Thursday, January 21, 2016
Why Bigfoot IS a Hybrid
This is good discussion of the pure fertility of hybridization in producing real variation within closely related species and the necessary natural support to allow a successful variation to be ultimately stabilized.
A wild primate taking a human female as a mate is posited and highly plausible and conforms to known reports for the Bigfoot in particular. This is no longer really happening because survivability is today poor as compared to subsistence groups.
What this suggests though is that the hybridization protocol is way more important than naturally assumed. .
Why Bigfoot IS a Hybrid
There are some repeated qualities described in Bigfoot that have led me come to the conclusion they are hybrids. There are interesting variations in descriptions of them, enough to make me wonder about what happens when two divergent beings within a species mate and what the results can be in the form of "defects," "exaggerated features," to "unusual size." It would appear that hybridization is a logical conclusion when you consider the following -
In the case of two archaics mating, perhaps Neanderthal and Denisovans, this could bring to play the red hair and the muscular build, proportions of a long body versus shorter legs of Neanderthal with (given the size of Denisovan teeth), the height of the Denisovans and perhaps a hairy gene as Denisovans were shown to have a high altitude tolerating gene which might include adaptation of body hair for protection in such climates.
A hybrid that maintained the archaic head shape of its archaic parents makes sense when compared to the head shapes described of the Bigfoot (as being archaic).
As our races can look vastly different depending on regional isolation and breeding in small communities, carrying traits strongly, so can Bigfoot in their isolated breeding pool.
But what happens when you breed two fairly divergent types within a species?
I will explain some clues to hybridization by referencing a post I did on Dogman. If you scroll through the post (link below) you will find "hybrids" section where this (italicized and chart) paragraph came from -
Did you know that in the primate world, if you hybridize two baboons that are in different "types," you can get some interesting features? Their snouts get boxier, they get extra teeth, and bigger faces. It wouldn't take much to imagine a Sasquatch and another Sasquatch of separate "types." Reportedly within the Sasquatch family, there are ones with jutting lower half of the face, some that look quite human, some that look like apes, and many variations. When you hybridize, some features are more pronounced.
Here is the chart about two kinds of fairly divergent baboons breeding and the results -
Witness reports often times speak of Bigfoot seeming to have a cleft palate, protruding mouth area like a gorilla or "snout" as some describe it.
Overcrowding - looks like double rows of teeth
MK Davis found such an interesting phenomena with Patty from the Patterson Film.
If you add wisdom teeth atop of that crowding - looks like double rows of teeth or jutting lips from turned front teeth. In the case of findings from Denisovans, the experts agree that the molars were exceptionally large. Now, imagine putting those into a Neanderthal's jaw? As was shown in the chart above about the baboons, extra teeth in the molar area are possible. Aren't there reports of ancient giants being dug up around the world showing double rows of teeth?
MK's find jives with conflicting reports of Bigfoot having a "snout" or Baboon-like lower face. It might also explain the large space between nose and mouth - due to jutting teeth.
Matilda - Matilda was the infamous supposed Bigfoot filmed by Erickson Project in Kentucky. Many described her as looking angry or snarling (something many report about Bigfoot) and having this odd space below the nose.
In the Pennsylvania White Bigfoot film, there is that odd space between nose and mouth also -
Matilda from Erickson Project was thought to have cleft palate, but it could be much like the situation that Julia Pastrano had (below).
This woman from Mexico was born with hypertrichosis and dental hyperplasia that caused her teeth to seem as if they were double rows, causing her mouth area to jut out and cause a space between the nose and lips, thinning the lips as well.
Julia Pastrano had the archaic head shape (sloping forehead, pronounced brow ridge), hairy body all over, and crowded teeth. These are possibly genes from breeding with the archaic hybrids who remained in isolation to continue to carry on both Homo sapiens genes and the archaic in a much higher percentage than we now carry today in our genes.
Here's how -
The Spanish in 1400s came to Canary Islands and mated with Gaunches women who were tall, red and blond haired, and that hypertrichosis gene suddenly cropped up in the population of Homo sapiens first time in Canary Islands in 1500s in a Spanish family.
What if the genes for archaics' dental hyperplasia or hairy body were introduced into Homo sapiens? It may be a rather random-appearing gene, but could have some very odd effects.
In the right combination, the traits of one parent in a hybrid offspring could become accentuated, such as it is in the liger that is so much larger than the parents. But in reverse order, male tiger and female lion - you get a tigon which is smaller than even the father tiger.
Interestingly, the large offspring of a male lion in a female tiger's womb can often be stillborn. But you reverse that order and have a female lion with a male tiger, there is no problem accommodating the size of the offspring in birthing.
Let's look at this incident in the past when Neanderthal and Homo sapiens mated. A female Neanderthal with a male Homo sapiens could easily survive an offspring birth process (as she was built to accommodate birthing her own kind's large skull and Homo sapiens skull was considerably easier in size). Thus, we find Neanderthal DNA in Asian and European populations.
That Neanderthal mate would produce a hybrid Homo sapiens/Neanderthal child. And, if that child were a female, she would reproduce with yet another Homo sapiens, producing a more hybridized Neanderthal girl who could continue the reproductive lineage with Homo sapiens to the point that there is perhaps 2% left today of that original Neanderthal woman.
In the case of our Bigfoot relatives, it would seem that they have not bred out their characteristics for a "modern" look, but continue to breed the archaic traits strongly.
SOURCE: Reich found that hardly any Neanderthal genes were expressed in modern men's testes, and that the X chromosome was almost completely devoid of Neanderthal DNA. That would happen if males with Neanderthal and modern human parents were infertile, because the males would never get to pass on their single Neanderthal X chromosome.
"When Neanderthals and modern humans interbred they were actually at the edge of biological compatibility. They did interbreed, and Neanderthals left an important biological trace in modern humans, but nevertheless, the population had to sort out some problems afterwards, because certain Neanderthal variants led to reduced male fertility," said Reich. The finding suggests that most Neanderthal DNA found in humans today was passed down from females.
"Anything related to maleness in the Neanderthal has been purged from our genomes," said Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London. "Neanderthal DNA has come down to us today, but that transmission was mainly through the female line, because the males would have been significantly less fertile, and possibly even sterile."
For us Homo sapiens, the Neanderthal male sterility was not an issue, the female hybrids could continue to mate with other Homo sapiens and eventually work out the Neanderthal DNA in their population to the 2% we see today.
Have we found what happened to "archaic man?" Not extinction, but exclusivity to survive?
Perhaps living in smaller and smaller congregations knowing that they could only breed between themselves, the Bigfoot still contain their original archaic DNA in full force because their only breeding pool are the others who contain the archaic DNA in large number from great isolation.
If legends are true and the Native Americans' numbers outgrew the "giant" people who supposedly were here in the US when their people arrived, then the legends that they fought battles, and drove off the last giants, would help support the concept of why the Bigfoot remain such hidden and secretive people. They know, as well as we suspect, that we would not be able to breed across our vast schism and so they have no interest in what they do not need and would certainly know to avoid our outrageous numbers and aggression.
At this point, as we mostly agree the government surely knows about these "wild people" in our woods, they are awaiting the inevitability of them simply going into quiet extinction with breeding populations diminishing and then they never have to acknowledge or deal with them or admit they have known since settlers first arrived, of their existence.
One thing we might assume about Denisovans from the DNA is that they tolerated high altitudes. Today's sherpas got that gene (EPAS1 gene) from them about 40,000 years ago. To tolerate a high altitude, one must also be tolerant of weather extremes, something we have never been able to grasp about how Bigfoot is able to do this. This makes me lean more toward Denisovans - for size and ability to withstand extremes, as well as possibly hairiness to provide protection.
It is interesting to note the love of mountains, woods, extreme weather conditions and isolation that you find for Yeti, Yowie, Yeren, Bigfoot, and all in areas where Denisovan DNA is found. And these are also the last places man was spreading out to, so likely the Denisovans had a head start 65,000 years ago when we began to spill over the edges of Africa into Europe and Asia.
In America, our coastal indians (Karankawa, Baja) were believed to be related to the same lineage as aborigines which would mean the Denisovan genes that gave them tall stature and different skull shape than Amerindians.
And, don't the Yowies, Yeti, Yeren and Bigfoot all exist where Denisovans might have left traces of their expansion across the globe?
The last dying places of their kind???
This is a notion I hope to kick around more and more on the blog as I learn more about commonalities of the locations of today's Bigfoot-type people in Siberia, China, Himalayas, Australia, and America (for the most part).
I will, of course, continue this conversation with regularity and encourage others to ponder the clues that may lead to Bigfoot. For those who have trouble believing in their existence, understanding "who was Bigfoot's daddy?" might show that they had a lineage in parallel with us and that there might be some very specific reasons they remain elusive.
For more on this subject, you might look at the archaic brain type in the post "Are Bigfoot Autistic?"