Jump to content

Implications of Hybridization - v1.1


Huntster
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

Bottom line here? Your either going to go and find Sasquatch DNA or you're not. Although how you are going to be able to CALL it Sasquatch DNA is still a bit of a mystery. You could get a kit together, go look for footprints in the woods, and take a soil sample or two? Oh, wait, forgot, they live among us, and look just like us except for those few that you say you've seen would recognize as being candidates for being Patty-types. In that case, I guess I won't be running into you in the wild while doing my own research and sample collecting, which, apparently, is a waste of time anyway according to you because they're not out there- they live among us, so I would be looking in the wrong place.

 

21 minutes ago, Solvedit said:

As an aside, I have relegated you to a policy of containment.  The forum won't let me put you on my Ignore list for some reason, but will only respond to you on this and the other thread we have already argued on.

 

Well, I'll be danged. Ah well......I'd much rather be relegated to a policy of containment than have you show up at my door because you think I look like frame 352 :) Tell you what though, IF I get any Sasquatch DNA, or at least novel primate DNA, I'll make sure it gets peer reviewed and into the GenBank so you'll at least have a reference come time for you to do your....uh...canvassing of the North American population. Good luck, and good-bye. NEXT! LOL.

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, hiflier said:

I would like to clear up something here if I may. Zana, or the dialogues of the past about her origins is one thing. The research done that may indicate that she was what folks refer to in that part of the world as an Almasty, may be true. That her genetic markers show her genetic relationship to a now extinct group of western sub-Saharan people that no longer exist seems to have been well demonstrated by Dr. Sykes et al. So what the problem then?.......

 

First of all, humanity had a sure "almasty" in captivity, her description sounds just like the "Patty" we see on the PG film, yet she was most certainly Homo sapien. We're told repeatedly that she was a feral human. and that she was ethnically sub-Saharan African. Her dna is closer to us than either Neanderthals or Denisovan. She was nit a different species, and nor was she a hominin.

 

Secondly, this is a common result for "sasquatch" dna; it repeatedly comes back as "human".

 

Thirdly, there are more feral humans out there than I'm comfortable with. I really didn't have a clue until after this Zana thing was pretty much put to bed and I started to look into the feral human issue. 

 

In short, how many times are you going to get "human" results back until you finally realize that the dna game isn't the shining light on the hill any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor
34 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Bottom line here? Your either going to go and find Sasquatch DNA or you're not. Although how you are going to be able to CALL it Sasquatch DNA is still a bit of a mystery..........

 

Well, that's why they call them "mystery markers". And they have at least four of them. So doesn't that mean four other human species or sub-species out there that are, by definition, unknown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

Until I am sure that DNA isn't the shining light on the hill. Sykes traced her maternal line back to that extinct haplogroup in Africa. What does that mean? It means that he tested her mitochondrial DNA only. And what does that mean? It means he didn't test her nuclear DNA where the chromosomes reside. The significance of that? He couldn't tell what brand of NOTCH2NL brain genes she had. And even if he did, the study papers linking the NOTCH2NL genes to either Great Apes or Humans didn't happen. It wasn't even thought of or known about then. so, YES, supposed Sasquatch DNA can be very close to Human enough as to look nearly identical. But there is something up with their brains and Zana could be supporting evidence for that.

 

The differences in the NOTCH genes are critical milestones in the latter evolutionary primate line but one needs the nuclear DNA from a cell's nucleus to be able to make the distinction. And that has been my whole DNA point of reference all along. There is something up with the Sasquatch brain that results in no fire, no wheel, or any other sign of technological advancement possibilities on its own. Can it be taught things? Sure, even Chimpanzees can be taught things. But it that phenomenon of not thinking of things on their own that is significant. In that regard, NOTCH genes tell the story. So THAT, my friend, is the shining light on the hill in my book. I couldn't care two hoots about mtDNA, although it can show genus, which is fairly critical. But if Sasquatches are so close to Humans genetically then delving into the nuDNA will produce the determining factor.

 

When Expedition Bigfoot came up with Chimpanzee DNA, obviously with some controversy, it was found via mitochondrial DNA which most scientists use to ID animals. Not really species though, only genus, or in degraded DNA cases, family- like primate. That a very big umbrella. Good mtDNA? genus. But species can be determined with nuDNA, and that's my focus and goal: get whole cells. So there IS a shining light if one zeros in on what really matters. People forget that DNA resides in two places: inside a nucleaus of a cell, and outside the nucleus of a cell. That's why most scientist say that the best DNA for testing will come from fresh feces, blood or tissue, and also bone marrow as well as the pulp inside of a tooth- because those things contain whole cells.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hey Mat! That guys looking awfully squatchy!"

 

what I'm getting from Blackrocks posts is that there may well b e merit in running through the order books of TuffShed looking for extra reinforcement sheds.....

 

the genetic diversity found in most modern societies, or perhaps even the global society, precludes the likelyhood of distinguishing squatchy looking people vs those actually carrying such DNA, especially with out civil suits....isolated populations/tribes are becoming fewer and far between...looking for the origins of high % DNA carriers may prove the best bet for locating geographical centers of earlier hybridization events. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor
25 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Well, that's why they call them "mystery markers". And they have at least four of them. So doesn't that mean four other human species or sub-species out there that are, by definition, unknown?

 

I wouldn't know, tell you the truth, Humans have lots of markers but typically science usually only looks for one because, for any given KNOWN organism, there is a certain marker at a known locus on the circular DNA in the case of mtDNA or at a known locus in the open-ended double helix in the nuDNA. Scientists know what to look for and where it should be. And I'm pretty sure it's either the cytochrome oxidase b or the cytochrome oxidase c in the circular mtDNA that they look at for mammalian identification, with the cytochrome oxidase b working better for small DNA fragments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

One thing to consider in all of this is whether any of these the mystery gene hybrid male offspring are even fertile or not. Like with Neanderthals, it probably gets complicated: https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

In some way or another I believe that we are all hybrids from some other human species. I am not sure where I had seen it but we have all came from different parts of the world . We all have mixed genes in us all according to our DNA.

On 11/3/2021 at 12:49 AM, hiflier said:

One thing to consider in all of this is whether any of these the mystery gene hybrid male offspring are even fertile or not. Like with Neanderthals, it probably gets complicated: https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding

This interbreeding does not mean that modern man did not interbreed with Neanderthals. That modern man did not migrate to where Neanderthals were thriving and living together. How else would there be Neanderthal DNA mixed with in todays DNA if they did not mix together back then. Migration played a big part in our todays DNA,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor
32 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

This interbreeding does not mean that modern man did not interbreed with Neanderthals.

 

True, and that's what the article is saying. The question it raises, though, is by which interbreeding route did the Neanderthal DNA take to become part of Modern Man's genome. It further goes on to say that Neanderthal DNA is NOT found (yet) in Modern Human mtDNA, which is the maternal line, but in the Modern Human's nuDNA which basically is the paternal line. I had been under the impression that Neanderthal males mating with Modern Human females would not produce fertile offspring, and so the paternal Neanderthal line would would eventually disappear. This article was updated less than a year ago, therefore I think that, to date, that makes it the most recent authority on the subject. If Modern Human males had mated with Neanderthal females and produced viable offspring, then there should be Neanderthal DNA in Modern Human's mtDNA tracing the maternal lineage- but there apparently isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator
9 hours ago, hiflier said:

True, and that's what the article is saying. The question it raises, though, is by which interbreeding route did the Neanderthal DNA take to become part of Modern Man's genome. It further goes on to say that Neanderthal DNA is NOT found (yet) in Modern Human mtDNA, which is the maternal line, but in the Modern Human's nuDNA which basically is the paternal line. I had been under the impression that Neanderthal males mating with Modern Human females would not produce fertile offspring, and so the paternal Neanderthal line would would eventually disappear. This article was updated less than a year ago, therefore I think that, to date, that makes it the most recent authority on the subject. If Modern Human males had mated with Neanderthal females and produced viable offspring, then there should be Neanderthal DNA in Modern Human's mtDNA tracing the maternal lineage- but there apparently isn't.

My thought on this for " Neanderthal DNA is NOT found (yet) in Modern Human mtDNA " would be . That it would take a Neanderthal female to mate with a modern. If this was to take place back then , Then the maternal line would show up in the DNA to my understanding of DNA. We would be seeing this today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

And I agree. It is curious that even though there was interbreeding between Modern Humans and Neanderthals that, apparently for now anyway, Modern Human mtDNA only shows the Human female line. At least that's how I understand the article. So it looks like it shakes out this way: Modern male/Neanderthal female...no Neanderthal mtDNA but Modern male nuDNA. On the flip side: Modern female/Neanderthal male...Modern female mtDNA with Neanderthal male nuDNA. From the article which I took the liberty of separating out as bullet points (my bold/underline):

 

1) "....if Neanderthal males were the only ones contributing to the human genome, their contributions would not be present in the mtDNA line. It is also possible that while interbreeding between Neanderthal males and human females could have produced fertile offspring,

 

2) interbreeding between Neanderthal females and modern human males might not have produced fertile offspring, which would mean that the Neanderthal mtDNA could not be passed down. Finally,

 

3) it is possible that modern humans do carry at least one mtDNA lineage that Neanderthals contributed to our genome, but that we have not yet sequenced that lineage in either modern humans or in Neanderthals. Any of these explanations could underlie the lack of Neanderthal mtDNA in modern human populations.

 

It does make me wonder about similar outcomes when Modern Human interbred with other early Human species. In other words, no mtDNA entering the Modern Human genome from other early Human species. Did this interbreeding dynamic only occur with Neanderthal?

 

And how did this work out with Zana and Kwit? Did Zana's maternal mtDNA line show up in Kwit's DNA?

 

 

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...