Expedition Bigoot - New season starts

[hiflier]

On 3/8/2021 at 3:53 PM, Arvedis said:

 

If the viewership is up then it will get renewed. However, viewers are mostly not sophisticated types to buy into a cliffhanger involving science. There's nothing keeping this show intact other than monster shows have been trending with the so called producers that all these channels are coming up with, pulling non tv talent into mainstream discussions.

 

Whether ot not anyone even watches the show, the article put out by the Travel channel (and others) had HUGE things to say. I hope that fact has sunk in.

[Arvedis]

50 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Whether ot not anyone even watches the show, the article put out by the Travel channel (and others) had HUGE things to say. I hope that fact has sunk in.

 

Not really. Just some back and forth. Nothing at all that can be substantiated without additional effort. My point is if they intended to make it a scientific exercise then partial details would not have been leaked or they would have responded to the leak differently. Instead, they just fed off it

 

You are the wheel spinner here. Go ahead and extrapolate your assumptions.

[hiflier]

13 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

Nothing at all that can be substantiated without additional effort

 

Oh, I see. And just who is going to make that additional effort? What kind of additional effort? What would the effort entail or look like? Any suggestions? Or maybe just make no effort at all? What might be the motivation behind an effort?

 

That's six questions. Care to take them on?

[ShadowBorn]

Please tread lightly on this issue both of you, @hiflier and @Arvedis. So that it does not lead up to arguments.  But I am thinking that the scientific world should be on board with this discovery. If it is not then there is some thing wrong with the findings. This makes these samples suspicious or else the science world would be all over it of this new discovery. Just my opinion. 

[hiflier]

40 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

But I am thinking that the scientific world should be on board with this discovery. If it is not then there is some thing wrong with the findings. This makes these samples suspicious or else the science world would be all over it of this new discovery.

 

Thank you for the caution regarding Arvides's and my dialogue. I am mostly at fault there. And you are correct on the science end of things. There are at least two (that we know of) qualified and credentialed scientists involved in the news presented by the article via the Travel Channel and sites and both of those individuals are quoted. One is Dr. Mayor herself (primatologist), and the other is a project leader in the CALeDNA program at UC Sants Cruz. If anyone doesn't know what CALeDNA is by now then look it up. It will always take time for data to be peer reviewed and this will be no different. There is also a cap on what can be said before the EB DNA episode airs on the 28th.

 

1 hour ago, Arvedis said:

You are the wheel spinner here. Go ahead and extrapolate your assumptions.

 

The "wheel" is usually already spinning by the time I get to it. If it's a logically valid wheel, which I determine through reasoned, deeper investigation of the source, or sources,  then all I do is keep it spinning. Any extrapolations are only arrived at after very careful research and outreach. As a science oriented person I do my science homework, Arvides, and read wording precisely. There are times when opinion is fun and enjoyable. And there are other times, such as what was in the Travel Channel, when much more precision is needed. Because there's no such thing as a one size fits all. Especially where scientific dialogue and revelation are concerned. It's when one can discern the difference that the fun- and the truth- really begins.

[Arvedis]

On 3/9/2021 at 3:44 PM, hiflier said:

 

Oh, I see. And just who is going to make that additional effort? What kind of additional effort? What would the effort entail or look like? Any suggestions? Or maybe just make no effort at all? What might be the motivation behind an effort?

 

That's six questions. Care to take them on?

 

Actually Dr. Mayor answered those very questions in her latest video. I think she is being sincere. Perhaps I was too rush to judgement since the press release does reveal quite a bit on second read.  However, I do expect to be disappointed since I'm not jiving with the show.

 

I think the most amazing part of this not a blip of a reaction on social media.  I have not seen anything at all, not even on the show's own postings with promo clip.  Not a reaction from anyone at all so far in bigfootery that I have seen except here.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Arvedis

[norseman]

5 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

 

Actually Dr. Mayor answered those very questions in her latest video. I think she is being sincere. Perhaps I was too rush to judgement since the press release does reveal quite a bit on second read.  However, I do expect to be disappointed since I'm not jiving with the show.

 

I think the most amazing part of this not a blip of a reaction on social media to this.  I have not seen anything at all, not even on the show's own postings with promo clip.  Not a reaction from anyone at all so far in bigfootery that I have seen except here.

It’s good to keep an open mind. No matter how many times we have been mule kicked in the teeth.

 

I think EDNA still has aways to go before it’s discovering new species closely related to humans. But I think the gap is shrinking.

 

Lets think about this. There are 3.2 BILLION base pairs in human DNA.

 

A Chimp shares 98.9% of that same 3.2 billion base pairs with us. A Sasquatch being bipedal? I’m guessing is somewhere in between. Looking for the .5% of differences out of 3.2 billion? Is like looking for a needle in a haystack!

 

Now say we don’t have a type specimen. So we take water samples or soil samples. The DNA in those samples are probably degraded. But even degraded samples are going to still steer you towards is it a trout or a moose or a skunk. Easy. The genomes are already mapped. But a new novel species very close to human?

 

Its going to need to be a more direct dna sample that hopefully will hold up to numerous tests. For now. Maybe in the future? They can tease the nuances out of each sample. Or find other disqualifiers for known species vs cryptids.

 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

7 hours ago, norseman said:

Lets think about this. There are 3.2 BILLION base pairs in human DNA.

 

A Chimp shares 98.9% of that same 3.2 billion base pairs with us. A Sasquatch being bipedal? I’m guessing is somewhere in between. Looking for the .5% of differences out of 3.2 billion? Is like looking for a needle in a haystack!

 

Yes, 3.2 billion base pairs, BUT that's in the NUCLEAR DNA which has only two copies in each cell. In mitochondrial DNA, which is what was tested, there are only 16,569 base pairs but can be anywhere from a hundred copies to thousands of copies. That's why science tests mtDNA, because there so much more of it. Degraded DNA fragments in Nature mostly come from the mtDNA and it will show taxa.

 

But here's the thing about what was said in the article, it was stated that they found GENUS Pan troglodyte. And that what was tested was the mtDNA which WILL SHOW GENUS. So the article stated that genus Pan was found. That is not such a closely related species to Human that it could be confused. What won't show up is what species of the genus Pan was detected. So, it wouldn't show different PAN troglodytes, like whether or not it was Chimp, Bili Ape, or Bonobos. It will just show their genus Pan. And being a different genus than Homo, it will show up when metabarcoding mtDNA.

 

This is why I perked up when it was quoted that the samples detected the genus Pan troglodyte. If I hadn't studied this stuff I could  have easily missed the significance of what Dr. Mayor and Ms. Ramos were saying. And a year ago I would have. 

[norseman]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Yes, 3.2 billion base pairs, BUT that's in the NUCLEAR DNA which has only two copies in each cell. In mitochondrial DNA, which is what was tested, there are only 16,569 base pairs but can be anywhere from a hundred copies to thousands of copies. That's why science tests mtDNA, because there so much more of it. Degraded DNA fragments in Nature mostly come from the mtDNA and it will show taxa.

 

But here's the thing about what was said in the article, it was stated that they found GENUS Pan troglodyte. And that what was tested was the mtDNA which WILL SHOW GENUS. So the article stated that genus Pan was found. That is not such a closely related species to Human that it could be confused. What won't show up is what species of the genus Pan was detected. So, it wouldn't show different PAN troglodytes, like whether or not it was Chimp, Bili Ape, or Bonobos. It will just show their genus Pan. And being a different genus than Homo, it will show up when metabarcoding mtDNA.

 

This is why I perked up when it was quoted that the samples detected the genus Pan troglodyte. If I hadn't studied this stuff I could  have easily missed the significance of what Dr. Mayor and Ms. Ramos were saying. And a year ago I would have. 

But the genus Pan is closely related? 98.9% closely related. 
 

I suspect that if its between Humans and Chimps? Thats the two goal posts an unknown species is going to bounce off of.

Humans and Chimps.

 

The Genus Pan are knuckle walkers, have a divergent big toe, etc. So even if they are closer to Chimps? I dont think they deserve the same classification as the genus Pan.

[hiflier]

The point I've tried to make is that IF Sasquatch is in the primate line- which it must be- then it came from the same line as Chimps- just like Homo did. There is a 6-7 million year gap between us and Chimps which is plenty of time to have a Last Common Ancestor that developed an advanced primate body and that may have split into Sasquatches and Homo. Like you say, we have a LOT of the Chimp genome that we share, in fact, only 1.1% of us is NOT Pan! Therefore I can easily see Sasquatch as having MOSTLY Pan DNA and more of it than Homo. It's not a knuckle walker because a Last Common Ancestor would have plenty of time, at least 3 million years, to develop bipedalism before the Sasquatch/Homo split.

 

IF this creature is really out there then what other theory would fit the mold? This has to be the correct, logical, evolutionary route. And one simply doesn't get Pan DNA in the wilds of Eastern Kentucky of all places, even though there is a Chimpanzee rescue center in Nicholasville, KY which is much farther West near Lexington. Five years ago an Macaque monkey escaped in KY but was recaptured, besides, a Macaque is a monkey- which is not genus Pan troglodyte, not even close.

Edited March 11, 2021 by hiflier

[norseman]

6 minutes ago, hiflier said:

The point I've tried to make is that IF Sasquatch is in the primate line- which it must be- then it came from the same line as Chimps- just like Homo did. There is a 6-7 million year gap between us and Chimps which is plenty of time to have a Last Common Ancestor that developed an advanced primate body and that may have split into Sasquatches and Homo. Like you say, we have a LOT of the Chimp genome that we share, in fact, only 1.1% of us is NOT Pan! Therefore I can easily see Sasquatch as having MOSTLY Pan DNA and more of it than Homo. It's not a knuckle walker because a Last Common Ancestor would have plenty of time, at least 3 million years, to develop bipedalism before the Sasquatch/Homo split.

 

IF this creature is really out there then what other theory would fit the mold? This has to be the correct, logical, evolutionary route. And one simply doesn't get Pan DNA in the wilds of Eastern Kentucky of all places, even though there is a Chimpanzee rescue center in Nicholasville, KY which is much farther West near Lexington. Five years ago an Macaque monkey escaped in KY but was recaptured, besides, a Macaque is a monkey- which is not genus Pan troglodyte, not even close.

So are you suggesting bipedalism arose twice? I think it’s much more logical to assume that Sasquatch would branch away from our ancestors after the split from the genus Pan.

 

Its a little dishonest how we have assigned species to different genus. Notice that Lucy’s group although upright walkers are not included in the genus Homo. They have been deemed unfit to be of the genus Homo. But without Australopithecus? The genus Homo doesn’t get to exist. And from all evidence neither does bipedalism. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus

 

Sasquatch from all accounts is bipedal and lacks a divergent big toe. That’s OUR lineage! Or it’s a completely new branch that also evolved parallel to us. I find that unlikely. 
 

 

 

[norseman]

https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/walking-upright

[norseman]

 

[norseman]

 

[hiflier]

38 minutes ago, norseman said:

So are you suggesting bipedalism arose twice?

 

Not really. I was suggesting that bipedalism arose in the Last Common Ancestor and so Sasquatches and Humans both inherited it. But what you posted would suggest that bipedalism in Sasquatch and Homo may have arose separately. Certainly possible since, even though awkward, walking on two legs does occur in both Pan and Gorilla plus a few other primates like monkeys. Weaving Sasquatch into known or mainstream science has never been easy.

 

44 minutes ago, norseman said:

I think it’s much more logical to assume that Sasquatch would branch away from our ancestors after the split from the genus Pan

 

Yeah, me, too, which is what I've been proposing. Just when that happened is up for grabs, though I do think it was later rather than earlier once the split happened because of the many similar morphologies and characteristics between Homo and Bigfoot.