Animal sounds most often mistook for Bigfoot?

[hiflier]

 

1 minute ago, MIB said:

Sasquatch would have to be quite different from human to be detected as anything but human / human contamination via e-DNA testing as I read it

 

True that. But my hypothesis is based on everything I've been saying about Sasquatch origin, which I think very strongly lies in the primate lineage that led to Humans. It's advanced physical body is the strongest clue I have for that conclusion. It would mean the Sasquatch is closer to us genetically than the Chimpanzee. But here's the caveat, we can detect very well differences in intra-species when it comes to Humans. i.e. Homo Sapiens sapiens and Denisovans/Neanderthals and Sasquatch is genetically much further away than even early Humans. So the bottom line for me is that we shouldn't have a difficult time at all differentiating between Bigfoot's DNA and ours. In fact I don't think any of the arguments that state we are too close to tell apart hold any water at all. Someone has been handing us a line and, to me anyway, it is total disinformation meant to divert efforts aimed at discovery.

 

Nothing else makes any sense. That creature, whatever it is, is no closer to us that any of our ancient ancestors so telling the difference should be pretty danged easy. It's why I don't trust any of the recent outcomes in the last 8 years. And I think it's also why there hasn't been an all out push on the e-DNA front by anyone involved in the subject. Because as I said elsewhere, this phenomenon is still a very hot potato. Discovery is an economically dangerous thing. And so is the discovery that it doesn't exist. Either outcome is not to be taken lightly, and by the same token, any effort to discover the truth, or that gets close to the truth, might bring on some unexpectedly (or expectedly?) strong push back.

 

The truth of the situation is that Sasquatch DNA and Human DNA are NOT the same and are NOT close. Not like many folks have been telling us that it is. IMHO? It has all been a diversion and so has been nothing but BS. 

[MIB]

I'm going to have to disagree with most everything you said.     You're rooting your argument in the separation of sasquatch DNA and human ... and you're almost certainly dead wrong.    The reason is hybridization which almost certainly requires them to have 23 chromosome pairs, same us us, for viable hybrids, not "mules".    That necessarily puts them vastly closer to us than they are to other known living primates.     We can't cross with chimps, gorillas, etc.   At least in Native American lore, we do indeed cross with sasquatch.  

 

I will agree that our known ancestors and "cousins" like Denisovans are likely closer to us than sasquatch, but I'm betting they're still Homo, not Pan or Gorilla.   In the examination of DNA from the environment, that's too close to separate with e-DNA.   Probably like blacktailed deer and mule deer, mulies being a more recently developed subspecies and the parent of both being nearly identical to the current Sitka blacktails.    The difference is more visible in physical morphology than it is testable in genetics, especially with tests that focus on cursory differences rather than deeper differences.

 

We may just have to agree to disagree.    You're not going to convince me because I'm right and I'm not going to convince you because you're stubborn.     One of the pluses to solving the puzzle is putting many of these old debates to rest once and for all.

 

The bottom line is, I think, we can use e-DNA to home in on an area to search, but to actually discover bigfoot, we're going to have very fresh nuDNA, not just mtDNA, and we're going to have to have the cash to do the full genome test, not just a superficial test, and at least for me, that means absolute certainty about what the sample is. 

 

MIB

[hiflier]

23 minutes ago, MIB said:

We may just have to agree to disagree.

 

Agreed. But we can tell the difference between Homo Sapiens sapiens and Neanderthal with only 202 base differences, so for me the difference between us and Sasquatch should be a no brainer. And we don't know that Sasquatch has 23 chromosome pairs and we don't know if there has been Sasquatch/Human hybrids. We HAVE to stay with what we know or can logically/scientifically determine.

 

I started with Sasquatch cognitive reasoning being not like Human cognitive reasoning, along with how they live in nature, and went from there. Just because they are a hominin doesn't mean they are Homo. It doesn't mean they are Pan or Pongid either. But they are not Homo which the biggie. Hominin, yes. Homo, no.

 

And we will, of course, disagree on that, too   

Edited July 22, 2020 by hiflier

[MIB]

On 7/22/2020 at 3:04 PM, hiflier said:

But here's the caveat, we can detect very well differences in intra-species when it comes to Humans. i.e. Homo Sapiens sapiens and Denisovans/Neanderthals and Sasquatch is genetically much further away than even early Humans.

 

We can tell that, yes, but can we do it with e-DNA or does it require conventional testing?   My understanding, which seems supported by the quote you provided, is that e-DNA won't provide that level of granularity because the DNA is too degraded.

 

On 7/22/2020 at 3:42 PM, hiflier said:

And we will, of course, disagree on that, too   

 

Of course!!     

 

Hopefully we both live to see the question answered.   We may find out somehow we both were wrong.

 

MIB

Edited July 24, 2020 by MIB

[hiflier]

54 minutes ago, MIB said:

Of course!!     

 

Hopefully we both live to see the question answered.   We may find out somehow we both were wrong.

 

Well, there's always that isn't there. I guess the best approach is to just what we can while we're still around   And you're right on the issue of degraded sample which is why there's been so much dialogues aimed at avoiding that. Timing is everything in this search.