Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Bigfoot is a Neanderthal, or the results of human/ Neanderthal mating. omg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 With the dogs here is a paper Thanks. No bipedal foxes there . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 There is a very famous dog that walk on 2 legs (it did not have it two front feet) it can be found on youtube (I do not know how to up load the video or I would of). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Who said the results were definetly human DNA that actually had access to one of the completed DNA reports from a sample that was submitted? Stubstad doesn't count since all he saw was mtDNA, and I'm not convinced that he understood what he was looking at when he saw the three samples he talked about. They didn't happen to be submitted for further sequencing based on what he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Bigfoot is a Neanderthal, or the results of human/ Neanderthal mating. omg. I don't know how these 2 subspecies with an average height under six feet would produce such massive creatures. I'm gonna say they are the product of Giganto/Human interbreeding. Mainly because I want to say that. I have as much proof as anyone wanting to classify a Sasquatch as Homo Sapiens. We should be able to catch em, shave em, and send them to reeducation camps. It's inhumane to have their children running around out in the cold. Plus, they aren't paying taxes. Not fair. Obviously I am kidding, but what I am saying is that for the researchers to unveil this as their findings, they better absolutely be right about it. It's an enormous claim. If other researchers come in and blow this out of the water (probably laughing the whole time), it's going to be an indefensible disaster. Good luck with it. If they blow this, the only person that is going to be allowed anywhere near Sasquatch is "The General". He is going to be turned loose to do his job, then hand over his findings to the pros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Arizona, it's not unheard of for hybrids to be a big bigger than either of the "parent" species. Look at Tigons and Ligers. Arizona, it's not unheard of for hybrids to be a big bigger than either of the "parent" species. Look at Tigons and Ligers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Caution - this is from Wikipedia: "An estimated 1 to 4 percent of the DNA in Europeans and Asians (i.e. French, Chinese and Papua probands) is non-modern, and shared with ancient Neanderthal DNA rather than with Sub-Saharan Africans (i.e. Yoruba and San probands). Though less parsimonious than gene flow, ancient sub-structure in Africa, could account for the higher levels of Neanderthal lineages detected in Eurasians. [5] No evidence supporting this has been found in mitochondrial DNA analyses of modern Europeans, suggesting at least that no direct maternal line originating with Neanderthals has survived into modern times." The evidence suggests that interbreeding between Neanderthals and "modern" humans did take place, but it did not result in a race of hairy giants. It gave us Europeans and Asians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Arizona, it's not unheard of for hybrids to be a big bigger than either of the "parent" species. Look at Tigons and Ligers. Arizona, it's not unheard of for hybrids to be a big bigger than either of the "parent" species. Look at Tigons and Ligers. It is called Hybrid vigor also know as heterosis. Heterosis is often associated with faster larger growth. ( I can give a sample if needed I have to look up what two crocodylidae that crocodile farms in ASIA used to get larger Crodiles for skin and meat if some one wants a reference.) Who said the results were definetly human DNA that actually had access to one of the completed DNA reports from a sample that was submitted? We do not know for sure what the results are until they are published in a journal or the results are ofesaly relized. One of the skeptical sides of the argument for the topic of skeptics answer if the result was from the DNA is from the genus Homo that is where I do see a promblem with it with out a typespeciem to prove it Genus. I am saying is that for the researchers to unveil this as their findings, they better absolutely be right about it. It's an enormous claim. If other researchers come in and blow this out of the water (probably laughing the whole time), it's going to be an indefensible disaster. Good luck with it. If they blow this, the only person that is going to be allowed anywhere near Sasquatch is "The General". He is going to be turned loose to do his job, then hand over his findings to the pros. I personal agree well put. When the results are relized I want to read (starting by brushing up on my gentic) them and really think about what as been published before I would personally be joining around to any of my skeptical freinds with proof of the existence of Bigfoot. With a hybrid prehaps a Meganthropus robustus X Homo erectus prehaps? (I do not know to much about antrpology to now if that is a good example or give a better example.) Edited November 14, 2011 by Jeff Albertson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Caution - this is from Wikipedia: "An estimated 1 to 4 percent of the DNA in Europeans and Asians (i.e. French, Chinese and Papua probands) is non-modern, and shared with ancient Neanderthal DNA rather than with Sub-Saharan Africans (i.e. Yoruba and San probands). Though less parsimonious than gene flow, ancient sub-structure in Africa, could account for the higher levels of Neanderthal lineages detected in Eurasians. [5] No evidence supporting this has been found in mitochondrial DNA analyses of modern Europeans, suggesting at least that no direct maternal line originating with Neanderthals has survived into modern times." The evidence suggests that interbreeding between Neanderthals and "modern" humans did take place, but it did not result in a race of hairy giants. It gave us Europeans and Asians. Interesting, what do you think happened to the Neanderthal maternal lineage in modern europeans. Would the female offspring have been rejected by the male modern humans? Where did they go? Could they have gone back to live with the neanderthals and passed on the modern human maternal lineage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 After 30,000 years you would think nothing would be left. I'm surprised they found the 1-4% considering all of the dilutions over that many generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Right but I would think the maternal line would be far less subject to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Caution - this is from Wikipedia: "An estimated 1 to 4 percent of the DNA in Europeans and Asians (i.e. French, Chinese and Papua probands) is non-modern, and shared with ancient Neanderthal DNA rather than with Sub-Saharan Africans (i.e. Yoruba and San probands). Though less parsimonious than gene flow, ancient sub-structure in Africa, could account for the higher levels of Neanderthal lineages detected in Eurasians. [5] No evidence supporting this has been found in mitochondrial DNA analyses of modern Europeans, suggesting at least that no direct maternal line originating with Neanderthals has survived into modern times." The evidence suggests that interbreeding between Neanderthals and "modern" humans did take place, but it did not result in a race of hairy giants. It gave us Europeans and Asians. Do you think this will be the DNA basis the report will use to assume a population of "primal people" in our hinterlands? Here is a request from Stubstad inquiring about the Neanderthal genome project. I couldn't find any information on the "primer set" Stubstad was looking for:http: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2006/05/16/the-neanderthal-genome-project-begins/ I'm also still open to the idea that BF is a Giganto descendent. Gigantopithecus is considered an ancient ape, closer to orang than gorilla. It appears that Ketchum will support a "primal people", homo sapiens identity for sasquatch. Here is an interesting counter argument to Giganto as Bigfoot. http://authorandrewkincaid.com/2011/10/14/bigfoot-part-2-the-science/ Edited November 15, 2011 by jerrywayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Do you think this will be the DNA basis the report will use to assume a population of "primal people" in our hinterlands? I have no information on Ketchum's DNA analysis other than what I've read here. What I've read seems to indicate that she's found human DNA. How human DNA = physical bigfoot is beyond me. I'd be gobsmacked if any reputable journal publishes a paper claiming "bigfoot" is real and it's a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Sadly, I think the Ketchum fever will eventually subside like every great hope of bigfootery and this will be one more thing that got people excited for a while but fizzled in the final analysis. It's sad, because I know a lot of good people really pin their hopes for bigfoot on things like this, but we've been down this road before. I'll keep an open mind for what now, May? I ain't holding my breath though. Get a body and we're in business. Ketchup on a plate? Not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Right but I would think the maternal line would be far less subject to that. I think you would have to assume that something affected the fertility of a female Neanderthal and a male Homo Sapien combination. I'm thinking the male's sperm could not penetrate the Neanderthal egg, if they managed to conceive then the offspring possibly weren't viable or were sterile themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I'd be gobsmacked if any reputable journal publishes a paper claiming "bigfoot" is real and it's a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Suppose there is no mention of bigfoot, but the results does support another species of the genus Homo, yet with samples provided by bigfoot hunters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts