Chimpanzee/Bonobo/Human/..........Sasquatch?.........DNA

[Huntster]

Speaking of monitor lizards, this guy is my favorite!

 

 

[norseman]

 

 

 

 

 

[Incorrigible1]

Thinking it was when Rok was lonely, had too many mushrooms, and the cave closing time was near.......

[guyzonthropus]

Huntster..The book was written by the guys that did that FaceBook/Finding Bigfoot you tube channel where they'd analyze videos for all the various traits that differentiate non-humans from humans, listing them at the end of each video..

I pretty much agree with you on their taxonomic proximity to us, at least within the F&B paradigm, but that's just a couple burners on the stove of inquiry and potentials, and who can say where they sit in the more "on the way to the rabbit hole" models of what they might be?

Edited December 26, 2020 by guyzonthropus

[Henry Stevens]

Introgression between genera?  Bison bison-Bos taurus comes to mind, the Beefalo, and African elephant, genius Loxodonta once reproduced with and Indian elephant Elephas maximus in captivity but the calf died before coming to reproductive age.  

[Huntster]

 

[guyzonthropus]

I 've kept all sorts of creatures over my life, as well as having been a keeper at two zoos, and I'd think most people might well be surprised  at just how many different types of animals display what can(only) be described as emotions. It's hardly limited to the "upper primates". These can be seen in a lot of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish. I'd doubt it skips amphibians, it's just I haven't personally seen such displays nor read of them, and That certainly does t mean they dont have them too.

For example, chameleons don't change color so much to camouflage themselves(though their base colors do tend to blend in) their more vibrant displays of colors depend on their emotional state. They have combat colors, "Hey baby, hey baby!" Colors, " leave me alone" colors, and more.

In a sense I'd think it akin to degrees of consciousness. For centuries most animals were thought to be acting solely by instinct.

 

But any creature that learns from interacting with its environment has some degree of conscious awareness, just like the first cowboy to try eating a cactus, if it lives through it it learns. Similarly, you can bet that first cowboy HATES cactus, and therein is the start of emotion. It seems to me that the more socially interactive a species is, the more likely it is to have a wider range of emotive response, but that could just be the bias of a social creature.

 

It might just be me, but humans have been trying to differentiate themselves from The Animals for a long long time, and it seems like we jump on any unprovable(at the time)qualifiers  at hand, you know, like how animals arent consciously aware, self determined, able to learn, capable of abstraction, don't feel pain, don't have emotion, don't have a soul, aren t made in gods image, can't use language, and more. Is it some deep seated insecurity that we might not be special? Guilt over that whole "dominion over" thing or some need to justify the claim? Or are we afraid that we're "just another monkey" ? This whole do our closest relatives have similar emotions to our own strikes me as a rather ridiculous question. Anyone who's spent any time observing them. knows they do, unless they approach it with the preconception that it's impossible, thereby giving excuse to ignore elements of what they see before them. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by guyzonthropus

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

........most people might well be surprised  at just how many different types of animals display what can(only) be described as emotions. It's hardly limited to the "upper primates".........

 

The difference with humans is speech, as was noted in the video. 

[guyzonthropus]

Humans often deny aspects that are possible but that we do not perceive. Language comes in many forms and as time goes by we find more and more creatures communicate effectively. Just like we say humans are the only creatures on the planet capable of abstraction,which is a mighty big, not to mention quite rather arrogant position to take when we have yet  to learn the language(s)of a single non-human , such that would allow us to speak/communicate directly with that creature in its own language! Heck, other primates have done a better job of it learning our sign language and expressing their own emotions.  What's that saying those crazy Bigfoot researchers say....oh right"absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"  especially when we as humans approach the situation with the biased preconception that there can't be evidence because there's no way it could exist. Such a mindset makes it hard to see anything new or unexpected

[Huntster]

12 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

........Language comes in many forms and as time goes by we find more and more creatures communicate effectively.........

 

Effective audible communication is not necessarily either language or speech. Banging a stick against a tree or howling qre both effective audible communication methods, but neither are language or speech. Chattering like chimps do and which sasquatches are said to do? I'm not sure. Clicking like dolphins do? Again, I'm no sure. But what I am sure about chattering and clicking is that they do not express abstractions like economic or psychological theory. 

 

Sasquatch "samarai" sounds? This appears to go beyond chatter, but remains a mystery.

 

What is also proven is that both language and abstraction are learned, unlike emotion. A dog, gopher, beaver, or feral human can get angry or frightened, but none can begin to understand even the emotions they feel or other abstractions until they learn about them through abstract language. A dog can understand many human words; sit, stay, come, heel, etc. Try teaching your dog about macro-economics. 

 

Quote

........Just like we say humans are the only creatures on the planet capable of abstraction,which is a mighty big, not to mention quite rather arrogant position to take when we have yet  to learn the language(s)of a single non-human.........

 

That might well be because the audible languages of other species is not speech or the expression of abstract thought. For example, wolves or coyotes howl to express, over long distances (thus demonstrating a complete lack of body language), that they are present, and that their presence expresses territorial ownership of the area. We know this so fully as to have created electronic calling devices which mimic these calls so to lure them in to defend their territory from other perceived wolves or coyotes. We have created these communication devices for, among many other motivations, the purposes of commerce, a completely foreign economic abstraction to wolves and coyotes that affects their very lives dramatically. 

[guyzonthropus]

I hear  what you're saying, but I would still not rule out that we humans might not perceive nuances that could constitute a functional language. 

I'm with ya on the samurai chatter, and with that linguist confirming word forms, you have to consider it at least second level communication with what that linguist described as grammer a long with his outline of their language as he heard it.. Where as most view dolphin-speak as direct first level

forms where A#5 squeak = herring, Eb3grunt= cuttlefish ) But from there you can't simply dismiss the possibility there's more to it than real time descriptive context.  Dr Lilley(sp?) certainly seemed certain dolphins were saying a whole lot more than just "more fish, monkey! More fish!" The 30 minute+ songs of humpbacks have got to hold more than "this is what we've eaten this last year" or "here's a list of all The cool noises our pod makes now days"

Edited November 7, 2022 by guyzonthropus

[Huntster]

If it's a language, it can be decoded/interpreted. 
 

In terms of whale songs, bird songs are similar. I've been impressed with this Canadian womsn who appears to have categorized numerous songs/sounds of chickadees.

 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

At the bottom of this article is the Human mtDNA genome. Not necessary to look at it unless one wishes to see the layout. It is a dataset that lists all of the genetic base pairs in the Human mitochondrial genome:  All of the Human 16,569 genetic G-C and A-T base pairs, or their opposite configurations: C-G and T-A. Each C,G,Tor A is given a number, starting from "1" and going in order across then down, all the way to 16,569. They are set up in groups of ten to make things easier to read as groups.

 

And here's the kicker. Out of those thousands and thousands of all of those C,G,T and A's? ? Only about 150 to 155 of them, In sequential order, are needed to determine an animal's genus- whether it be bird, mammal, or fish.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

.......Out of those thousands and thousands of all of those C,G,T and A's? ? Only about 150 to 155 of them, In sequential order, are needed to determine an animal's genus- whether it be bird, mammal, or fish.

 

So how many determine species?

[hiflier]

Okay, so this is ultimately about the Sasquatch, right? Expedition:  You all remember that Expedition: Bigfoot found some DNA in a forest environment in eastern Kentucky. Soil samples were taken that when tested came back Chimpanzee, which is genus Pan troglodite. Of course, many other animals were picked up in the samples (3) as well- along with Human DNA. What kind of has confused me was that the results showed "several other primates."

 

Was that a way of sending us a cryptic message saying Sasquatch? If not then what exactly WERE those other primates and where did all of that OTHER primate DNA come from? There are only two ways to go with this:

 

1) The DNA was so good that it could pick up individual Chimp species like the Bonobos- which are also genus Pan troglodyte. Humans have no other extant species so Humans can be ruled out, though in a stretch Humans could be consider ANOTHER primate- as in one other primate. Ad in Bonobos and technically Humans and Bonobos would be the "other primates," right?

 

But if the DNA was really good enough to pick out individual species of Chimps then IMO it would've been good enough to pick out not only Humans but also Human DNA that is Human but loaded with anomalies. Mutations. If Sasquatch is Homo then it would show up as Human but with obvious mutations. That isn't part of the information we were given, however.

 

2) The DNA wasn't that good and so couldn't show species, only genus. In which case those "several other primates" were NOT Chimp cousins but in fact were other GENUSUS of primates. For instance, Humans, Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutans, Gibbons, and Baboons are all primates from different genuses. So, what was really picked up in those soil samples and why were we only told what we were told? HAH! several other primates indeed! Essentially that told us nothing.