Jump to content
SwiftWater

"Ghost" DNA in West Africans

Recommended Posts

SwiftWater

Not specifically Bigfoot related, but when analyzing the DNA of 405 West Africans, scientists found DNA they cannot account for. They've been able to identify DNA that came from Neanderthals and Denisovians, but not the source of this DNA. This leads them to believe there is another homo sapiens ancestor that is currently unknown. No, not implying humans interbred with Bigfoot, just using it to point that even in the tree close enough to breed with we haven't found all species.

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/12/805237120/ghost-dna-in-west-africans-complicates-story-of-human-origins

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CallyCat

I am sure that there were several species of human or precursor humans that led to the current version of human that we are today. We'll never find all of the bones to prove that theory but as genetic research improves that might change. As for bigfoot, I think it's some kind of throw back to either Denisovan or Neanderthal based on the one and only fossilized footprint found of a Neanderthal. It looks just like a miniature version of a bigfoot footprint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/44347/20150406/dna-test-suggests-russian-apewoman-zana-was-not-human-and-yeti-may-not-be-a-myth.htm

 

........Discovered in a remote region of the Republic of Abkhazia, a towering woman named Zana was captured by local hunters in the 1850s and sold to a nobleman who "tamed" her and kept her on his estate as a servant until her death in 1890, according to local accounts.



Zana's resemblance was described as that of a wild beast, "the most frightening feature of which was her expression, which was pure animal," wrote one Russian zoologist in 1996.

Now Professor Bryan Sykes at the University of Oxford says he believes Zana had a strain of West African DNA that belonged to a subspecies of modern humans.

Sykes explained that while the woman, said to stand 6 feet 6 inches tall, was genetically 100 percent African, she showed little physical or genetic resemblance to any group living in modern Africa.

Sykes has published a book, The Nature of the Beast, in which he writes that Zana's ancestors could have come out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago and lived for many generations in the remote Caucasus region...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Sykes explained that while the woman, said to stand 6 feet 6 inches tall, was genetically 100 percent African, she showed little physical or genetic resemblance to any group living in modern Africa.

Sykes has published a book, The Nature of the Beast, in which he writes that Zana's ancestors could have come out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago and lived for many generations in the remote Caucasus region...........

 

Okay, let me get this straight.......Zana "was genetically 100 percent African" which means her "ancestors could have come out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago"?

 

If Zana "was genetically 100% African" then her ancestors DEFINITELY came out of Africa. No "could" about it. It leaves the question of how Sykes came up with the "100,000 years ago" figure. Zana's DNA, traced from her grandson, Kwit, led back to an ancient West African group that supposedly no longer exists. The real issue is that Zana had parents, which means there were more than just her around in the 1800's. But none of them showed up either in the beginning of her capture or anytime afterwards to rescue her. So much for taking care of their own. The other question would be whether or not any of Zana's relatives, or clan if you will, still exist. One would think by now that the Russian government and its scientists would have the answer to that?

 

But then again, just like here in the US, I doubt Bursev or Bayanov have ever asked their government or any of its agencies about it.  

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Zana's ancestors could have come out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago and lived for many generations in the remote Caucasus region...........

 

If Zana "was genetically 100% African" then her ancestors DEFINITELY came out of Africa. No "could" about it.

 

 

 

I think that's about what time period they came to be in the region where Zana was captured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
2 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Okay, let me get this straight.......Zana "was genetically 100 percent African" which means her "ancestors could have come out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago"?

 

If Zana "was genetically 100% African" then her ancestors DEFINITELY came out of Africa. No "could" about it. It leaves the question of how Sykes came up with the "100,000 years ago" figure. Zana's DNA, traced from her grandson, Kwit, led back to an ancient West African group that supposedly no longer exists. The real issue is that Zana had parents, which means there were more than just her around in the 1800's. But none of them showed up either in the beginning of her capture or anytime afterwards to rescue her. So much for taking care of their own. The other question would be whether or not any of Zana's relatives, or clan if you will, still exist. One would think by now that the Russian government and its scientists would have the answer to that?

 

But then again, just like here in the US, I doubt Bursev or Bayanov have ever asked their government or any of its agencies about it.  


The term “could” is dealing with timescale and not topography.

 

So is she archaic or modern? The DNA should tell us.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Great question. And yes, the DNA should. 100,000 years is about half of modern Human's evolutionary history, which is about half of Neanderthal's. Evidently Zana wasn't Denisovan? But was her line the "ghost" DNA of Denisovans? How would a geneticist go about determining any of that? Because other than Dr. Sykes, I've seen no mention of Zana or her offspring in mainstream science. And Dr. Sykes's Yeti study, which took him to the US F&W Forensics Lab in Ashland, Oregon, didn't seem to include her in the Yeti study? Why is Zana apparently something apart from all of that?  Is Sykes the only one who ever looked at her ancestral line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Maybe her story we hear online is not verifiable on a scientific level in reality.   If someone like Sykes is looking into Zana, is her DNA available for testing or is everything just records from Russia??   How much verifiable evidence is there of Zana's real genetic background?    This story, while interesting, has a lot of the makings of a fish story,  retold and embellished thru time.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Great question. And yes, the DNA should. 100,000 years is about half of modern Human's evolutionary history, which is about half of Neanderthal's. Evidently Zana wasn't Denisovan? But was her line the "ghost" DNA of Denisovans? How would a geneticist go about determining any of that? Because other than Dr. Sykes, I've seen no mention of Zana or her offspring in mainstream science. And Dr. Sykes's Yeti study, which took him to the US F&W Forensics Lab in Ashland, Oregon, didn't seem to include her in the Yeti study? Why is Zana apparently something apart from all of that?  Is Sykes the only one who ever looked at her ancestral line?


Denisovans are Asian cousins of Neanderthals. The African parent of both Neanderthals and Denisovans were Homo Hedelbergensis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, norseman said:

The African parent of both Neanderthals and Denisovans were Homo Hedelbergensis

 

Correct, Norseman! And both the mitochondrial as well as the nuclear DNA of Heidelbergensis has been reconstructed and sequenced to show that. And evidently Zana's DNA did not point to either of those three- Heidlebergensis, Neanderthal or Denisovan. It is also basically telling us that Neanderthals and Denisovans were the last of the Heidelbergensis line. So if the ghost DNA goes back far enough it could be that a third species split from Heidelbergensis? 

 

But somewhere along the way, the ghost DNA entered the Denisovans but not the Neanderthals. That means a different species of Homo had to have occurred AFTER the Neanderthal/Denisovan split from Heidlebergensis, or we may have seen it in Neanderthals too before they met up with the Denisovans. The ghost species eventually met up with and intermingled with Denisovans only? Was it BEFORE the Neanderthals showed up in Siberia?. This is where things get a little murky for me.  

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CallyCat
Posted (edited)

We could ask Dr. Sykes to look at the man's results in South Carolina who had the "ghost" DNA going back 300K  then compare those results with the results he got from Zana. The man's results should be in a database somewhere that I'm sure DR. Sykes would have access to for comparative analysis. I can't see the harm in asking. If something comes of it, the samples/results can be verified by other genetic screening labs, right? I don't know Dr. Sykes but I guess we could ask one of the research groups that have contact with him to make the request. What bigfoot research groups have worked with Dr. Sykes?

Edited by CallyCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)

All good suggestions, CallyCat :) Asking Dr. Sykes is one thing, having him answer an unsolicited email is another. Dr. Meldrum could ask him though. I would ask Dr. Meldrum myself but he doesn't respond to my emails. The last one I sent asked him to consider having someone look for the NOTCH2NL ape genes when he does environmental DNA sampling. He was supposedly going to go out about a year and a half ago with Cliff Barackman in Oregon to take samples. Never heard anything more about it.

 

I think the whole "upper" level in this field has kind of turned into an us-and-them where only a select few get the privilege of open communication. Just about everyone else gets blown off. I absolutely like your ideas, CallyCat, I really DO , and think they show deeper critical thinking on this particular subject. The issue is that at the Dr./Professor/PhD level few seem to be able to get access to. That's why I gave up on all the supposed high-level Bigfoot go-to's and aimed my sights in another direction. I also think the high-level BF people would rather not have me on their cases anyway. No one would go at them like I would.

 

On that note, if my history serves me well, in about a month and a half or so, the Olympic Peninsula nesting site area is slated for  timber harvesting. So, we can soon say good-bye to the site that gave us the best, closest time-wise evidence, we have probably ever had.....

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
32 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I think the whole "upper" level in this field has kind of turned into an us-and-them where only a select few get the privilege of open communication. Just about everyone else gets blown off.

 

"Upper level" could be another term for "Qualified".   Perhaps internet message board poster is not qualified.....   Just saying.   Maybe you have credentials I dont know about but I've never heard you speak of them.   JMO

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

 

I think the whole "upper" level in this field has kind of turned into an us-and-them where only a select few get the privilege of open communication. Just about everyone else gets blown off. I absolutely like your ideas, CallyCat, I really DO , and think they show deeper critical thinking on this particular subject. The issue is that at the Dr./Professor/PhD level few seem to be able to get access to. That's why I gave up on all the supposed high-level Bigfoot go-to's and aimed my sights in another direction. I also think the high-level BF people would rather not have me on their cases anyway. No one would go at them like I would.

 

On that note, if my history serves me well, in about a month and a half or so, the Olympic Peninsula nesting site area is slated for  timber harvesting. So, we can soon say good-bye to the site that gave us the best, closest time-wise evidence, we have probably ever had.....

I dream about the day when one of us without initials behind our name has a bigfoot.     Would serve some of the PHD's right if the blew them off like they do us.   

 

So the nesting site is being logged?   Why in the hell can't we get that area protected.   Do we need to go chain ourselves to trees?    My research area was clear cut and now this?  I am starting to see a trend here.   

 

There is something about Sykes and bigfoot evidence that I don't trust.   He seems entirely too snarky when he says everything is a bear.  

Edited by SWWASAS
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...