Guest Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Perfectly said. I'm a skeptic that would love for BF to be real. If it turns out that BF is real, there will be no crow for me to eat. And it would not invalidate any reasons I didn't believe or make my present stance (BF MORE than likely is not real) invalid, based on the lack of evidence. In fact, I'll probably be even more happy than the current believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 4, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 4, 2011 ...I'm sure there are those who come here to antagonize, but I don't think it's nearly as many as you suspect.... Geesh, where's Huntster when you need him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) but instead as Sasquatch are known to do, they threw us curve balls even with their DNA which can be as elusive as they are. What does that mean ? I have been pondering the Progenitor Species hypothesis again in my mind, and if the Sasquatch DNA goes back as far as I have been told, which is 2.25 million years, yet their DNA resembles modern humans, it infers we have the perspective reversed. Sasquatch would be our forefathers and it's not that they resemble us, but that we resemble them. Edited November 4, 2011 by Alpinist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) If some of the DNA was that ancient or to put it a better way, it was actually that long since it shared a common ancestor, it would still mean that it has been actively evolving for 2.25 million years in a different direction than modern humans. She shouldn't be having problems with DNA that distantly removed unless there is a lot of more modern human DNA in the mix. That implies hybrids over the years. You aren't going to get more matches in DNA much beyond random for two convergently evolved animals. IOW DNA isn't going to be more alike just because the animals look alike. If the time passes, some genetic material is going to change by random mutations and most genes aren't going to have the same mutations to get the same features. That split would be right at the beginning of the genus Homo when huge changes were supposedly happening. That isn't the time to stop evolving. More likely some punctuated equilibrium or very fast evolution was happening to all the lineages that contributed to both ancestral populations. There were likely several in the last two million years if that leak/rumor is true. There must have been some mixing of the genes from the various populations over time. How much is the big question. If it was frequent between ours and their ancestors, they could conceivably be pretty close to us genetically and still maintain the wild adapted phenotype genes. They could maintain their wildman/apeman features by weeding out non beneficial more human genes by natural selection. People used to think of the chimps as the progenitor species. New evidence shows that chimps probably had bipedal ancestors so they aren't really a better match for the ancestor than we are. I would suspect the same applies to them. In some areas like language, technology and other areas that are "human" they are probably more like the ancestor. In other ways they are probably more or better evolved than our common ancestor was to their niche. Edited November 4, 2011 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I meant the link for Ketchum's statement. Couldn't see it on my phone. Now I can on my computer. Carry on... Tim B. PS- Still nothing new reported. Just more pretense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I think that if the results are published in a respected journal (and not one operated by cryptozoologists) that all the skeptics will in fact, be happy it has been proven to be true! (if the DNA evidence is complete and absolute in it's findings). Most of the skeptics want Bigfoot to be real, they just haven't seen enough evidence to convince them it is so. I'm sure there are those who come here to antagonize, but I don't think it's nearly as many as you suspect. I'm skeptically optimistic in regards to Bigfoot. If the evidence is real, peer reviewed and confirmed, I'm on board! BTW, just because someone spends time one here debunking what they consider lousy evidence or misrepresentations of evidence doesn't mean they hate Bigfoot. It means they demand evidence to be real and based on facts and not conjecture and hopeful determinism. (not to mention, that if this all turns out to be true, it doesn't mean that all the evidence ever presented about Bigfoot somehow magically becomes real either! The skookum cast could still be an elk, Patty could still be a suit, Bigfoot could still NOT be telepathic and dropped off from UFO's!) I'm cautiously optimistic that this all gets released over the next few months.... But I'm not of the mind that it will be. there's a good chance your in the 1% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 When the findings comes out and states what they claim is proven true, are you going to like 99% of the skeptics and just redirect to some other animal or pick the findings apart for miss spellings and wrong dates and claim the whole project null and void. Or will you take it like a man and profusely apologize to all the people you have belittled and embarrassed though all your post and eat your rightfully so, steady diet of crow, morning noon and night for a year ? Gee, what a angry post. Think I'll just mosey on down to Campfire Chat and get some coffee and grub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) Admitting there is curve ball DNA involved, well thats something which is interesting to speculate about ... and likely her real problem in terms of presenting the evidence to the scientific community. There must have been some mixing of the genes from the various populations over time. How much is the big question. If it was frequent between ours and their ancestors, they could conceivably be pretty close to us genetically and still maintain the wild adapted phenotype genes. They could maintain their wildman/apeman features by weeding out non beneficial more human genes by natural selection. People used to think of the chimps as the progenitor species. New evidence shows that chimps probably had bipedal ancestors so they aren't really a better match for the ancestor than we are. I would suspect the same applies to them. In some areas like language, technology and other areas that are "human" they are probably more like the ancestor. In other ways they are probably more or better evolved than our common ancestor was to their niche. Bob I bet lots of hybdrization took place over the ages with Sasquatch being a species that ancient, if the 2.25 mil number is true, and likely not just with homo sapiens, but cro-magnum, h-erectus, you name it, how would you know if BF DNA is distinct ? The Sasquatch DNA may be a very broad viewing port into the entire homo genus, but how a scientist could determine that I don't know. I also heard that there are two sasquatch variants, 23 chromosome pairs, and a 24 chromosome pairs. Two Sasquatch species co-existing matches what some people have been reporting, Autumn Wiliams "Mike" and Jack Lasperitis as two examples, the fact that people report either a human face or a gorilla like face is another interesting point of contention, both may be right. My understanding was that the 24 pair variant has a broader hybridization range, having the ability to drop incompatible chromosome pairs. We may be using a single term "sasquatch" as a catch all to describe a number of surviving stone age cavemen type species I don't know much about DNA, and in the case of someone who does, there is this unknown curve ball to mess up their postulations which Melba dropped on us today. My question is did our some of our progenitors actually survive till today, which considering that it was once thought to be chimps, that progenitor survival as a parallel species perhaps is not as unlikely as one might think ? Edited November 5, 2011 by Alpinist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I was wondering what the 'curveball' meant when I originally read her post. I'm not very DNA savvy, so I'm not sure what she could mean, but why would they need to worry so much about their submission to the journal? Wouldn't the DNA speak for itself? Like Denzel would say..Explain it to me like I'm an 8 year old:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 She would be overturning the common understanding of human evolution and proving what most scientists have assumed was a mythical monster. Finding another species of humans living on the planet would be nothing short of completely incredible. They aren't going to believe it if there is any other possible explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It is hard to speculate on all the possible complications but you could probably make a few assumptions. It should stand on its own unless it was mixed with human DNA or them being essentially evolved from modern humans. There are other curve balls I could think of but not really related to interpretation of the data. Evolved from modern humans wouldn't really prove anything so I doubt that is it. With modern human DNA thrown in the mix the proof would become much more complicated and you have to prove that what you have isn't a modern human and what it is. No human genes means you essentially proved it. Human genes mixed in means that you have to prove a negative that all the non human genes couldn't exist in humans. We non Africans kept about 4 percent of our Neanderthal ancestors genes for example. That means you would expect to find some non modern human genes even in us. Proving that their non human genes means that their DNA isn't modern human is obviously far more complicated than if it had no modern human genes in the first place. Just finding non human DNA proves it in a sense if you could demonstrate that it couldn't reasonably be expected to exist in modern populations but it leaves huge questions unanswered. Someone would have to explain what it was also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Speaking of non-homo sapien human species and their genetic relationship to the overall composition of specific DNA (Neandertal, Denisova, Flores so far); John Hawks blog on Friday (11/4/11)refers to the analogy of a braided stream from another anthro-blog...worth reading if you haven't already. http://johnhawks.net/weblog So, it suggests that determining whether an unnknown from DNA is of another non-human hominin species might be like trying to tell if the water in a branch of a braided stream is significantly different from the rest of the stream to tell the difference. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 5, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 5, 2011 Well in that respect it may be a question of: "How long can she tread water" but I certainly hope not. Thanks for the blog link, lost track of that one since the old forum days I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Haven't read the blog yet Dog, but couldn't have said it better, that's what I've been thinking, that the DNA might be a conglomeration of a lot of different things along the way rather than only modern humans. I know that our eggs/sperm can't be mixed with other great great apes, but I don't know if that would be true for bigfoot over the thousands of years they might have existed. In other words, bigfoot might turn out to be a biological hot tranny mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Speaking of non-homo sapien human species and their genetic relationship to the overall composition of specific DNA (Neandertal, Denisova, Flores so far); John Hawks blog on Friday (11/4/11)refers to the analogy of a braided stream from another anthro-blog...worth reading if you haven't already. http://johnhawks.net/weblog So, it suggests that determining whether an unnknown from DNA is of another non-human hominin species might be like trying to tell if the water in a branch of a braided stream is significantly different from the rest of the stream to tell the difference. Cheers. Good food for thought Dogu4, I'm optimistic that we'll find a very tainted strand in the braid ,so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 5, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 5, 2011 Speaking of non-homo sapien human species and their genetic relationship to the overall composition of specific DNA (Neandertal, Denisova, Flores so far); John Hawks blog on Friday (11/4/11)refers to the analogy of a braided stream from another anthro-blog...worth reading if you haven't already. http://johnhawks.net/weblog So, it suggests that determining whether an unnknown from DNA is of another non-human hominin species might be like trying to tell if the water in a branch of a braided stream is significantly different from the rest of the stream to tell the difference. Cheers. good source for added into on above too Quirks and Quarks show download, scroll down to Human Hybrids, save to file or click to listen options http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/episode/2011/10/22/october-22-2011/ Denisovans and Neanderthals said to be closely-related though distant cousins, explosion of gene/dna, revolutionary breakthroughs on the horizon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts