Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[Drewbot]

No, I most certainly am not. I would suggest you may be in error due to skimming other non related articles thereby adding to or attempting to add to the confusion for whatever purpose.

I believe the presence of multiple species in the same layer from the Denisova dig is the gist of of your presentation. That is an incredible thing in itself, but has nothing to do with the genome findings I have referred to. Chris B.

No. You are referring to the 1% of unknown ancient human DNA that makes up a part of the Denisovan DNA which was taken from the Finger bone of a little Denisovan girl.


It is DNA indicating a past where this lineage was breeding with another Human lineage that may have split from another Homo such as hiedelbergensis , and that known European Neandertal lineages didn't breed with.

It came from the Finger, not from the toe. This is why people were confused at your claims.

John Hawks just talked about this today in fact.

https://twitter.com/johnhawks/status/570622130007777280

In any event, it has no bearing on Bigfoot's existence.

 

[Cervelo]

Thanks, that's actually a good article and theory. I particularly liked this part:

"Primates are often intelligent, but that doesn't translate into adaptability. Think of the mountain gorilla, restricted to a few populations in forested central Africa, unable to live anywhere else. Adaptability is often a sign of intelligence, but intelligence in a species is no guarantee of adaptability."

Higher reasoning is one of the factors that likely can be attributed to any primate currently residing in North America. Without it, we certainly could have never adapted to the climate. Chris B.

Ahhhh and how does this bit of pontification have anything to do with there being zero evidence that bigfoot ever existed on the face of the earth.... Much less roaming around Kentucky?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The only thing I can see relevant about the Denisovan DNA divergence is that a DNA sample from a Bigfoot would indeed highlight a "missing" primate, and any argument not to get a possible DNA sample tested has to be viewed with suspicion.

I don't know that sample to be valid, only it has the possibility as I have said. My sample may turn out to be valid or not to be determined by further testing. So, why in the World would I send it out to an anonymous forum member on the internet again? No thanks. I'll wait for a proper submission of something I know to be valid first and I can safely guarantee it won't be mailed to an anonymous source.
Chris B.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So, why in the World would I send it out to an anonymous forum member on the internet again? No thanks. I'll wait for a proper submission of something I know to be valid first and I can safely guarantee it won't be mailed to an anonymous source.
Chris B.

Then why did you even bring the sample up then? What's the point? Do you roll for "Claim to have Figboot DNA" your turn but didn't roll the critical hit to actually have it?

If you're not gonna do anything else with it why not just mail to someone?

 

[carlitos]

I don't know that sample to be valid, only it has the possibility as I have said. My sample may turn out to be valid or not to be determined by further testing. So, why in the World would I send it out to an anonymous forum member on the internet again? No thanks. I'll wait for a proper submission of something I know to be valid first and I can safely guarantee it won't be mailed to an anonymous source.
Chris B.

Send half of the "sample" to a forum member and keep half for yourself. The university that does the testing will be easy to verify by all posters here, including yourself. We'll have them post the results at a legitimate ".edu" address and maybe even commented on by a professor on his or her verifiable web page. What's the problem?

 

[Giordano]

I understand now where guys you are coming from. There seems to be some confusion of which "mystery" is being discussed between us. There were "2" mysteries at the Denisovan dig. You're focused on Denisovan DNA and I'm focused on the other "mystery" partial DNA sequence collected from the Denisova find genome you're referring to. Denisovans have to their credit a finger bone and a few teeth from that dig. (maybe some new stuff will be upcoming from Spain)The mystery DNA I'm referring to came from a female Neanderthal toe bone. This little lady was inbred. She had Neanderthal DNA, Denisovan DNA and some partial mystery DNA to her credit.

Neanderthals and Denisovans were different although very closely related. As with modern humans the Denisovans were close enough to allow cross breeding with Neanderthals.

Now here's the important part as it relates to where I'm coming from. In the Denisova find we have:
1.Neaderthals
2.Modern Man
3.Denisovans
4.Mystery DNA sequence

The mystery DNA suggests that the Denisovans interbred with a mysterious fourth group of early humans that were living in Eurasia at the time. Between 2.7% and 5.8% of the Denisovan genome comes from this mystery species.

So at the find we have:
1.Neanderthal DNA collected (no big deal)
2.Modern Man DNA collected (no big deal)
3.Denisovan DNA collected from a finger and some teeth (new addition to the tree, pretty exciting deal)
4.Mystery DNA partial sequence found mixed in with the find of an inbred female Neanderthal/Denisovan toe bone (very big deal)

There is speculation that this partial sequence may have come from Homo Heidelbergensis but the fact is it's still a mystery and we have nothing but speculation so far. As the science of DNA continues to progress, we may have an identity at some point for #4, but not yet.

It's exciting to think about what findings will be made of the jaw bone from Taiwan. It looks to contain teeth as well. If DNA can be recovered, will it be related to the Denisovans or mystery DNA #4? or yet another? At the least I'm expecting to see a skull model based on this jawbone to be completed in the near future. (somebody pinch me)

But what of the Denisovans or the mystery DNA #4 finding? We know both existed. We have the DNA to prove it. But since we are unable to determine any morphological features from DNA we're kinda stuck in both cases. In the case of the Denisovans we lack a skull or other bone that would help us determine morphological features. We can't do that with a finger bone or teeth. And with mystery sequence #4 , we lack a type specimen altogether since the little Neanderthal lady was inbred and only revealed a partial DNA sequence for #4. In short, we don't know what either looked like. As there is nothing else to go on yet. Hurry up and wait all over again.
Chris B.

It's good that you had the time to read up more on some of this stuff!

1. Yes, there appears to be some DNA in the Spain and Denisovan finds that is neither Neanderthal or Denisovan. If this is the "mystery" you intended to refer to, then in terms of this thread, it only further proves that DNA alone can confirm the presence of a yet-unknown, non-sapiens, non-Neanderthal, non-Denisovan primate. How exciting to find this or any type of novel primate DNA in North America! As you yourself have stated, it proves the existence of an as-yet unknown hominid! Perhaps your Bigfoot DNA can provide a link to this previously unknown primate and help fill-in the tree of human evolution- you really should have it analyzed.

2. By the way- it is only an unknown primate involved in this part of human evolution, not really a "mystery." We know the exact DNA sequence.

2. The Denisovan DNA from the fingertip in Siberia also showed sequences from unknown primate, not just the DNA from the bones in Spain: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12886.html

3. Why do you insist on calling the bones in Spain "Neanderthal?" They clearly have sequences from Neanderthal and from Denisovans. In fact, it is the latter that makes them particularly interesting. It would be much more helpful to refer to them as they really are, hybrids.

4. You might be surprised how much aspects of appearance can be predicted from DNA, at least in the near future:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/science/dna-generated-faces.html?_r=0

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No. You are referring to the 1% of unknown ancient human DNA that makes up a part of the Denisovan DNA which was taken from the Finger bone of a little Denisovan girl.


It is DNA indicating a past where this lineage was breeding with another Human lineage that may have split from another Homo such as hiedelbergensis , and that known European Neandertal lineages didn't breed with.

It came from the Finger, not from the toe. This is why people were confused at your claims.

John Hawks just talked about this today in fact.

https://twitter.com/johnhawks/status/570622130007777280

In any event, it has no bearing on Bigfoot's existence.

Please just give it up. I'm starting to feel bad for you at this point.

Ahhhh and how does this bit of pontification have anything to do with there being zero evidence that bigfoot ever existed on the face of the earth.... Much less roaming around Kentucky?

It relates how organisms adapt to their environment. The suggestion that intelligence and adaptability go hand in hand with an animal's ability to reside in different places in the World. Any such organism would need both abilities to live in the harsher climates. Since we are perfectly able to adapt to our climate due to these abilities, it's reasonable that any other primate would have to possess similar abilities also. Chris B.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It relates how organisms adapt to their environment.

What does that have to do with Bigfoot?

The suggestion that intelligence and adaptability go hand in hand with an animal's ability to reside in different places in the World.

Which has what do with Bigfoot?

Any such organism would need both abilities to live in the harsher climates. Since we are perfectly able to adapt to our climate due to these abilities, it's reasonable that any other primate would have to possess similar abilities also. Chris B.

And that relates to Bigfoot how?

 

[carlitos]

Please just give it up. I'm starting to feel bad for you at this point.

I guess that, if you can't tell a tree stump from a 9-foot-tall primate, fingers and toes could get you crossed up once in a while.

Wait - "perfectly able to adapt to our climate?" We can't walk outside when it's 20 below without a hat or we will die. Is hat invention a human "adaption?" This is novel to me.

 

[Giordano]

No, I most certainly am not. I would suggest you may be in error due to skimming other non related articles thereby adding to or attempting to add to the confusion for whatever purpose.

I believe the presence of multiple species in the same layer from the Denisova dig is the gist of of your presentation. That is an incredible thing in itself, but has nothing to do with the genome findings I have referred to. Chris B.

I am uncertain what you mean by "No, I most certainly am not." If you re-read the citation, and related references, I believe that you will find that Drewbot was correct: as I posted above, the Denisovan DNA from Siberia was from a finger bone, and showed unknown as well as known primate sequences. Teeth were also found at the Siberian site that yields DNA that sequenced as Denisovan, although coming from different individuals than the fingertip it showed some sequence divergence from the finger bone (if we sequenced your DNA and my DNA, it would also show some divergence, even though we are both H. sapiens).

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Then why did you even bring the sample up then? What's the point? Do you roll for "Claim to have Figboot DNA" your turn but didn't roll the critical hit to actually have it?

If you're not gonna do anything else with it why not just mail to someone?

You'll need to review the thread. I was responding to Shrike's post about DNA findings. Particularly in that response I commented that Sykes had not been given any valid DNA samples for testing. This had to be a collection error as in the person(s) that submitted the sample(s) did not verify their sample was taken from a Bigfoot. I have such a sample. An invalid sample is useless and proves nothing. My sample, valid or not is not on the table. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

It relates how organisms adapt to their environment. The suggestion that intelligence and adaptability go hand in hand with an animal's ability to reside in different places in the World. Any such organism would need both abilities to live in the harsher climates. Since we are perfectly able to adapt to our climate due to these abilities, it's reasonable that any other primate would have to possess similar abilities also. Chris B.

Yes, and that primate (as hypothesized by proponents) would leave abundant evidence of its presence. Just as all large North American fauna do.

Just as human beings do, even when they try to not.

 

[dmaker]

Yeah, we survive in this climate by developing things like fire, shelter, tools, clothing....

Bigfoot? Not so much

 

[Giordano]

I don't know that sample to be valid, only it has the possibility as I have said. My sample may turn out to be valid or not to be determined by further testing. So, why in the World would I send it out to an anonymous forum member on the internet again? No thanks. I'll wait for a proper submission of something I know to be valid first and I can safely guarantee it won't be mailed to an anonymous source.
Chris B.

Okay, send it to a lab you know and trust. But realize that without DNA sequencing, you might as well throw it out. You can have no idea that it is from Bigfoot without the DNA sequencing, so without sequencing, it is and will remain forever unknown spit. The more you wait the harder it will be to sequence it accurately. There is no reason to wait. Have it sequenced, throw it out, or perhaps try to sell it on eBay.

 

[Giordano]

Send half of the "sample" to a forum member and keep half for yourself. The university that does the testing will be easy to verify by all posters here, including yourself. We'll have them post the results at a legitimate ".edu" address and maybe even commented on by a professor on his or her verifiable web page. What's the problem?

I assure you that I or carlitos will publicize it broadly if it really is Bigfoot DNA.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You'll need to review the thread.

I have. It's thread where you have completely failed to provide any evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

I was responding to Shrike's post about DNA findings. Particularly in that response I commented that Sykes had not been given any valid DNA samples for testing.

Well because there is no valid figboot DNA. Because figboots don't exist. And you know this.

This had to be a collection error as in the person(s) that submitted the sample(s) did not verify their sample was taken from a Bigfoot.

Well yeah because Bigfoot doesn't exist.

I have such a sample.

No you don't.

An invalid sample is useless and proves nothing.

Nothing you've said or done has proven anything. Why back off from this one?

My sample, valid or not is not on the table. Chris B.

"Not on the table?"

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO PUT ON THE TABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Stop bringing things up and then refusing to discuss them!

 

[dmaker]

You'll need to review the thread. I was responding to Shrike's post about DNA findings. Particularly in that response I commented that Sykes had not been given any valid DNA samples for testing. This had to be a collection error as in the person(s) that submitted the sample(s) did not verify their sample was taken from a Bigfoot. I have such a sample. An invalid sample is useless and proves nothing. My sample, valid or not is not on the table. Chris B.

Then why did you feel the need to mention it here and proclaim that you may, indeed, have bigfoot DNA?

And, more importantly, if you are so convinced that the sample is invalid, why on earth did you pick it up and take it home?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/polar-bear-dna-extracted-footprints-snow

We have plenty of claimed bigfoot tracks.

It seems like all you need to do is sample the track, in snow or dirt, and you can get bigfoot DNA from it.

Bigfoot doesn't wear shoes, so he leaves loads of skin cells in his tracks.

In fact, casting the track has probably preserved loads of bigfoot cells in the plaster.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I am uncertain what you mean by "No, I most certainly am not." If you re-read the citation, and related references, I believe that you will find that Drewbot was correct: as I posted above, the Denisovan DNA from Siberia was from a finger bone, and showed unknown as well as known primate sequences. Teeth were also found at the Siberian site that yields DNA that sequenced as Denisovan, although coming from different individuals than the fingertip it showed some sequence divergence from the finger bone (if we sequenced your DNA and my DNA, it would also show some divergence, even though we are both H. sapiens).

You just can't see past #3. I'm sorry but clouding the issue of mystery DNA partial discovery of #4 with discussion of #3 Denisovan DNA type specimens is not gonna get you to where I am now. Chris B.

 

[carlitos]

You'll need to review the thread. I was responding to Shrike's post about DNA findings. Particularly in that response I commented that Sykes had not been given any valid DNA samples for testing. This had to be a collection error as in the person(s) that submitted the sample(s) did not verify their sample was taken from a Bigfoot. I have such a sample. An invalid sample is useless and proves nothing. My sample, valid or not is not on the table. Chris B.

At the risk of (again) channeling ISF member AlaskaBushPilot, your manipulative schtick isn't working on me. That's why you're pretending to ignore my posts. You have a Bigfoot DNA sample like I have a Rolls Royce Silver Spur. Put up or shut up.