

.........I made a mistake in assuming that Human meant Homo Sapiens.........

 

Don't feel so all alone. The vast majority is doing the same thing.

 

.......the samples were reported to be too degraded to show novel primate but not so degraded that they didn't show Human........

 

I have a problem with this. It is a recurring problem. 9-dot mentioned this. I think they are seeing the mystery markers, and not knowing what it is, they call it degraded or contaminated.

 

In short, sasquatches are repeatedly slapping them in the face, and they repeatedly end up saying (in various ways) that they don't know what it is, even though sasquatch researchers are the ones handing them the samples.

[hiflier]

What you say may be true. Degraded samples aren't a new phenomenon when it comes to supposed Sasquatch DNA though and so I will give people the benefit of the doubt. What I'm getting at is that what it means to me is that the door is still open for what made the nest structures in the Olympic Peninsula and maybe without actually saying it the good Drs. for all intents and purposes were essentially saying that? Either that or because of something of a more sensitive nature the word was to say Human and hope that everyone would go away for the time being.

 

Sure, I'm tying the subject of this thread to the nests now but in the beginning I wasn't. It never even occurred to me to do so. My original intent was to see if a configuration for hypothetical Sasquatch DNA could be a possibility. More strongly than ever I think that it could be done with what science now knows about how "read" DNA and project physical attributes onto an unknown Human species. Given the many reports in which Sasquatch's physical characteristics have been described (even with minor variations) It would not seem impossible to "reverse engineer" a genome that would reflect those morphologies and that's the point of the thread. I think the phenotypes (physical attributes) could result in a theoretical genome and then used to match close enough to suspected Sasquatch DNA samples to see what comparisons, if any, exist.

 

We have Dr. Todd Disotell as a geneticist but in lieu of him maybe there is another somewhere who would be willing to have a dialogue along these lines. Leave Sasquatch out of the equation and just talk about the theoretical possibility of working backwards from phenotype information to the building of a genome to fit phenotypes of a hypothetical physical profile and take it from there? If one can go one way, genome to phenotype, then one should be able to go the other and start when phenotypes and get to a genome. We're not talking about a million  markers here, a few hundred or less might do it as a Homo species differential.

Edited September 26, 2019 by hiflier

[MIB]

11 hours ago, hiflier said:

So here's the crux of the thing. Does science have enough known genomes in the Homo lines to able to PREDICT what genetic information would have to be present in order to construct a Sasquatch type being?

 

As I understand it, no.    One reason is that it's not just the DNA that has to be considered, RNA plays an equally large role.   What happens if I try to run a C program through a COBOL compiler?   Same thing.   The DNA is the code, the RNA is the interpreter.   You can't predict the outcome without having both.   Even then, environmental factors shift the outcome ... a human example would be a mother doing heroin while she's pregnant.   The embryo has DNA and RNA but the environment (mother) introduces a whole third level of variables.    Stress level.   Toxins.   Adequate or inadequate nutrition.   Age.   Etc.  

 

Another reason is that there can be many genes contributing to a physical characteristic, not just one.   Then throw in recessive vs dominant traits.   Genotype vs phenotype.    For example, human blood type inheritance.    Classic text book case.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

Yes, correct, RNA interprets whatever genotype and then produces the proteins necessary in order for the resulting phenotype (physical manifestation) to be produced. The fact that several genotypes from different aspects of an allele (group of base pairs) come into play means that fine adjustments could be made. What I'm proposing though isn't starting at the allele. Gene mapping informs us of the position of genes on the DNA helix (loci) and genes constitute the sets of base pairs for used for the development of codes that the RNA "reads and institutes. I say all this as a basic and general way that things are ordered and done for producing certain physical characteristics (phenotypes).

 

Rather what I'm proposing is starting at the phenotype and running the physical characteristic through a program that would select the what would genetically have to be present and active- including RNA) in order to genetically determine the necessary genotype base pairs needed to be activated within the DNA helix and within which allele (set of genotypes) resides at whatever loci (gene position on the helix). In other words, genetic selection that works backwards from a phenotype.

 

We KNOW the base pair differences between a Homo Sapiens and Gorillas which has been know for some time now. So basically we already do this and have been for a long time. We look at a trait or a defect and then look for the genetic culprit for it and usually find out the genetic source responsible. Working backwards like that happens all the time and isn't something new to most any geneticist. It is that knowledge that allows us to reconstruct much of what a Neanderthal would have looked like. I'm working up an hypothetical example of what I'm getting at and will post it in a little while.      

Edited September 26, 2019 by hiflier

[MIB]

^^^^ I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing the point: many physical traits can come from more than one DNA "source."    Red hair, for instance, in some cases seems to come from that fraction of Neaderthal DNA, but not in every case.   In other words, finding a physical trait present is non-deterministic so far as DNA "cause."    You can work with probabilities but not certainties.   The complexity there comes in where probabilities are essentially equal.  

 

Or, in other words, we're dealing with something non-deterministic.    We want it to be, maybe so badly it blinds us to the fact that it simply is not.    It's kind of pareidolia .. we're attaching too much meaning to coincidental convergence of data, connecting dots that don't belong connected.  

 

MIB

[Huntster]

13 hours ago, hiflier said:

........ So here's the crux of the thing. Does science have enough known genomes in the Homo lines to able to PREDICT what genetic information would have to be present in order to construct a Sasquatch type being? ........

 

Didn't you or somebody else link to an article addressing that very question? I recently scanned over such an article, and the author argued in the affirmative.

 

Whoops! Edited to admit that the blind guy (me) sees your link now. This illustrates why I fear snakes so much.......

Edited September 26, 2019 by Huntster

[hiflier]

Roger on the snakes  

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

.......Red hair, for instance, in some cases seems to come from that fraction of Neaderthal DNA, but not in every case......

 

And that's all that would have to be known in order to construct a that part of a theoretical genome. Simply but maybe incorrectly put what is the difference between a Homo Sapiens and a Neanderthal. So the gene map (loci) and genetic information that science already knows about that allows science to show us the physical differences is all that should be needed. I'm proposing that if science can "reconstruct" a Neanderthal then science knows how to use phenotypes to create a theoretical genome. One doesn't need environments or outside forces or climate information to do that.

 

Science has the Neanderthal genome markers for a Neanderthal. They have the markers for apes. We give Sasquatch a lot of Human or ape physical features. Just plug the features into a program that deals with genome/phenotype connections. It doesn't have to b precise because there will be variables in nature due to the influences you mentioned. All one needs is the general blue print of a Gorilla, a Human, a Neanderthal, and a Denisovan and from the markers that they already have pick the ones that best describe the features that witnesses to Class A sights report. Like a heavy brow ridge at the very least, a wide mouth, a wide flat hooded nose, body hair, skeletal structure, cranial structure. There are already various markers for those things that distinguish the various Homo genomes. Use them to create a Sasquatch genome with the theoretical markers for those characteristics.

 

And yes, I understand that you know what I am getting at but I also think you are over complicating the issue. The GenBank is chocked FULL of genomes. Doesn't mean we know what everything does in each one but we know enough about the various genomes of the genus Homo to give it a shot.

[Twist]

Yeah, come on guys, don’t over complicate DNA.  Its modular!

[hiflier]

^^^ You're right in the sense that only a relatively small section of base pairs needs to be actually involved. Even for Human/Chimpanzee comparison the difference is only between 1.24% - 1.27% it's still a lot but it ain't 100%  

Edited September 26, 2019 by hiflier

[norseman]

There is no way if Patty is real? Or all of the reports are real? That human and Bigfoot DNA is indiscernible.

 

If this is simply some giant hairy Native American walking around out there? It wouldn’t explain lots of things. Like snapping an elks neck. Or seeing in the dark. Or living naked in northern forests all winter long. This is something very different than just a tall homo sapien.

 

I don’t profess to be a DNA expert. But a chimp is separated by a human by what? 1.1 percent? That tells me that a LOT of morphologically changes can happen with very little DNA. Do they ever mistake degraded Chimp DNA as human? Is it a piece that broke off the end that holds all the answers? Or is the differences inter dispersed through out the DNA strand? Open question.

 

Science knows a lot. But I think the story of primates is far from being understood. And I think much of our understanding is just too simplistic. And in the years to come will change drastically. With new species and new geography. Maybe a fossil find here in North America may allow for the Sasquatch question to come out of the shadows? Like the hobbit? 

[NCBFr]

Don't forget there is roughly 3B base pairs in human DNA.  If 1% are different, you are still talking about 30M base pairs that are different and each one will cause something to be a little bit different.  30 million little differences can certainly make a big difference.