DNA 99% Human

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Wooly Booger said:

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.

 

Yes Sir, and finding those kinds of scientists has been my goal and focus for a pretty long time now as you and others well know. And it ain't easy. They don't exactly hang out their neon signs for all to see. But I know they are out there.

Edited June 2, 2021 by hiflier

[NorthWind]

Are there studies on the parts that are NOT human? How do they align with other samples' 1%?

[spacemonkeymafia]

For the Monsterquest fans out there. Doug Hyjeck was interviewed by Pat Turner's YouTube channel Squatchtalk. Buckle up. It's 4 hours long.

[hiflier]

On 6/2/2021 at 9:30 AM, NorthWind said:

Are there studies on the parts that are NOT human? How do they align with other samples' 1%?

 

Can't answer your question, NorthWind. But if you would like an opinion that may help put things in perspective? Then I'm game I saw some mention that there are no Chimps at that elevation in the region.  So:

 

1) It wouldn't be Chimps. Even if chimps WERE in the region, it still wouldn't be Chimps. Because if it were Chimps, the best anyone could hope for would be 98.9% Human. 99% Human would be an impossibility.

 

2) Dr. Todd Disotell claimed that the soil samples from under the initial WA State nest discovery showed Human DNA. Degraded Human DNA. In other words, not good enough to show novel primate, but certainly good enough to show Human. Since Humans are in the region in question on this thread, the samples, again, would show 100% Human, even if they, too, were degraded.

 

It means the 99% Human DNA result needs to be seen in its proper genetic perspective. That is to say, neither Chimp NOR Human. Of course, any other conclusion would be an assumption- although it wouldn't necessarily be an assumption in MY book Hope this helps.

[hiflier]

I just shot off an email to a scientist I've occasionally been in correspondence with to see if there might be some clarification on this issue.

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

........It wouldn't be Chimps. Even if chimps WERE in the region, it still wouldn't be Chimps. Because if it were Chimps, the best anyone could hope for would be 98.9% Human. 99% Human would be an impossibility.......

 

0.1% seems pretty specific for such a determination of certainty. That 0.1% should be identifiable.

 

Quote

........It means the 99% Human DNA result needs to be seen in its proper genetic perspective. That is to say, neither Chimp NOR Human.......

 

How close is Neanderthal to sapiens? We interbred, yet we are different, no? 99.9% the same? 99.999%?

 

If sasquatches aren't of the genus Homo, their dna should be readily identifiable as a new species, no? Different enough from human to stand out.

[hiflier]

One more comment and I'll let this go for now. For quite a while I've held the hypothesis that after the Chimpanzee split from the primate line leading to proto-Humans that I strongly think there was one more Last Common Ancestor left when that split happened. And it was that Last Common Ancestor that gave rise to Sasquatches and Humans. So I can look at it this way: Chimps 98.9%, Sasquatches around 99% to 99.2%, Denisovan 99.4% to 99.5% (especially in Asians), Neanderthal 99.6% to 99.7%, and Humans 100%.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by hiflier

[hiflier]

14 minutes ago, Huntster said:

If sasquatches aren't of the genus Homo, their dna should be readily identifiable as a new species, no? Different enough from human to stand out.

 

Correct, and that's what I think we're seeing. But like Norseman says, no credible geneticist will actually come out and claim that. Maybe one or two might, but generally in science there is no official statement being made, even though the test results are glaring. Personally I don't see how the status quo can continue much longer. The pressure for the truth is beginning.

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by hiflier

[hiflier]

One thing to understand about this: I truly doubt that there were whole cells obtained from the pond water samples. So more than likely, without whole cells there will be no nuclear DNA to be had. Nuclear DNA has about 3 billion base pairs that have only one copy of each base pair or gene. What was collected was more than likely mitochondrial DNA which is pretty resilient stuff that has many copies (hundreds to thousands) of each base pair or gene.

 

What's good is that instead of nuDNA's 3 billion base pairs, mtDNA has only 16,569. And instead of 25,000-35,000 genes in nuDNA, mtDNA has only 37! And if samples are good and plentiful, it's enough to delineate species. If not, then there's a good chance for at least genus. Humans are genus Homo sapiens. Chimps are genus Pan troglodyte. And those 37 mtDNA genes, or even only base pair fragments, are enough to get results. It's information like this that makes my flags go up when I read 99% Human. Because other than saying that, there are no other details forthcoming that explain what they got that made them say 99% and not, say 98.7%, or 99.4%. Because in genetic terms those represent huge differences.

[NorthWind]

Humans are different from one another. Male, female, curly hair, straight hair, blue eyes, brown eyes, etc. So how far off is one human person's DNA from another very different looking person's? Or does that even factor into the mix?

[hiflier]

41 minutes ago, NorthWind said:

Humans are different from one another. Male, female, curly hair, straight hair, blue eyes, brown eyes, etc. So how far off is one human person's DNA from another very different looking person's? Or does that even factor into the mix?

 

Overall, Humans are 99.9% the same.

[99 Pct Human]

On 6/1/2021 at 9:04 AM, BlackRockBigfoot said:

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?

Yes that is the one.  They needed a chopper to take away the guy with altitude sickness.  Do you remember any discussion at the end of the episode about the finding of 99% human DNA?

[norseman]

3 hours ago, 99 Pct Human said:

Yes that is the one.  They needed a chopper to take away the guy with altitude sickness.  Do you remember any discussion at the end of the episode about the finding of 99% human DNA?

I apologize. I thought it was Josh Gates with the foot cast and DNA to Ketchum. I remember the show your talking about now.

[Huntster]

23 hours ago, hiflier said:

...........Chimps 98.9%, Sasquatches around 99% to 99.2%, Denisovan 99.4% to 99.5% (especially in Asians), Neanderthal 99.6% to 99.7%, and Humans 100%.

 

So 99% is the magic number where interbreeding begins?

[hiflier]

I'd put it higher than that for successful offspring. My "estimated" bracket for Sasquatches is probably too high. Dropping the upper range down to 99.1% might be better.