Bigfoot, Yeti, And The Last Neanderthal - Post Your Questions for Professor Sykes

a reply to: cryptic0void

Not to derail this opportunity to ask Professor Sykes pertinent questions but I think it's important to note that phenotype is not always consistent with genotype. People can exhibit any number of morphological traits without being genetically similar to what one would consider stereotypical of a particular genetic lineage.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Professor Sykes,

I have heard that the Indian Americans had stories of battling giant red-furred 'stone skin' monsters. At Aztalan, they built extensive fortifications of tree trucks and mud walls that had spears jutting out high off of the ground. They had two of these walls surrounding them--and at least one was broken through. What would you make of this in relation to sasquatch and other bipedal cryptids of North America?

I believe that it is also pertinent to note that I do not believe that humans evolved from apes because there is no actual proof that we did. I believe that evolution is merely a change in the frequency of alleles over time. This produces adaptive traits and results in natural selection. The idea that humans evolved from apes is a misconception that was circulated by Herbert Spencer and other eugenicists in order to further their goals and their idea of using "race" as a means to control culture and society, saying that some humans had evolved further than others and so forth.

I do, however, like your idea that Sasquatch could possibly be related to apes.

However, perhaps things like Sasquatch/the Yeti account for the historical records of monsters that have occurred in literally every culture throughout history and continuing into the present. It would explain the similarity between drawings of monsters and eyewitness descriptions from people who have seen Sasquatch or other bipedal cryptids. In light of this analysis, what would your opinion be about your research and its relation to Biblical stories about giants (not to mention the vast variety of other societies that have had similar accounts of giants--for instance, Basque)?

Have you ever seen one, yourself?

Also--what is your take on the story of La Bete du Gevaudan?


Thank you so much for your time.

Bigfoot is actually of the subfamily of primate Homininae and it diverged from the homo exactly 4.2 million years before present, which was 0.73 million years prior to the evolution of Australopithecus afarensis, whose presence in the Horn of Africa was verified by specimen AL 288-1. Bigfoot was a pseudo-“missing link” between the Austaliopithecines and the Ergaster genus of species agglomerate. Due to its vestigial anatomorphological inheritance from its ancestral Southern Apes, it bore a conspicuous resemblance to Chimpanzees and the so called “Sasquatch” of Sino-Tibetan and Nepalese myths, as well as the Algonquin-Blackfoot indigenous North Americans’ legend of Da-Ne Kasedanuki, leading many leading anthropologists of the first few decades of the 21 st century to assume that Bigfoot was a hoax perpetuated by cryptozoologists. Bigfoot’s mitochondrial megahaplogroup clusters derive from their Most Recent Common Maternal Ancestor which diverged from the maternal lineage Mitochondrial Eve descends from about 4 million years ago. Therefore, their mtDNA diverges from ours on a rate of 1 out of 1,735 base pairs. By contrast, human nuclear DNA across global populations diverges an average of 1 out of 1,150 base pairs on average. Their Y-chromosome is more visceral and simian. By analysis of their pseudoautosomal region on their Y-chromosome, which is the outermost fringe region of the chromosome which can recombine with homologous regions on the X-chromosome, (however the bulk of the Y-chromosome is incapable of homologous recombination with the X) we have concluded that about 0.0032 more of their sex chromosome base pairs are capable of recombination. The deterioration of the pseudoautosomal region in the Y-chromosome has begun since the divergence of the X and Y chromosomes from their ancestral chromosome 166 million years before present. As evidence, most ectothermic vertebrates lack the gender-determining function in their genome, but rather possess an environmentally determined gender system. The decay of this pseudoautosomal region has been constant at a rate of 12 base pairs per 5 generations, however this is in highly prolific reproducers, and as reproduction has decreased inversely proportional to the increase of cognitive function and prefrontal cortex gerantomorphication, the decay of the pseudoautosomal region has been exponentially retarded. Therefore, we can assume that the paternal lineage of Bigfoot could not have been separate from homo sapiens more than 6 million years, which suggests that paternally, Bigfoots are closer to Bonobos and Lowland Chimpanzees than to humans.

continues
robertlindsay.wordpress.com...

Is this true?

a reply to: peter vlar

Indeed! A good example of this would be people who are born with tails. It doesn't make them rat-men, does it?

On topic - Firstly, I'd like to thank Professor Sykes for actually looking at the question of cryptids with a scientific view to proving or disproving them. Too often the people who are in the best position to weigh in on the subject dismiss it offhand.

Now to the question(s) - Professor, what was the most surprising "out-of-place" genetic discovery you made? I'm speaking in terms of things you wouldn't expect to find in a specific group of people. Secondly, while her study was...contraversial (to say the least) have you ever had any correspondence with Dr. Melba Ketchum in regards to the Bigfoot question?

I was reading the reviews for your new book "Bigfoot, Yetis and the Last Neanderthal" on amazon and someone commented that this is the same exact book you wrote named "The Nature of the Beast" with just a new cover and title.

Is this true?

The questions have been forwarded to Professor Sykes. His schedule will determine how many and how quickly he'll be responding.

I just wanted to add some short thoughts on my "feral human" theory from the previous page (p.2).

Some historical conflict areas that produced sightings of "wild people", and could have led to remnant human populations that went feral, also due to vastly unpopulated wilderness areas:
- Parts of the former Soviet Union that have seen longstanding Tsarist and Communist genocides, as well as China. (Widespread sightings of the Almas and other groups.)
- Parts of Southeast Asian jungles that had long-standing colonial and cold war conflicts. (Wild people sighted by American soldiers in the 1960s.)
- Genocidal wars in North America, perhaps already pre-Columbian conflicts, but especially the widespread massacre of the indigenous population of California by settlers in the late 19th century. (Bigfoot.)

Conversely, central Europe has a smaller land-mass, and was relatively well populated already from historical times, with pronounced medieval deforestation. Southern Africa was also quite evenly populated by hunter-gatherers like the pygmies and Khoisan until the Bantu expansion and colonial settlement. These areas would thus have rapidly absorbed remnants of conflict, or been too inhospitable regionally for any human survival. Parts of Australia and South America however might be a possibility.
The main areas that correlate vast wilderness areas (especially until a few decades ago) with human conflict and tragedy to produce feral populations would thus be North America and parts of Russia and Asia - which is exactly where the sightings occur.

I'd propose that a key factor in causing "feral" physical changes in humans is the loss of the use of fire.
To my knowledge none of the wild people are reported to use fire.
This could be because the youngsters who escaped didn't know how to produce it, they were separated from flints or other traditional means to produce it, or they initially didn't want to risk detection by enemies via smoke, and rather turned their attention to other means of survival. It could also simply have fallen into disuse as the physical changes made it burdensome, rather than crucial.

The lack of fire to me seems like the most significant factor in leading to more body hair, as well as changes in the jaw and skull for chewing uncooked foodstuffs, as well as more physical means of hunting and less centralized living.
Without fire, some might argue, humans couldn't survive in such wild areas at all, but that hasn't been proven.
Proving so using abandoned children (and a generation or two of their offspring) with some rudimentary knowledge of wild foodstuffs would be quite an inhumane and unethical experiment. It's thus morally impossible to prove or disprove.

Fire is probably the most critical factor between human "domestication" and rapid physical adaptations.
The technologies of producing fire are then also what separates modern "primitive societies" (who all used fire) from "feral" populations.
Anyway, just a footnote to my previous post.

a reply to: peter vlar

True but how do you account for this much morphology with out a significant genetic component and having an appearance exactly as you would be led to expect?
I was hoping the professor would offer an insight to my thought experiment as well

I would say in actuality the illustration is off in a couple of respects because fossils have significant distortions.
The chin is much closer to the chest and not extending out on a neck like the example, rounder, and held vertically as in modern man.
The cheekbones also protrude out and create a very round or bowling ball appearance for the whole head and this sets squarely on the shoulders.
Eyes were blue, hair was fine red and short.

originally posted by: lord sword
Their is a theory that some of the lost tribes Israel ended up in Britain I was wondering if there was any DNA evidence of it.

On that note there was also a theory proposed that one early japan was settled by a lost tribe of Israel there are even relic from the royal family that are very much of Israeli design that legend has have been there since ever. What are your thoughts there as well?

With the ever increasing human population and ever decreasing habitat for such a creature to hide in, why is that nobody has the found the body of a deceased Bigfoot or ever shot and killed one or even actually got any good footage of one?

originally posted by: blupblup
With the ever increasing human population and ever decreasing habitat for such a creature to hide in, why is that nobody has the found the body of a deceased Bigfoot or ever shot and killed one or even actually got any good footage of one?

I would suggest you don't find bear bones hardly ever in the wild and we know they are all over the place. I have hunted all my life since I was just a young kid. I have seen one in all those years of spending an inordinate amount of time deep in the woods. It was pure chance I saw that one. It is my belief they are as smart as a human, but wild at the same time. It is not difficult to hide from other humans in the woods and not be seen. I have done it many times. People in general, even hunters, are often unaware of what is going on even close to them. Animals will get down and hide. I see deer do it and get into the bottom of ditches, etc, to hide and crawl out of an area. It is easy to think we can walk into the woods and be this sensory dynamo. However, we hardly have the ability animals do. They can detect human presence long before you get near them most of the time. Some have no fear of humans and don;t attempt to hide, but keep their distance. Something as smart as a human, but that is wild could easily detect us and hide from us.

I don't think they have such a large population and exist in small family groups. We find other species all the time. We have been unable to catch on camera species we know exist. There is a type of big cat they have been trying to photograph for decades without luck. We have various photos and evidence of tracks all over. The photos aren't clear and convincing evidence though and eyewitness testimony is worthless, however you would convict a murderer to life in prison or worse over the same or less qualified witness testimony. All the skeptics I have run across have spent little time in the woods, and even so like I said I have spent over 40 years in the woods and saw one once. Albeit for a few minutes and was able to watch it through a rifle scope. I also think they know if you are going to hurt them somehow. Or not, maybe they don't know what a rifle is.

a reply to: sycomix
Well, umm No

Japan was settled more than 20k years ago, and the people(the Jomon) were clearly not from the middle east.
The next major influx of people into Japan were tha Yayoi, whom likely migrated from the Yangtze river valley , driven out the expansion of the Qin.

a reply to: blupblup

Whether we have "good footage" is disputable.

If my humans-go-feral, like pigs-turn-into-hogs in the wild theory is true, then often these feral survivors reintegrate.

But another factor is that one needs Western scientists to document it.
Western science was largely disinterested until recently.
Or were they?
I wouldn't be surprised if some clandestine operation deliberately tested my "feral human" theory in unethical ways.

Well, apart from conflict areas, sufficient wilderness (with the basics of food and water), one also needs another factor:

People willing to talk about it!

Many reports are from soldiers, and I believe in the US one government guide to local fauna even included Bigfoot.

Tribal societies living close to feral humans might also know they are relatives somewhere in history, and they don't want them harmed.
I mean we're talking about communities with very antagonistic relationships to governments, and who had their own children taken away.

What I have heard and can say is that some remote North-Western tribes say some of their medicine men go into the wild for years, and villagers who encounter them say they look like the "wild people".
They are not "wild people", but look similar.

I mean all these people - from Asia to the US - have been in historic conflict zones and have good reasons to mistrust the state.

However, there's a lot of other theories why we don't see them lying around when they die.
Apart from animals eating them, perhaps they have some burial ritual, or even cannibalism?
But their numbers would be very low in any case.
Besides, their bones would look quite human.
Just like a wild-hog skeleton would still look porcine.
Perhaps a bit like a strange (or feral) human, but human nevertheless.
One would need a very fresh cadaver to prove Homo Sapiens can go feral.
Although, we have the very odd-looking Zana skull.

a reply to: halfoldman

It's a good theory. It may even have parallels. The only issue I have is the size of the creatures. If it were feral humans, I don't see their size gaining so much. As homo sapiens we have lost the muscle structure and sheer girth and height these seem to represent. I don't see them reintegrating as they would stick out big time.The one I saw I swear was female. It looked like a gorilla with a more human type face might look like from a distance and straight standing. I believe they are a parallel branch of human/hominid that remained elusive and alive in the deep forest. Not to mention if you ever heard one scream close up it will change your life. They are powerful. I heard one in the Okefenokee swamp at night close and when it yells it reverberated deep in my chest. More like an animal would be able to do. The Georgia DNR cast tracks of that one in our hunting camp on the edge of this half million acre swamp. There was a huge feral hog population there too which would have provided abundant food for such a beast.

I remain open minded however as to what it is species wise.

a reply to: spirit_horse

Well, the size of humans differs widely across the globe.
I see programs on the Lakota peoples of the US and Canada, for example, and they are much taller than me.
In Africa, for example, we have the Watussi who are tall, and the pygmies who are short (compared to humble old me).
Many things could influence size, or length.

However, if humans go feral, I'd say consider the possible starting population from which they originated, and you will find a regional correlation.

I wouldn't be surprised if in North America they are taller (Lakota), whereas in Asia they are shorter.
They are feral variations on the existing local populations.

Becoming more robust is also an issue.
Compare the almost uncontrolled sizes of feral hogs to domestic pigs.
Especially when pigs return to the wild.
It's not only the skull that changes, but also the size!

Then diet also plays a role.
Once plant-eating bodies suddenly have more protein.
And isn't that what every gym-fanatic wants to get bigger?
More proteins?
More fish and game meat?
We should all go on the feral diet!

But yeah, it will take a radical evaluation of all we know about ourselves if my theory is even partially true.
Like I said previously, maybe we are more adaptable than we think, and the bodies we have now are not the only possible genes within us.
Given a different environment we could go totally differently - at least some individuals.
Perhaps it's not as interesting as finding a lost Neanderthal, but it would be far more perplexing.

a reply to: spirit_horse

originally posted by: spirit_horse

I would suggest you don't find bear bones hardly ever in the wild and we know they are all over the place. I have hunted all my life since I was just a young kid. I have seen one in all those years of spending an inordinate amount of time deep in the woods. It was pure chance I saw that one. It is my belief they are as smart as a human, but wild at the same time. It is not difficult to hide from other humans in the woods and not be seen. I have done it many times. People in general, even hunters, are often unaware of what is going on even close to them. Animals will get down and hide. I see deer do it and get into the bottom of ditches, etc, to hide and crawl out of an area. It is easy to think we can walk into the woods and be this sensory dynamo. However, we hardly have the ability animals do. They can detect human presence long before you get near them most of the time. Some have no fear of humans and don;t attempt to hide, but keep their distance. Something as smart as a human, but that is wild could easily detect us and hide from us.

I don't think they have such a large population and exist in small family groups. We find other species all the time. We have been unable to catch on camera species we know exist. There is a type of big cat they have been trying to photograph for decades without luck. We have various photos and evidence of tracks all over. The photos aren't clear and convincing evidence though and eyewitness testimony is worthless, however you would convict a murderer to life in prison or worse over the same or less qualified witness testimony. All the skeptics I have run across have spent little time in the woods, and even so like I said I have spent over 40 years in the woods and saw one once. Albeit for a few minutes and was able to watch it through a rifle scope. I also think they know if you are going to hurt them somehow. Or not, maybe they don't know what a rifle is.

I wholeheartedly agree.
There has never been a documented case of a grizzly carcass being found in the wild.

For a "city kid" I spent a lot of time hunting and fishing local mountains. I didn't realize till I was an adult, that I had been have BF experiences all along, culminating in a near sighting, we saw freshly laid foot prints, so fresh we could hear it moving in the brush and the foot prints overlayed my friends track, who was about ten min ahead of me on a mtb ride.
The earlier experiences were when I was hunting of fishing, there were times pine cones, sticks and small rocks were thrown at me from the brush.
The pine cones I chalked up to squirrels, the sticks to limbs falling out of trees, the rocks I figured were there already and didn't notice.
Then as an adult I read that throwing things at an interloper is basic primate behavior and is well documented in BF encounters.
Then I began to put the pieces together, the area I hunted has reported BF sightings since the 40's, the nearest town has had big foot prints painted in the main street for more than 50 years. The local Mono call him Pahi Zohos , the Miwok call him Yayali, and with the Yokuts it Mayak Datat. The yokuts even painted his image on a rock more than a thousand years ago.
To the miwok and piute/mono/Shoshone he was a forest devil to be feared. The Miwok say they killed the last one near Ahwanee, it just so happens there is a place called devils peak and devils canyon ( which is crazy remote for being so close to Yosemite).
As a child I was always admonished to not wander to far from camp after dark, or pahi zohos( the boogeyman as my uncle related it), would get you.
And your also right about the scream once you've heard it you won't soon forget it.

a reply to: halfoldman

Yes, the feral hogs are amazing critters. I live in North East Florida and hog hunting here is part of the life. They can get huge. What is amazing is the changes happen so quick. And something to go with your theory is pigs have many similarities to humans as far as organs go.

Dr. Sykes here is my question. It might sound wacky (you are taking questions from ATS).

Question:
If mice have identical DNA as humans, could it mean humans were once diverse animals? How do portions of the mice DNA form Human's DNA. How does the structure of, for a lack of a better word, Monkeys, form the Human's anatomy?

Thank you.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

What Number of a Breeding Population would be needed for a Species such as a Bigfoot , Yeti or Neanderthal to Survive without eventually becoming Extinct ? If they can Only Survive Undetected from Humans by Living in Remote areas of the Planet , how could the Earth support a Viable Population of them over Thousands of Years ?

With modern genetic mixing of different populations suggests that genetic regression to the mean would be the norm for all races. That said, I wonder of those anomolies that allow for the perfect genetic matching would invariably display itself in human "bigfoot" examples being born of normal couples.

But with the many many thousands of years of the current human structure, I highly doubt any bigfoot exist, no different than prehistoric dinosuars could remain hidden away. Short of the crocodile of course.

The world has grown exceptionally small the last few hundred years.


Edit to add: especially when faced with events like the Toba Catastrophe Bottleneck Theory.