Sasquatch "Nest" Question

[hvhart]

Yes, all siblings,male and female inherit their mother's mtDNA, but only the sisters pass it on to the next generation.

[Bluegrassfoot]

I haven't commented on this site for a few years.  In fact, one of the last times I remember commenting was in another thread that concerned mitochondrial DNA.  Some of the "regulars" treated me like an idiot.  Frankly, it was because they had no knowledge of some of the foundations of cell biology.  I'm going to make a few points and they can either do their research or dismiss me as an idiot again.

 

First of all, you have to look at mitochondria as a primitive bacteria that was incorporated into what are now eukaryotic cells. We're talking about an event that occurred billions of years ago.   For those who are unfamiliar with this concept, it is called Endosymbiotic Theory. Why it's important to understand this concept is that one needs to view mitochondria as symbiotic "parasites" that multiply and pass on their genetics completely independently from our nuclear DNA.

Secondly, the mitochondria (and thus the mtDNA) of a mother are passed on to the subsequent generation within the cytoplasm of the mother's egg.  It is a continuous line of passage through the female.
 

Thirdly, the mtDNA is very stable.  While there is always a possible evolutionary upside for variation in nuclear DNA, there really isn't one for mitochondria.  They have a small genome, and most mutations probably won't work out.  In fact, most mutations will quickly result in an individual cell's death.

 

Based on the nature of mtDNA inheritance and mtDNA's tendency to maintain its integrity over time, I do find it possible that Bigfoot mtDNA  would be indicated as "human" when tested.  We frankly have no idea how closely we are related to Bigfoot.   And while I'm not going to go to any length to defend Melba Ketchum's studies, I will say that any Bigfoot breeding with a human female, even if it only happened one time,  thousands of years ago, would produce a mtDNA "human" result in a sample from a descendant today.

[Bluegrassfoot]

I need to apologize for coming off so snarky in my first paragraph.  I was just remembering the last time I brought forth the concept of an endosymbiotic origin for mitochondria and how it was received.

[hvhart]

Mitochondrial DNA does mutate.  There are thousands of different human haplogroups,  all descended from a single female, Mitochondrial Eve, over some 100,000 years or so (experts differ on this time span).  Some haplogroups have over 100 mutations from MtEve.   Some diseases have mitochondrial origins.

 

 

[Huntster]

39 minutes ago, hvhart said:

..........There are thousands of different human haplogroups,  all descended from a single female, Mitochondrial Eve, over some 100,000 years or so...........

 

Where did that female come from?

[hvhart]

10 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Where did that female come from?

Africa.

[Huntster]

A hybridization event?

[MIB]

No.   Just math.   mtDNA behaving as it does over time, this outcome was unavoidable, the only question was who got to be the mitochondrial Eve, not whether there would be one.   

[hvhart]

1 hour ago, hvhart said:

Mitochondrial DNA does mutate.  There are thousands of different human haplogroups,  all descended from a single female, Mitochondrial Eve, over some 100,000 years or so (experts differ on this time span).  Some haplogroups have over 100 mutations from MtEve.   Some diseases have mitochondrial origins.

 

 

See phylotree.org for the extent of human haplogroups.

[norseman]

On 4/7/2023 at 9:48 AM, Huntster said:

A hybridization event?

Im just a layman. But from what I’ve read? Sub Saharan Africans are 100 percent Homo Sapiens. Europeans and Asians have Neanderthal DNA, and some Asian groups also have Denisovans DNA.

 

I have some suspicions there isn’t 100 percent of anything. I think the Homo Genus has bred back into itself after separation so many times it’s quite the bushy tree. It helps when they can look at the genome of say a Neanderthal and then reexamine Homo Sapiens DNA and isolate what we share.

[xspider1]

On 4/4/2023 at 7:59 PM, hvhart said:

...

Comparisons of the Kentucky vs the Washington environment based only on rainfall neglect other important factors such as microbe species and populations, temperatures, and sample handling.  There is plenty of opportunity for degradation.

 

I am currently analyzing littoral eDNA sequences for signs of an unknown primate and have learned that sequencing errors can confuse the issue, as well as heteroplasmy, and the possibility of sperm mtDNA leaking (into the egg). The latter is fairly minute in humans but may not be so in Sasquatch.

...

 

 

Unfortunately, I am not currently analyzing any littoral eDNA. haha!    And yet, the comments above are fascinating, even though I don't understand almost any of it. 

To me, it seems like Bigfoot will never be recognized by mainstream science as a new species using DNA samples alone without significant and corroborating source material such as identifying skeletal parts, or a type specimen, is that correct?

In other words, collecting hair samples, scat and even bits of flesh and blood won't cut the mustard, right?

 

[norseman]

1 minute ago, xspider1 said:

 

Unfortunately, I am not currently analyzing any littoral eDNA. haha!    And yet, the comments above are fascinating, even though I don't understand almost any of it. 

To me, it seems like Bigfoot will never be recognized by mainstream science as a new species using DNA samples alone without significant and corroborating source material such as identifying skeletal parts, or a type specimen, is that correct?

In other words, collecting hair samples, scat and even bits of flesh and blood won't cut the mustard, right?

 

They need one male and one female to officially classify an extant species is my understanding. But I’m sure a solid DNA hit of a new novel primate would get the ball rolling….hopefully.🤞

[xspider1]

^ That explains my question exactly.  Assuming that Bigfoot are an un-categorized species of the very 'bushy' and mysterious great ape family tree and with the possibilities for hybridization, mutation, variation, contamination, speculation, misidentification and pontification, lol; is there even the possibility for DNA, without corroborating body parts, to ever get the ball rolling?  To me, at this point, that seems doubtful...   

[norseman]

1 minute ago, xspider1 said:

^ That explains my question exactly.  Assuming that Bigfoot are an un-categorized species of the very 'bushy' and mysterious great ape family tree and with the possibilities for hybridization, mutation, variation, contamination, speculation, misidentification and pontification, lol; is there even the possibility for DNA, without corroborating body parts, to ever get the ball rolling?  To me, at this point, that seems doubtful...   

 

I think it relies on who took the sample and the chain of custody, etc. But Body parts equals thousands of DNA samples and science loves testable and repeatable results. 
 

We are fighting a stigma. A stigma that extant great apes only live in the tropical regions of the old world. And that Clovis first humans arrived here only 12,000 years ago. I think there is evidence that not only did humans appear here much earlier but that something may have preceded us. We are finding completely new species in the genus Homo who supposedly went extinct rather recently. And more importantly in ASIA. It’s not a stretch to think that the land bridge was utilized more than once by numerous human species.

 

The Cerutti Mastadon find, the Chapala lake brow ridge, etc, all interesting evidence that may support this theory. Hopefully more will be found.

[Huntster]

On 4/3/2023 at 8:44 PM, hiflier said:

And from what I know and have studied that would be virtually impossible. One can tell a Neanderthal from a Modern Human with only 202 different base pairs out of 16,569. And a Sasquatch, should it exist, would be so far back in its primate evolution that genetically just the evolutionary mutation rate would show a major difference………

One word:

 

Zana.

 

Complete with not one, but two DNA tests and different opinions, one from a world renown geneticist.

 

And she fit the description of a sasquatch almost perfectly.