DNA 99% Human

[99 Pct Human]

I was Googling to find info about this documentary I saw on TV.  That search led me here.  Maybe it was "Monster Quest" but I don't remember.  It was a 2-hour documentary about an expedition to the Himalayas.  Along with DNA tests of tracks, they took samples of water from a pristine stream.  This was such a high elevation that it was unlikely there was any human evidence to found in the stream.  They announced the results of the stream water samples.  There was found DNA from local animals, but there was also DNA that was "99% human."  I've heard that humans and chimpanzees share 99% of DNA.  But at that elevation there could not be any chimps or great apes.  What could explain the 99% human DNA?  I don't remember what discussion there was at the end of the documentary.  Thanks.

Edited June 1, 2021 by 99 Pct Human

[gigantor]

@hiflier

 

[Wooly Booger]

I recall a similar episode of Monster Quest called Sasquatch Attacks. It was regarding an alleged Sasquatch that attacked a remote Ontario fishing cabin for several nights in a row. A DNA sample was collected and it came back as "not quite ape and not quite human." That was in fact the very documentary that got me interested in the Bigfoot phenomenon to begin with. That was back in the Summer of 2008. 

 

Regarding your question, Chimpanzee DNA is 99% the same as human DNA. There is no reason why a bipedal primate wouldn't have a similar DNA profile. In fact, Bigfoot DNA is possibly even closer to human than chimpanzee DNA. That seems to me the most likely explanation. 

[norseman]

It was Josh Gates.

 

He found a track and some DNA. But his geneticist was none other than Melba Ketchum....🙄 I like Josh though, cool guy.

 

 

[BFSighting]

25 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

I recall a similar episode of Monster Quest called Sasquatch Attacks. It was regarding an alleged Sasquatch that attacked a remote Ontario fishing cabin for several nights in a row. A DNA sample was collected and it came back as "not quite ape and not quite human." That was in fact the very documentary that got me interested in the Bigfoot phenomenon to begin with. That was back in the Summer of 2008. 

 

Regarding your question, Chimpanzee DNA is 99% the same as human DNA. There is no reason why a bipedal primate wouldn't have a similar DNA profile. In fact, Bigfoot DNA is possibly even closer to human than chimpanzee DNA. That seems to me the most likely explanation. 

Well said, Wooly Booger 🙌🏾

[Celtic Raider]

8 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

I recall a similar episode of Monster Quest called Sasquatch Attacks. It was regarding an alleged Sasquatch that attacked a remote Ontario fishing cabin for several nights in a row. A DNA sample was collected and it came back as "not quite ape and not quite human." That was in fact the very documentary that got me interested in the Bigfoot phenomenon to begin with. That was back in the Summer of 2008. 

 

Regarding your question, Chimpanzee DNA is 99% the same as human DNA. There is no reason why a bipedal primate wouldn't have a similar DNA profile. In fact, Bigfoot DNA is possibly even closer to human than chimpanzee DNA. That seems to me the most likely explanation. 

 

Is that the one where the team place a mat with upturned nails through it outside the cabin? Maybe the creature was throwing rocks or something too?

If that's the one, I've only seen that documentary once a long while ago, but I really enjoyed it. I think maybe Jeff Meldrum was at the cabin too?

[NorthWind]

Yes. It was Snelgrove Lake. And yes, Meldrum was there, too. 

 

 

[Wooly Booger]

3 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

Is that the one where the team place a mat with upturned nails through it outside the cabin? Maybe the creature was throwing rocks or something too?

If that's the one, I've only seen that documentary once a long while ago, but I really enjoyed it. I think maybe Jeff Meldrum was at the cabin too?

It was an excellent documentary. Monster Quest was always of good quality. Not sure why the History Channel ever stopped filming the series. 

 

What that film demonstrates is that there is more hard scientific evidence for the existence of Bigfoot than most people think. Before I watched that documentary I never gave the subject much thought. After watching it I became open minded and my personal research led me to believe that these creatures most likely exist. I'm sure many researchers have similar testimonies. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

14 hours ago, 99 Pct Human said:

I was Googling to find info about this documentary I saw on TV.  That search led me here.  Maybe it was "Monster Quest" but I don't remember.  It was a 2-hour documentary about an expedition to the Himalayas.  Along with DNA tests of tracks, they took samples of water from a pristine stream.  This was such a high elevation that it was unlikely there was any human evidence to found in the stream.  They announced the results of the stream water samples.  There was found DNA from local animals, but there was also DNA that was "99% human."  I've heard that humans and chimpanzees share 99% of DNA.  But at that elevation there could not be any chimps or great apes.  What could explain the 99% human DNA?  I don't remember what discussion there was at the end of the documentary.  Thanks.

Are you thinking about Lost Kingdom of the Yeti?  They took a water sample at the top of the mountain and found e-DNA of something that was 99% human.  

Did one the expedition members suffer altitude sickness in the documentary that you saw?

[WSA]

Many of us have said, and often, that the reason so much of suspected Sasquatch DNA reads "human" is not due to a sequencing error or contamination. Fact is, until you sequence the entire suspected DNA genome, you won't truly know if it is, or isn't. The differences may be infinitesimal, and nobody seems to want to spend the time and money to do the full matched comparison. Instead, we get the "human" or "contaminated" result. This is a classic case of blaming the data when the data doesn't support your pre-established conclusions.     

[norseman]

33 minutes ago, WSA said:

Many of us have said, and often, that the reason so much of suspected Sasquatch DNA reads "human" is not due to a sequencing error or contamination. Fact is, until you sequence the entire suspected DNA genome, you won't truly know if it is, or isn't. The differences may be infinitesimal, and nobody seems to want to spend the time and money to do the full matched comparison. Instead, we get the "human" or "contaminated" result. This is a classic case of blaming the data when the data doesn't support your pre-established conclusions.     

A Chimp is 98.9% the same as a Human. Or 1.1% different. So there is a lot going on in that 1%. Why can’t science seem to look at the DNA and say we have found an undiscovered species? Instead of saying 99% Human is beyond me....

 

Neanderthals and Humans share over 99.5% DNA. To put it into perspective.

[hiflier]

I think we can make an educated guess on what is between 98.9% and 99.5%. That leaves .6% of unknown territory which is quite a spread in evolutionary terms. Certainly would be an ambiguous enough bracket to confound an average lab technician or geneticist not looking for an unrecognized primate? But it also tells me that there is more than likely something in that .6% that is known by those tasked to look for.....that something I mean why wouldn't a qualified scientist take an interest in that half-percent window? I'll bet there are some that do indeed take an interest. After all, that half-percent represents over 30 million possible cross-over or unique base pair. Ya can't tell me no has studied that.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

I think we can make an educated guess on what is between 98.9% and 99.5%. That leaves .6% of unknown territory which is quite a spread in evolutionary terms. Certainly would be an ambiguous enough bracket to confound an average lab technician or geneticist not looking for an unrecognized primate? But it also tells me that there is more than likely something in that .6% that is known by those tasked to look for.....that something I mean why wouldn't a qualified scientist take an interest in that half-percent window? I'll bet there are some that do indeed take an interest. After all, that half-percent represents over 30 million possible cross-over or unique base pair. Ya can't tell me no has studied that.

Stigma or cover up.

 

Either way DNA has thus far revealed to us nothing in the way of moving the chains towards a new undiscovered primate. Not anywhere. So at least we know the stigma or cover up is a global phenomenon. Which isn’t good news.

 

 

[hiflier]

No, Norseman, that is not good news at all. Choices? Kill one, find a dead one or its skeleton, or get undeniable DNA results. IMHO those are the the only end runs around whatever/whoever is keeping the lid on the creature's existence. Any of those choices though sets up parameters that need to be adhered to if one is to succeed in their quest. Much has been discussed on the respective protocols one must follow in order to safely get a specimen/sample to the people/facility that can be trusted to be HONEST with what they come up with. But that takes some serious discretion on our part in order to protect reputations and careers.

 

Picking apart how things could go wrong could be a good way to iron out how to make things go right? The aftermath and fallout after verification of the species probably won't be pretty either, OR free from repercussions. But then, I think we all kind of expect that as a serious possibility.

[Wooly Booger]

That DNA evidence has proven the existence of an unknown species of primate in North America is undeniable to all who examine the evidence, unless they are willfully blind. 

 

The fact that the DNA results consistently return as being 99% human should be of no surprise either since higher primate DNA is very close to human, 99% in the case of chimpanzees. I concur that either those involved in the DNA analysis don't know anything about primate DNA or they are being intentionally dishonest and misleading about their findings. Either way, scientists who are unbiased and not beholden to the so-called "powers that be" are needed to perform this analysis if factual results are to be attained.