Implications of Hybridization - v1.1

[McGlencoe]

15 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

There are actually four question marks in the first quote.

 

 

 

I stand corrected. However, all four still answered.

 

 

[Huntster]

Food for discussion:

 

https://countryroadsmagazine.com/art-and-culture/history/louisiana-s-wild-men/

 

My Daddy grew up in the bayou. He told me fo people who lived deep in the bayou........the only way in and out was by pirogue. He said that they spoke a language that was a mixture of French, Spanish, English, and Indian. They didn't come out of the bayou. They lived wild. He'd been in there and knew them. 

 

Many native American descriptions of sasquatches were that they were wild humans.

[Huntster]

14 minutes ago, McGlencoe said:

 

I stand corrected. However, all four still answered.

 

Actually, I found not a single one answered. You did acknowledge that those with dogmatic views could win or lose, but you didn't suggest who those might be........or not be.

[hiflier]

11 hours ago, McGlencoe said:

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.

 

People keep saying how close Chimps are to Humans and for this Forum it's time to set the scientific record straight: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_One_Percent So the truth is, there's a lot more genetic room for Sasquatch DNA than folks realize.

[hiflier]

I don't wish to derail this thread but the bottom line is that in mtDNA there a 1,600 base pair difference between us and Chimps. Between us and Denisovan the difference is about 600 base pairs, for us and Neanderthal- around 200. So that would leave about a thousand base pairs or so between Denisovan and Chimps. Plenty of room to plop a hairy hominid into the evolutionary primate line.

[Huntster]

I asked:

 

i

21 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

So if all almasties are "human", what does that tell you?.......

 

.........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?

 

I got no thought out answer, so I looked into it myself. I didn't have to look far:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

 

The first eye opener for me was the sheer number of documented cases, all relatively recent (as well as famous historical cases), and even catagorized by the wild animal species that raised the child; wolves, dogs, monkeys, even ostriches. Clearly, this happens often. These cases are just the survivors, and just the survivors that end up caught.

 

Secondly, and even being the father of a son born with a significant developmental disability, fairly well educated as a parent in intellectual disabilities, and the husband of a special ed teacher, I had no idea that a child that is not taught to speak by age five is not likely to ever speak later in life, even with effort to teach them. This goes along with other basic human development. In short, significant developmental disabilities can be manufactured through pure neglect in a child's early years. I simply had no clue.

 

Thirdly, feats like running on all fours as fast as a man can run bipedally can be learned at an early age if raised by dogs. This goes a long way in explaining Zana's ability to swim a swollen, freezing river, run as fast as. horse, lift great weight, etc.

 

In short, having learned this incredible information, I can easily accept what Dr. Margaryan did not theorize or present as a liklihood:

 

Zana was abandoned in the wild by her African slave parents as a freak when she was born huge and covered with hair, and she was captured later as an adult feral human. She had developed great strength and fully acclimated to the cold. Her developmental disabilities were likely due to no human nurturing as a baby, and the great strength she developed was accented by her great size acquired genetically. 

 

This epiphany is profound for me. It helps answer one significant problem within the overall sasquatch phenomenon: If all or a significant number of wildman reports, legends, and oral traditions are actually feral Homo sapiens, the problem of non-viable reproduction goes away.

 

However, if not all such reports of wildmen are feral Homo sapiens, then the number of non-Homo sapiens goes down, making viable reproduction an even bigger problem than originally thought.

 

Another thought was that if most or all if these reports of wildmen are feral humans, doesn't that ethically elevate the responsibility of government and society to respond? Dr. Margaryan felt it necessary to add a section on the ethics regarding Zana's basic human rights. What about the humanity of all feral humans? Another thought that came to me was that if basic speech can be lost for a lifetime through the neglect of nurturing and education, so can human spirituality and sentient thought. 

 

I have a lot more reading to do on feral humans, including Tirademan's collection of media reports over the decades in North America.

 

I'm still having a tough time accepting the premise that this female is Homo sapien, even though Zana's description comes very close to what we see in this image.

7A6FEB1C-2C4D-4915-875D-3F4195DF369A.jp2

[McGlencoe]

11 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

People keep saying how close Chimps are to Humans and for this Forum it's time to set the scientific record straight: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_One_Percent So the truth is, there's a lot more genetic room for Sasquatch DNA than folks realize.

 

Thanks for posting that up. An estimate 3% difference? That's more than double.

 

 

8 hours ago, hiflier said:

I don't wish to derail this thread but the bottom line is that in mtDNA there a 1,600 base pair difference between us and Chimps. Between us and Denisovan the difference is about 600 base pairs, for us and Neanderthal- around 200. So that would leave about a thousand base pairs or so between Denisovan and Chimps. Plenty of room to plop a hairy hominid into the evolutionary primate line.

 

This is where I get a little confused. Does Sasquatch have to fall in line with Chimps, Denisovans and Neanderthals? Could they be a branch off to one side or the other?

 

[hiflier]

Sure, McGlencoe, but I'm not the one to ask. And this thread is basically only about Zana/Almasty?Homo so I'm not sure how far to take things. Zana had, according to her description, an advanced Human phenotype (body characteristic). That is to say, that no one apparently considered her a knuckle walker? Science says that there are about 6-7 million years between knuckle walkers (Chimps) and Modern Humans.  Add another 3 million or so between us and Gorillas, and yet another 3 million or so between us and Orangutan. So iIMHO, that 6-7 million year gap between us and Chimps kinda throws the 3 million-year primate evolutionary cadence out the window.

 

So, plenty of time there for "something else," especially if something else that had almost the same amount evolutionary time to advance beyond Great Apes in their body style- as in primarily bipedal. That's why I think the species should be plugged into the primate line after the Great Apes. Again, my opinion. There are other features an genetics that I think support this opinion but it gets complicated. Zana may have indeed been a, odd-sized feral Human or a species remnant of some sort? After all, today we have several species of Chimpanzee but in the past there may have been many, many more. The ones that are around today are the ones that made it. Same with Gorillas and Orangutans. We are only seeing the evolutionary survivors of those groups....just like with Humans.

[MIB]

20 hours ago, McGlencoe said:

This is where I get a little confused. Does Sasquatch have to fall in line with Chimps, Denisovans and Neanderthals? Could they be a branch off to one side or the other?

 

Hypothetically they could but there are not many examples of parallel evolution taken to the necessary degree.   The more similar the end result and the deeper in time the split, the less likely that option becomes.     Example would be mara and european hares .. though they evolved to fill a very similar niche on different continents, their differences are as obvious as their similarities.

 

The farther we go back in time for a split from the known pongid/human tree, the more likely that either fossils will exist somewhere or the thing is imaginary ... and the tracks I've cast were real, the plaster impressions were real, and I can tell you that in the setting where I found "my" trackline, a hoax was not possible and nothing exists to misidentify. 

 

I think the evidence points to a very late split off the known "tree" or a known split that underwent very rapid physical adaptation due to extreme, extreme climate stress in isolation from the parent population.    That isn't something I "know", rather something I compute as best guess based on the evidence available to me.

 

Setting Ketchum aside for a while and focusing on the "theory" of hybridization, the idea has several points of biological merit.   First, it has been reported that there are two similar forms, one more apelike with cruder "speech", one more humanlike (in feature) with more articulate "speech".  Both are similarly massive but the more ape type is reported as having even more extreme musculature than the other.   Second, broad variation in size and color.   Third, variations in number of digits, especially toes.    Plus other things including native accounts of abducted women who return pregnant with seemingly partially non-human offspring.   To me, taken on the whole, it suggests one of two possibilities, either a species in severe decline with a lot of mutations reinforced by massive inbreeding -or- (the option I lean towards) a hybridization event which is still incomplete such that the genes of the 2 parent species are not homogeneously spread across the whole population yet.

 

I find what is happening out there very fascinating.    I think there is something quite unique occurring right under our noses that most humans are overlooking.

 

MIB

[McGlencoe]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

   -or- (the option I lean towards) a hybridization event which is still incomplete such that the genes of the 2 parent species are not homogeneously spread across the whole population yet.

 

I find what is happening out there very fascinating.    I think there is something quite unique occurring right under our noses that most humans are overlooking.

 

MIB

 

Interesting.

 

Thanks for chiming in.

[guyzonthropus]

Just thought I'd point out that we can't be certain of a lack of spiritual awareness in any creature we can't effectively communicate with, just as we can't assess their capacity for or level of abstraction without understanding any potential aspects of their communications. On the flip side, science demands we consider the possibility that our spirituality is a remnant or vestigial artifact of our species attempt to find order in the natural world we found ourselves in and from that arose and evolved the various levels and forms of spirituality and religions, sort of an explanation that took on a life of its own. So perhaps we shouldn't use spiritual awareness as a viable gauge of advanced development, just in case it turns out to be a well crafted delusion after all. "Hey you guys!  You aren't gonna believe what these hairless apes really think run the cosmos!" 

[guyzonthropus]

Just because they don't share our same dysfunction doesn't mean we're the more advanced ones. ..

[norseman]

23 minutes ago, Solvedit said:

While we're on hybrids, I found this article in some web search or other.  I am wondering if it has made an appearance on this forum before?

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/it-wasnt-just-neanderthals-ancient-humans-had-sex-other-hominids/338117/

 

Anyway, if Bigfoot is a hybrid of humans and some prehistoric hominin, I think I know where they've all been hiding.  

Our Genus are NOT Panda bears for sure……

[Huntster]

11 hours ago, Solvedit said:

.......... if Bigfoot is a hybrid of humans and some prehistoric hominin, I think I know where they've all been hiding.  

 

In the Hollywood Hills?

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Solvedit said:

What do pandas have to do with anything?

They are the antithesis of humans. We will breed with about anything.