Implications of Hybridization - v1.1

[McGlencoe]

On 8/25/2021 at 12:28 PM, bipedalist said:

RE: Zana looks like Burtsev was a co-author https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ggn2.10051

The genomic origin of Zana of Abkhazia - Margaryan - 2021 - Advanced Genetics - Wiley Online Library 1 INTRODUCTION. The local folklore of the South Caucasus region of Abkhazia records a “wild woman” named Zana, who lived in the 19th century, who was referred to by some locals as a female Abnauayu or Almasty: names for a creature similar to the infamous Yeti of the Himalayas and Bigfoot of North America, that supposedly lives in the Caucasus and Central Asia. 1, 2 Originally captured ... onlinelibrary.wiley.com

 

 

From that report:

 

Quote

Our results prove that the unknown female buried in the Genaba family cemetery was Zana herself. In contrast to the speculations that she might have been a female Almasty, we provide definitive genome-wide data to put an end to the accounts of her as anything but a human woman.

 

[Huntster]

14 hours ago, McGlencoe said:

........In contrast to the speculations that she might have been a female Almasty, we provide definitive genome-wide data to put an end to the accounts of her as anything but a human woman........

 

So if all almasties are "human", what does that tell you? Does that somehow end the story for you? Has somebody "won"? Conversely, has somebody else "lost"?

 

Also from the report:

 

Quote

........4.1 A note on ethics

Following her capture in the forest, Zana was deprived of her basic human rights, and treated as a slave: she was kept in captivity, likely forced to have sexual relations with local men, and worked in forced labor conditions. After she passed away, the accounts on her mythical figure attracted several scientists to unearth her story and her son's bones were exhumed. Our study intends, both to reveal the true human nature of Zana and grant her and her descendants' remains the dignity they deserve.........

 

So, to play along, what if all "wildman" reports indicate disordered and discarded or mentally unstable people of large, physically powerful stature wandering our public lands?

 

Do you have a comment on that possibility?

[Twist]

Was there really a thing to be won or lost here?  🤔.   I think now we just know that she was a typical human female that most likely had some health and developmental issues.    Her being an almasty or having ancient African origins has been put to rest.  

[Huntster]

12 minutes ago, Twist said:

Was there really a thing to be won or lost here?  🤔........

 

I don't know. That's why I asked.

 

Quote

.......  I think now we just know that she was a typical human female that most likely had some health and developmental issues........

 

Ummmmm........"typical"? Really?

 

Quote

.......Her being an almasty or having ancient African origins has been put to rest.  

 

Again, really?

 

Okay, I'll play. Please define "almasty".

[Twist]

The paper states she has expected origins of an African woman with some issues.   That’s what I read, that’s all I got.  If you have an issue with the paper take it up with them.   

[Huntster]

Her explanation to account for Zana's "unique" description was that "we speculate that Zana might have had a genetic disorder such as congenital generalized hypertrichosis which could partially explain her strange behavior, lack of speech, and long body hair." That "speculation" leaves a whole lot of blanks, which us why it could only "partially explain her strange behavior, lack of speech," great strength, impervious ability to survive intense cold, ability so survive in the wild alone (we assume she was aline, right?), and a whole host of other questions, not to even mention those raised by Bryan Sykes in his DNA study of Khwit and Zana regarding an African mystery marker.

 

I suppose I could email Dr. Margaryan and play her game, but I prefer to play games here, especially when opening moves are so mysteriously dropped by posters who have but 5 previous posts and who have admitted being a prior participant. 

 

So, that posted, do YOU have any answers to my questions?:

 

Quote

.......So if all almasties are "human", what does that tell you? Does that somehow end the story for you? Has somebody "won"? Conversely, has somebody else "lost"?......

.........what if all "wildman" reports indicate disordered and discarded or mentally unstable people of large, physically powerful stature wandering our public lands?

 

Do you have a comment on that possibility?.......

 

.......Please define "almasty".

 

[Twist]

Good luck with your games.     The DNA study says she is of modern decent and a normal human.    Argue semantics, read between the lines…..whatever gets your goat.     I’m out.   

[Huntster]

5 minutes ago, Twist said:

Good luck with your games.     The DNA study says she is of modern decent and a normal human.    Argue semantics, read between the lines…..whatever gets your goat.     I’m out.   

 

You're out, all right, and was out as soon as you started. A "normal" human? Sure. Nothing but semantics. All between the lines. 

 

Did you win, Twist? 

 

And anything that gets my goat is stealing, and I'll deal with that aggressively. Goats taste great, and I'm not sharing mine.

 

Adios, jugadora.

[McGlencoe]

6 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

So if all almasties are "human", what does that tell you? Does that somehow end the story for you? Has somebody "won"? Conversely, has somebody else "lost"?

 

Also from the report:

 

 

So, to play along, what if all "wildman" reports indicate disordered and discarded or mentally unstable people of large, physically powerful stature wandering our public lands?

 

Do you have a comment on that possibility?

 

 

Is what I quoted supposed to be the end of the story for me?   Just thought it was an interesting section in the report. 

 

I'll second what @Twist said... Was there something to be won or lost here?
 

Well... What if all "wild man" reports do indicate your synopsis?   I haven't seen or read anything to support an opinion. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Twist said:

The paper states she has expected origins of an African woman with some issues.   That’s what I read, that’s all I got.  If you have an issue with the paper take it up with them.   

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

Her explanation to account for Zana's "unique" description was that "we speculate that Zana might have had a genetic disorder such as congenital generalized hypertrichosis which could partially explain her strange behavior, lack of speech, and long body hair." That "speculation" leaves a whole lot of blanks, which us why it could only "partially explain her strange behavior, lack of speech," great strength, impervious ability to survive intense cold, ability so survive in the wild alone (we assume she was aline, right?), and a whole host of other questions, not to even mention those raised by Bryan Sykes in his DNA study of Khwit and Zana regarding an African mystery marker.

 

I suppose I could email Dr. Margaryan and play her game, but I prefer to play games here, especially when opening moves are so mysteriously dropped by posters who have but 5 previous posts and who have admitted being a prior participant. 

 

So, that posted, do YOU have any answers to my questions?:

 

 

 

What was so mysterious about my quoting from an article that another member posted?  

 

Are 5 posts an issue? Should have I posted in many other threads and pad my count before posting in this thread? 

 

Is there some hierarchy that I missed in the newb FAQ?  

Is there something wrong with being a previous participant?  I'm using the same user name, go back in the old database and check it out. My posts were pretty mellow back then too.

 

Zana's story is an interesting one and we'll never know the true story 100% for sure unless until time travel is a thing. Or is it a thing, did I miss that in the newbie FAQ too?

 

 

 

[hiflier]

Science, so far as DNA goes, accepts two things: Either Human DNA or Great Ape DNA and nothing in between. Almasty DNA? Well, NO. It has to be either Human or Great Ape. So science, pulling Zana into the realm of being a non-Human just isn't going to happen. But does it have to? Not if suspected North American Sasquatch DNA has anything to say about it. In other words, the scientific rule of thumb is invariably NOT Sasquatch DNA but Human contaminated DNA. So I don't know why anyone should be surprised at the conclusion (or speculation) regarding Zana. The DNA results from the soil taken from beneath the centers of the nests in Washington State? Degraded Human DNA. Surprising? Not at all. Of course, all of it depends on where one would place such a creature, whether Almasty OR Sasquatch, in the primate evolutionary line. After the supposed Chimp/Homo is my own hypothesis.

 

The truth of that depends on solid physical evidence. Is that evidence found in Zana? Science would say "no" and will twist and turn in a hundred different directions to make that outcome fit its picture. The sometimes ambiguous wording in the article, which functionally creates ambiguity, pretty much supports what I'm trying to say. Effectively, this creature simply isn't allowed to be real- much less be an extant primate in the evolutionary line that is either Homo or led to Homo. In any case, if that were true, then its DNA would be much closer to us than Chimps but its mtDNA mutations would still place it as being more ancient than, say, Neanderthal or Denisovan. As an afterthought, the WA nest DNA, even if Human, was probably too degraded to even show a percentage of Neanderthal? It still begs the question of how Human DNA got into the soil underneath the center of those nests, right? For me, that has been the nagging question all along. Speculations notwithstanding.

[Huntster]

47 minutes ago, McGlencoe said:

Is what I quoted supposed to be the end of the story for me?   Just thought it was an interesting section in the report.......

 

I thought the report was rather weak with the line regarding hypertrichosis and no mention of Zana's other features.

 

Quote

......I'll second what @Twist said... Was there something to be won or lost here?.......

 

I'll repeat my reply to Twist:

 

I wasn't sure. That's why I asked.
 

Quote

.......Well... What if all "wild man" reports do indicate your synopsis?   I haven't seen or read anything to support an opinion........

 

A well thought out opinion on all wild man reports being people suffering from hypertrichosis isn't likely to be published by a "scientist", but it's going to be a pretty standard escape clause in every case like this that comes along. Let's face it: if a sasquatch (almas, yeti, et al) report cannot possibly be a mistaken bear sighting, it will be a human with hypertrichosis until proven otherwise, even if said hirstute bipedal creature can leap tall buildings, swim flood stage frozen rivers, sleep outside in sub-zero temps without bedding, and carry great weights with one hand. 

 

Quote

 

........What was so mysterious about my quoting from an article that another member posted?  

 

Are 5 posts an issue? Should have I posted in many other threads and pad my count before posting in this thread? 

 

Is there some hierarchy that I missed in the newb FAQ?  

Is there something wrong with being a previous participant?  I'm using the same user name, go back in the old database and check it out. My posts were pretty mellow back then too........

 

 

Thank you for that information, and I apologize for coming on strong. That's simply how I am. I guess I'm like Zana, but with just a slight case of hypertrichosis. I swim underwater in frozen lakes, am (somewhat) bullet proof, and am almost as strong as Zana, but have great suspicion of people from the International Skeptics Forum, formerly known as JREF. I will review the forum archives to review your history.

 

Your post, without much comment, was suspicious to me. 
 

Quote

 

.......Zana's story is an interesting one and we'll never know the true story 100% for sure unless until time travel is a thing.........

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, the Zana story is an incredible one, even if she was herself or was a descendant of African slaves. If she was simply a feral human "with issues" (as Twist tried to pass), the concept still poses problems. And since East African slavery in that part of the world goes back at least a thousand years, even this DNA review leaves open the possibility of a repressed human population going feral by necessity, even if they're not hybrid with ancient hominid species. In fact, a population of humans hiding from other humans for so many generations as to begin exhibiting the kinds of differences that Zana showed is even more remarkable (and believable) than a surviving ancient hominid or a hybrid sapien/hominid. And, again, it intensifies the ethical side of this entire phenomenon.

[McGlencoe]

36 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Science, so far as DNA goes, accepts two things: Either Human DNA or Great Ape DNA and nothing in between. Almasty DNA? Well, NO. It has to be either Human or Great Ape. So science, pulling Zana into the realm of being a non-Human just isn't going to happen. But does it have to? Not if suspected North American Sasquatch DNA has anything to say about it. In other words, the scientific rule of thumb is invariably NOT Sasquatch DNA but Human contaminated DNA. So I don't know why anyone should be surprised at the conclusion (or speculation) regarding Zana. The DNA results from the soil taken from beneath the centers of the nests in Washington State? Degraded Human DNA. Surprising? Not at all. Of course, all of it depends on where one would place such a creature, whether Almasty OR Sasquatch, in the primate evolutionary line. After the supposed Chimp/Homo is my own hypothesis.

 

The truth of that depends on solid physical evidence. Is that evidence found in Zana? Science would say "no" and will twist and turn in a hundred different directions to make that outcome fit its picture. The sometimes ambiguous wording in the article, which functionally creates ambiguity, pretty much supports what I'm trying to say. Effectively, this creature simply isn't allowed to be real- much less be an extant primate in the evolutionary line that is either Homo or led to Homo. In any case, if that were true, then its DNA would be much closer to us than Chimps but its mtDNA mutations would still place it as being more ancient than, say, Neanderthal or Denisovan. As an afterthought, the WA nest DNA, even if Human, was probably too degraded to even show a percentage of Neanderthal? It still begs the question of how Human DNA got into the soil underneath the center of those nests, right? For me, that has been the nagging question all along. Speculations notwithstanding.

 

That's the big problem, no in between. 

 

With Chimp DNA sharing 98.8% with human, anything in-between will throw up red flags (meaning human contaminated), especially if they don't do a deep enough DNA analysis. 

 

 

Quote

..... but have great suspicion of people from the International Skeptics Forum, formerly known as JREF.

 

 

And you deduced I was from JREF from the 5 posts that I have?

 

Many of the Randii-ites are as goofy as some of the BF followers/researches/fans.

 

 

 

 

 

[Huntster]

2 minutes ago, McGlencoe said:

And you deduced I was from JREF from the 5 posts that I have?.......

 

With just 5 posts, and quoting a statement from the paper that Zana was a "human woman"?

 

I most certainly deduced that you could be an ISF adventurer.

 

So I asked several questions.......which you still haven't answered........

 

Quote

........Many of the Randii-ites are as goofy as some of the BF followers/researches/fans.

 

Yeah, and one of the similarities is some sort of need to "win" something. With the more ardent sasquatch hunters, that win is pretty obvious. It's like gold fever. But with JREF soldiers, that win is more mysterious.

[McGlencoe]

13 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

With just 5 posts, and quoting a statement from the paper that Zana was a "human woman"?

 

I most certainly deduced that you could be an ISF adventurer.

 

So I asked several questions.......which you still haven't answered........

 

 

Yeah, and one of the similarities is some sort of need to "win" something. With the more ardent sasquatch hunters, that win is pretty obvious. It's like gold fever. But with JREF soldiers, that win is more mysterious.

 

You asked two questions:

 

Quote

So if all almasties are "human", what does that tell you? Does that somehow end the story for you? Has somebody "won"? Conversely, has somebody else "lost"?

 

As there is no accepted "in-between" Chimp and Human, people "have" to place them in one or the other. It is short-sighted.

 

Only a person with established Dogma will have won or lost something.

 

 

Quote

So, to play along, what if all "wildman" reports indicate disordered and discarded or mentally unstable people of large, physically powerful stature wandering our public lands?

 

Do you have a comment on that possibility?

 

So what if?   Without anything substantiated how could anyone comment?  Other than to say what I said above.

 

[Huntster]

10 minutes ago, McGlencoe said:

You asked two questions:.......

 

There are actually four question marks in the first quote.

 

Quote

........As there is no accepted "in-between" Chimp and Human, people "have" to place them in one or the other. It is short-sighted........

 

But it is now "accepted science" that there are multiple human species, and that most of us are "hybrids" to one degree or another. Many non-pure-Africans have @ 3% or so Homo neanderthalensis genes in us, and some of us (mostly east Asian) have Homo Denisovan genes. 

 

Granted, Bryan Sykes argued that if interbreeding occurred and the offspring were fertile, they were of the same species, but that basic premise appears to be lost on many scientists. I agree with Sykes.

 

Quote

........Only a person with established Dogma will have won or lost something........

 

Precisely. So that doesn't include you?

 

Quote

.......So what if?......

 

Then that would strongly indicate that our current homelessness and mental health problems are older and more deeply seated than we ever realized, no?

 

Quote

.......Without anything substantiated how could anyone comment?......

 

A comment on how such a consideration would be a significant problem might be appropriate. Did you even consider the question? If all wildman reports are either mistaken identifications or discarded humans "with issues" (as our esteemed Twist put it), we have some serious ethical problems that Dr. Margaryan's ethical disclaimer doesn't quite cover, no? For example, while the Muslim slave industry makes that of the New World both young and miniscule, we did have African slaves imported for @ 200 years. So, ignoring aboriginal tradition regarding sasquatches, how many of the sasquatch reports in North America are actually escaped African slaves or the descendants of such? Like in central Asia, have they become a race of discarded humans that have gone wild and become hirstute, extremely strong, and stopped using speech? Even accounting for misidentifications and manufactured reports, do real wildman reports in North America make up just 10% of sasquatch reports, escaped African slaves or not? That would add up to thousands of wildmen out there.

 

Do we have an ethical responsibility to follow up on this possibility? Or should we invite them to inhabit our city street with the rest of our homeless legions? It can be argued that Zana ate better in slavery than in the wild, although I agree that she didn't have the acumen to clearly state that. She did like wine, and I doubt that she enjoyed wine in the wild.