The Genetic Markers Of A Sasquatch

[Huntster]

16 hours ago, hiflier said:

.....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........

 

Here it is again:

2 hours ago, norseman said:

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........

 

There appears to be a very strong tendency for us to think that Human = Homo sapien, and that nothing else out there can be human, including other species of humans like Homo Denisova and Homo floresiensis. I suspect that the word itself ("human") has been used so exclusively to describe us (Homo sapiens) that when somebody says, "This DNA sample came back as human", the automatic, knee-jerk response is, "How can this be?"

 

What an amazing phenomenon sasquatchery is!

[NCBFr]

Isn't the paradox we face that since we do not have a type sample and BF DNA is probably pretty close to human/HS DNA, a BF DNA test result would look exactly like a contaminated human/HS DNA and since BFs do not officially exists except as a myth, scientist will always stick to the contaminated human/HS answer.

 

I

[Wolfjewel]

For Forum members who’d like a concise overview of the genus Homo and how it intersects with the earlier hominids, Wikipedia does it well. Makes it much easier to see the years during which these extinct species lived, where found, and what/who related to. Helped me be ready for some of the fascinating conversations on this topic. Google for Homo!

[norseman]

4 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Here it is again:

 

There appears to be a very strong tendency for us to think that Human = Homo sapien, and that nothing else out there can be human, including other species of humans like Homo Denisova and Homo floresiensis. I suspect that the word itself ("human") has been used so exclusively to describe us (Homo sapiens) that when somebody says, "This DNA sample came back as human", the automatic, knee-jerk response is, "How can this be?"

 

What an amazing phenomenon sasquatchery is!

 

I think that’s because we are the only species left in the genus Homo (officially). So we get to claim not only the species prize but the genus prize as well. And I think those scientists are used to speaking from that angle.

 

Finding another species belonging to the genus Homo would be earth shattering for science. But even a North American great ape would do that.

 

 

[Huntster]

2 minutes ago, norseman said:

.......Finding another species belonging to the genus Homo would be earth shattering for science.........

 

Actually, it would probably be a huge boost for science and Earth shattering for taxpayers, outdoor users of public lands and resources, and large private landowners.

 

The social aspects would be off the charts. I can't even imagine how government would deal with it. It forces a reconsideration of the Constitution and all of our laws regarding human rights and responsibilities as well as human relations. 

 

And I don't think that a simple tweaking ofbthevtaxonomic definition of "human" would cool the hot water we'd be in. If these creatures can hybridize with Homo sapiens, they are are human, even if they are a different species.

[hiflier]

 

46 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

I think that’s because we are the only species left in the genus Homo (officially). So we get to claim not only the species prize but the genus prize as well. And I think those scientists are used to speaking from that angle.

 

But it isn't precise and leaves too much scientific wiggle room when tackling the Sasquatch existence issue. Especially genetically.

 

To clear the air, one can no longer say that "Human" is a term that only applies to Homo Sapiens! Too many other branches have been discovered with probably more to come still. But as Huntster states, it seems to be the go-to when the  word "Human" gets mentioned. That why I admitted that I was guilty of allowing myself to default to thinking Homo Sapiens when I heard Meldrum and Disotell use the description of "Human" in their respective podcasts when referring to the e-DNA results from the nests. But a couple of posts back I stressed that I had come to the realization that saying "Human" doesn't necessarily MEAN Homo Sapiens. Instead, since most folks will think Homo Sapiens when "Human" is announced then simply saying "Human" becomes a safety net where suspected Sasquatch DNA is concerned.

 

If someone THINKS Sasquatch is of the genus Homo then samples that come back Human might not mean contaminated. The accusation of contamination comes from the public and opponents to BF existence when the word "Human" comes up as a sampled result. Not from the geneticists themselves!! I see it as a convenient move to use the term "Human because 1) it wouldn't be a lie, and 2) the public at large will assume a Human result to mean Homo Sapiens and therefore the samples were contaminated by mishandling and shoddy lab technique.

 

To be precise....only DNA samples that come back with HOMO SAPIENS DNA WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY CONTAMINATED.

 

So far as I can tell, or remember, no one doing any supposed Sasquatch DNA testing has ever said there was DNA present specifically from Homo Sapiens. They have only ever said "Human". It is ourselves who have filled in the Homo Sapiens blank and then started in with our debates and arguments, not to mention criticizing the DNA testers and their labs and undermining their credibility.

 

Bottom line? When a sample comes back "Human" we should be asking whether or not the supposed Human DNA result is in fact form a Homo Sapiens. Oh sure, this sounds pretty ridiculous on the surface but we have all seen the uproar that occurs when historically a DNA sample or many samples have seemingly always come back Human and so the sample or samples MUST be contaminated. It's to the point that maybe we shouldn't jump so hastily to that conclusion until we know that the sampled results actually DO include Homo Sapiens. Maybe we shouldn't simply accept the result when only the broader term of Human is used.      

Edited September 27, 2019 by hiflier

[Incorrigible1]

One incorrect concept regarding evolution in general, and mankind in particular, is that evolution is an always progressive process, that succeeding species are "better," more evolved, superior.

 

Each species, during their existence, is equally "evolved." There is no "better" there is no "newer model."

[norseman]

10 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

 

But it isn't precise and leaves too much scientific wiggle room when tackling the Sasquatch existence issue. Especially genetically.

 

To clear the air, one can no longer say that "Human" is a term that only applies to Homo Sapiens! Too many other branches have been discovered with probably more to come still. But as Huntster states, it seems to be the go-to when the  word "Human" gets mentioned. That why I admitted that I was guilty of allowing myself to default to thinking Homo Sapiens when I heard Meldrum and Disotell use the description of "Human" in their respective podcasts when referring to the e-DNA results from the nests. But a couple of posts back I stressed that I had come to the realization that saying "Human" doesn't necessarily MEAN Homo Sapiens. Instead, since most folks will think Homo Sapiens when "Human" is announced then simply saying "Human" becomes a safety net where suspected Sasquatch DNA is concerned.

 

If someone THINKS Sasquatch is of the genus Homo then samples that come back Human might not mean contaminated. The accusation of contamination comes from the public and opponents to BF existence when the word "Human" comes up as a sampled result. Not from the geneticists themselves!! I see it as a convenient move to use the term "Human because 1) it wouldn't be a lie, and 2) the public at large will assume a Human result to mean Homo Sapiens and therefore the samples were contaminated by mishandling and shoddy lab technique.

 

To be precise....only DNA samples that come back with HOMO SAPIENS DNA WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY CONTAMINATED.

 

So far as I can tell, or remember, no one doing any supposed Sasquatch DNA testing has ever said there was DNA present specifically from Homo Sapiens. They have only ever said "Human". It is ourselves who have filled in the Homo Sapiens blank and then started in with our debates and arguments, not to mention criticizing the DNA testers and their labs and undermining their credibility.

 

Bottom line? When a sample comes back "Human" we should be asking whether or not the supposed Human DNA result is in fact form a Homo Sapiens. Oh sure, this sounds pretty ridiculous on the surface but we have all seen the uproar that occurs when historically a DNA sample or many samples have seemingly always come back Human and so the sample or samples MUST be contaminated. It's to the point that maybe we shouldn't jump so hastily to that conclusion until we know that the sampled results actually DO include Homo Sapiens. Maybe we shouldn't simply accept the result when only the broader term of Human is used.      

 

Yes. But all of those discovered branches are extinct.....

 

And I have heard Disotell say himself that he does not believe Sasquatch would test as a Homo Sapien. The discussion was about Ketchum’s DNA study. Sasquatches DNA would not be the same as Homo Sapiens because of obvious morphological difference based on sighting reports, etc.

 

Your report shows differences from Homo Sapiens and supposed morphological traits based on Denisovan DNA extracted from a pinkie bone. If they can do that? They can tell the difference between Homo Sapien DNA and a Sasquatch.

5 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

One incorrect concept regarding evolution in general, and mankind in particular, is that evolution is an always progressive process, that succeeding species are "better," more evolved, superior.

 

Each species, during their existence, is equally "evolved." There is no "better" there is no "newer model."

 

With the caveat that “better evolved” simply means to better face the challenges of a changing world. Our ancestors were “better evolved” to face the dwindling Jungles turned to Savannah’s by the Indian plate smashing into the Asian plate. Causing the Himalayan mountains to rise. Chimp ancestors were not.

 

They remained in the safety of the jungles to the south while we walked into a brave new one.

 

Your right that no one model is technically superior to the other. But I think with Billions of humans on the Earth vs. Thousands of Chimps? Our species benefited greatly by our ancestors gamble.

[hiflier]

49 minutes ago, norseman said:

And I have heard Disotell say himself that he does not believe Sasquatch would test as a Homo Sapien. The discussion was about Ketchum’s DNA study. Sasquatches DNA would not be the same as Homo Sapiens because of obvious morphological difference based on sighting reports, etc.

 

There is a difference between Human genomes which is how we tell the difference between Neanderthal and us. Both are Human (Homo) though. So to say that a DNA result has Human (Homo) DNA wouldn't necessarily MEAN it was contaminated by a Homo Sapiens. It's simply saying there is Human DNA in the mix. We assume therefore contamination but that may not be the case and that's all I'm saying: That Human DNA in an e-DNA sample is not necessarily saying that the DNA is from Homo Sapiens. It could simply be Homo but the scientists SAYS Human.

 

It wouldn't be a lie but it also wouldn't tell the true meaning behind a Human DNA result. Just because we assume it means from Homo Sapiens contamination doesn't mean that it is. The outcome is that we end up arguing about contamination and samples getting tossed and poor handling but we may be in error. A result of Human may not be Homo Sapiens at all is all I'm saying because, after everything we now know, Human is just too broad a term for scientists to be using this day and age, especially the geneticists. I'm not trusting their use of the word Human in other words and that's the bottom line. It lets them tell the truth....without really telling the truth.

 

To me it is analogous to me not wanting you to know I have a shiny new red Mustang in my garage. So when you ask me what's in my garage I just say "a vehicle"......and I wouldn't be lying. BUT!! If you think the word "vehicle" always meant "truck" you would be wrong which means I would be keeping you in the dark about the real truth. 

Edited September 27, 2019 by hiflier

[hiflier]

I could carry this to the term "novel primate" as well. We've had much in the way of discussion about whether anyone in government knows about this creature. IF that is truly the case (and logically it would seem so if the creature exists at all) then the terms "novel primate" are terms used for only for the general public? When a suspected sample comes back with the conclusion of "no novel primate DNA" is it a true statement because the creature for some is technically no longer novel?

 

Yeah, I know. This is really stretching things. But, going back to my red Mustang analogy, people know that red Mustang cars exist so for those that know about it would be "novel". IOW, it wouldn't be novel to me but to someone who didn't know I had one in my garage? Yeah, it would be novel. So I could say I don't have a novel "vehicle" (because to me it wouldn't be and again....I wouldn't be lying.

 

The gist of this rather fine-pointed argument is that with all of the thousands of reports, both past and present, would the creature STILL be considered NOVEL? If so, it would only be novel and its DNA would only be novel to those who were kept in the dark about its existence. No novel primate therefore wouldn't technically be a lie. And with that I'll stop.    

[norseman]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

I could carry this to the term "novel primate" as well. We've had much in the way of discussion about whether anyone in government knows about this creature. IF that is truly the case (and logically it would seem so if the creature exists at all) then the terms "novel primate" are terms used for only for the general public? When a suspected sample comes back with the conclusion of "no novel primate DNA" is it a true statement because the creature for some is technically no longer novel?

 

Yeah, I know. This is really stretching things. But, going back to my red Mustang analogy, people know that red Mustang cars exist so for those that know about it would be "novel". IOW, it wouldn't be novel to me but to someone who didn't know I had one in my garage? Yeah, it would be novel. So I could say I don't have a novel "vehicle" (because to me it wouldn't be and again....I wouldn't be lying.

 

The gist of this rather fine-pointed argument is that with all of the thousands of reports, both past and present, would the creature STILL be considered NOVEL? If so, it would only be novel and its DNA would only be novel to those who were kept in the dark about its existence. No novel primate therefore wouldn't technically be a lie. And with that I'll stop.    

 

Do you believe Meldrum and Disotell would sweep things under the rug using vague terms?

 

 

[starchunk]

15 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I think that’s because we are the only species left in the genus Homo (officially). So we get to claim not only the species prize but the genus prize as well. And I think those scientists are used to speaking from that angle.

 

Finding another species belonging to the genus Homo would be earth shattering for science. But even a North American great ape would do that.

 

 

 

 

Unless Bigfoot turns out to be which hasn't been proven for or against. 

[norseman]

1 minute ago, starchunk said:

 

 

Unless Bigfoot turns out to be which hasn't been proven for or against. 

 

[hiflier]

49 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Do you believe Meldrum and Disotell would sweep things under the rug using vague terms?

 

I will say that I have always thought their handling of the Olympic Peninsula nest samples didn't seem proper. I thought the year and a half delay between the samples' collection and the actually testing made no sense considering what was riding on results that IMHO should only have come from fresh samples. Dr. Disotell claimed that the five samples were too degraded from moisture and freezing. The samples did show DNA from most of the normal animals in the region though. And they showed Human DNA however it was, again, too degraded to show a novel primate. I have really never felt between the potential magnitude of the nest discovery itself and the power of environmental testing that holding onto the samples over a year and a half while waiting for donations amounting to $5000 to cover the costs of testing seemed scientifically rational.

 

Was it because neither Dr. Disotell's New York University nor Dr. Meldrum's Idaho State University would fund the tests? Even as a phenomenon of nature in North America the nests were pretty amazing. Wouldn't either university's departments of zoology want to be a part of an investigation into what made the nests simply out of curiosity over something like that in the North America's natural world? $2,500 from each university? With Dr. Disotell being NYU's own expert geneticist? What about other universities? Was Washing State University even asked or invited? Oregon? British Columbia?

 

There are more and more things about this whole picture that need explaining. But who if anyone would have the pull to do so? It has never been an option for me to accept the way things have gone and walk away saying, "Hey, good job guys...too bad....maybe next time, huh?"   

Edited September 27, 2019 by hiflier

[MIB]

4 hours ago, norseman said:

And I have heard Disotell say himself that he does not believe Sasquatch would test as a Homo Sapien.

 

I think it is well within Disotell's ability to separate sasquatch DNA from our DNA, but whether it is within the budget of whoever is paying him to test to take the testing to that degree is likely a separate question.

 

MIB