What Do You Think Bigfoot Is?

[Guest KentuckyApeman]

Honestly, I couldn't vote. There were only four options.

My personal opinion is this creature is somewhere between man and ape, with certain atributes of both.

There could be a crosslinking of intelect and spiritual development. Whales and dolphins are on that level.

[Guest nona]

As long as the hypothetical still had one known in the mix, yes you could know you had a crossbreed of some kind. You're still comparing knowns to unknowns to find something new. Do you agree?

Look back to what was your question,

Nona, do you think it would be possible to calculate the number of generations back to the pure 50 50 hybrid. Or would the potential for breeding with other hybrids throw it off in this hypothetical?

In our hypothetical situation I suggested analysis of your “known†human mtDNA sequence could essentially help you determine when this female mother was plucked from human society. How? Well, essentially the same way those genealogy labs determine how far back two human beings share a common ancestor using mtDNA. So by comparing that “known†human mtDNA sequence to that of the “known†mtDNA sequences of modern man one should essentially be able to determine a divergence point (a common ancestor) in time (when she was abducted from human society).

So, in my hypothetical example there are really no “unknowns†being compared. I also need to know nothing of the “sasquatch†father’s nDNA.

If you are trying to tie this in to our previous conversation it would be like comparing apples to oranges. These are two unrelated issues.

[Guest nona]

What the BF dna sequence(s) will tell us could very much be inclusive of many such mechanisms.

If it was some kind of alien, I would be more in agreement of this statement.

Hardly, but nice try, it is hard science fact of a known set of genetic mechanisms at play that most people know nothing about except specialists such as clinical geneticists.

Now, let’s look at my statement to which you are referring to in its original context.

As for using uniparental disomy as an example of how HODS' prior statement could possibly occur, I would say the odds are far greater than one in a million. Simply put it's basically the stuff of science-fiction.

HODS’ statement to which I was referring to is this,

It is possible for them to have human mtDNA but have 100% nuclear DNA from their own species as long as they are able to breed with humans.

There are two classifications of uniparental disomy:

isodisomic uniparental disomy, in which genetic material is inherited only from one chromosome of one parent

and

heterodisomic uniparental disomy, in which genetic material is inherited from the two paired chromosomes of one parent

Now, let’s go over the examples you mentioned which can result from isodisomic uniparental disomy, Prader-Willi syndrome and Beckwith-Wiedemann. As you can tell from the rest of what was stated in your post these disorders can lead to some serious problems. Yet, these disorders occur only as result of a small section of the chromosome. Imagine if this occurred involving an entire chromosome. The expression of multiple genes that would normally act recessively would result in far more complications.

Now, to your credit some “specialists such as clinical geneticists†do think abnormalities in which uniparental disomy does occur affecting one or more chromosomes does possibly happen at a higher rate than is actually recorded. This is because when such things do occur it is highly unlikely the embryo would be viable and the pregnancy is terminated early, which is often before any notable signs of pregnancy occur. So, there is no real way of collecting data for such statistics. Your previous quote of one in a million is most likely only in reference to a specific disorder occurring that results in a viable pregnancy.

So....

All of one’s genes coming from only one chromosome of one parent as in isodisomic uniparental disomy resulting in human mtDNA but have 100% nuclear DNA from their father, equals “Science Fictionâ€.

Now, let’s look at heterodisomic uniparental disomy. In this case you get both copies of one parent’s homologous chromosomes. Well, since you essentially have to different chromosomes it is unlikely you have to worry about a receive gene running unchecked and causing developmental problems. So, let’s imagine if this occurred affecting all of the offspring’s genes. This would result in the offspring having exactly same genetic material of one of its parent. You would essentially have a genetic clone of one parent. I'll admit there are plenty of bacteria and plants that can essentially clone themselves. Reportedly, I believe there are even some species of fish and reptiles that do this. Amazing! However, as far as I know and as of to this date, there has been no known mammal to have ever naturally given birth to an exact clone of either the mother or father without the help of some genetic manipulation as in the case of Dolly the sheep.

So until proven otherwise....

All of one’s genes coming from two homologous chromosomes of one parent as in heterodisomic uniparental disomy resulting in human mtDNA but have 100% nuclear DNA from their father, equals “Science Fictionâ€.

Personally I think it’s a shame that someone with coursework in “human heredity/evolution†and “research methodology†would promote such an idea. As the quote in my signature goes, “Quackery has no friend like gullibilityâ€.

As for your statement,

Your science fiction is somebody elses day job, sorry.

You are completely correct. It is the day job of science fiction authors and screenwriters and let’s not forget those Bigfoot proponents who have absolutely no clue about genetics.

[Guest]

I believe that bigfoot is a paranormal entity,more specifically a demonic manifestation.My views are based on eyewitness accounts,native american beliefs,and all the high strangeness that's associated with the creature.

wow, you mean hes not even gentle,nature worshipping paranormal entity but a demonic one? Seriously, you are not even close....

[southernyahoo]

Look back to what was your question,

Yes , you answered that question fine. Now I'll ask a few more below.

In our hypothetical situation I suggested analysis of your “known†human mtDNA sequence could essentially help you determine when this female mother was plucked from human society. How? Well, essentially the same way those genealogy labs determine how far back two human beings share a common ancestor using mtDNA. So by comparing that “known†human mtDNA sequence to that of the “known†mtDNA sequences of modern man one should essentially be able to determine a divergence point (a common ancestor) in time (when she was abducted from human society).

So, in my hypothetical example there are really no “unknowns†being compared. I also need to know nothing of the “sasquatch†father’s nDNA.

If you are trying to tie this in to our previous conversation it would be like comparing apples to oranges. These are two unrelated issues.

In your example, you were talking about a crossbreed , and how the nuDNA would be a transposed mixture from father and mother. How would you know there was anything not related to the maternal lineage.

If there was something not found in known populations of the known, wouldn't that be your unknown?Potentially squatch?

Edited August 3, 2011 by southernyahoo

[Guest gershake]

If it was some kind of alien, I would be more in agreement of this statement.

Now, let’s look at my statement to which you are referring to in its original context.

HODS’ statement to which I was referring to is this,

There are two classifications of uniparental disomy:

isodisomic uniparental disomy, in which genetic material is inherited only from one chromosome of one parent

and

heterodisomic uniparental disomy, in which genetic material is inherited from the two paired chromosomes of one parent

Now, let’s go over the examples you mentioned which can result from isodisomic uniparental disomy, Prader-Willi syndrome and Beckwith-Wiedemann. As you can tell from the rest of what was stated in your post these disorders can lead to some serious problems. Yet, these disorders occur only as result of a small section of the chromosome. Imagine if this occurred involving an entire chromosome. The expression of multiple genes that would normally act recessively would result in far more complications.

Now, to your credit some “specialists such as clinical geneticists†do think abnormalities in which uniparental disomy does occur affecting one or more chromosomes does possibly happen at a higher rate than is actually recorded. This is because when such things do occur it is highly unlikely the embryo would be viable and the pregnancy is terminated early, which is often before any notable signs of pregnancy occur. So, there is no real way of collecting data for such statistics. Your previous quote of one in a million is most likely only in reference to a specific disorder occurring that results in a viable pregnancy.

So....

All of one’s genes coming from only one chromosome of one parent as in isodisomic uniparental disomy resulting in human mtDNA but have 100% nuclear DNA from their father, equals “Science Fictionâ€.

Now, let’s look at heterodisomic uniparental disomy. In this case you get both copies of one parent’s homologous chromosomes. Well, since you essentially have to different chromosomes it is unlikely you have to worry about a receive gene running unchecked and causing developmental problems. So, let’s imagine if this occurred affecting all of the offspring’s genes. This would result in the offspring having exactly same genetic material of one of its parent. You would essentially have a genetic clone of one parent. I'll admit there are plenty of bacteria and plants that can essentially clone themselves. Reportedly, I believe there are even some species of fish and reptiles that do this. Amazing! However, as far as I know and as of to this date, there has been no known mammal to have ever naturally given birth to an exact clone of either the mother or father without the help of some genetic manipulation as in the case of Dolly the sheep.

So until proven otherwise....

All of one’s genes coming from two homologous chromosomes of one parent as in heterodisomic uniparental disomy resulting in human mtDNA but have 100% nuclear DNA from their father, equals “Science Fictionâ€.

Personally I think it’s a shame that someone with coursework in “human heredity/evolution†and “research methodology†would promote such an idea. As the quote in my signature goes, “Quackery has no friend like gullibilityâ€.

As for your statement,

You are completely correct. It is the day job of science fiction authors and screenwriters and let’s not forget those Bigfoot proponents who have absolutely no clue about genetics.

Annnnd there goes my hope for the Ketchum paper, for now... thanks for explaining this to complete laymen like me.

[bipedalist]

Now, let’s look at heterodisomic uniparental disomy. In this case you get both copies of one parent’s homologous chromosomes. Well, since you essentially have to different chromosomes it is unlikely you have to worry about a receive gene running unchecked and causing developmental problems. So, let’s imagine if this occurred affecting all of the offspring’s genes. This would result in the offspring having exactly same genetic material of one of its parent. You would essentially have a genetic clone of one parent.

Yep, and this is the exact condition to which I was referring and that is pretty far along the continuum away from science fiction.

So, end game, I guess we'll agree to disagree about that.

[Guest slimwitless]

Annnnd there goes my hope for the Ketchum paper, for now... thanks for explaining this to complete laymen like me.

Whoa...is this born out of Stubstad's assertion that bigfoot mtDNA is human and therefore it's **** near impossible (at least as exhibited in higher mammals) for the nuDNA to be any other species - no matter how closely related? Is that the gist of the conversation or am I missing something?

If a lab somehow tested just the mtDNA of a Neanderthal or Denisovan sample without knowing its origin, how would it come out at first blush? Human?

[Guest Forbig]

I didn't vote because I don't know.

Let’s see, science tells us there’s no proof of its existence, some say it can’t be killed because it’s supernatural, some say it’s a shape shifting bear, some say it’s a big old ape. Me? I just think it’s neat like a good mystery movie I don’t ever want to end. So what ever you figure out don’t ever tell me... I don’t want to know.

[Guest KentuckyApeman]

It's man Jim but not as we know it.

"Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a anthropologist. Do your own **** research!"

[Guest wudewasa]

[Guest poignant]

1. Gigantopithecus
   
2. Relic hominid
   
3. Feral or culturally-removed nephilim / giants of old
   
4. A mix of the above
   

[Guest Kronprinz Adam]

When I was a kid, I read some late 70s and 80s magazines about some researchers trying to unravel the Bigfoot mistery. At that time, the major question was "is this the missing link? How it is possible that nobody had hunted one specimen ?" (There was not too many references of "nocturnal creatures" and wood knocks, but instead of that, many open questions, (speech, use of fire and tools, if there was some link between Bigfoot and Yeti, but little was mentioned about russian creatures....)..

I remember that some researcher proposed that early hominoids split in 2 evolutive branches: one developed Infelligence and the other strength.. We developed intelligence, but Bigfoot and Yetis they relied on their strenght to survive...so maybe Bigfoot and Yetis were surviviors of that forgotten branch...I still like this idea!!!

[Guest MikeG]

The idea that early hominoids only split into two branches has been overtaken by events. It depends what you mean by early, but there are actually dozens of branches.

No creature develops one facility only. There is a downside to every development, and so all evolution is a balancing act (for instance, our big brains require an awful lot of energy input to maintain). It is therefore hyper-simplistic and misleading to say that we developed intelligence and the other lot developed strength.

Mike

[kitakaze]

The first two choices are a misnomer. Man is an ape...