The
following was a unsolicited commentary by A. John Marsh on a genealogy
DNA page which scientists use to discuss mtDNA origin. This is not the
complete discussion . However, it sums up the analysis.
T2 BIGFOOTS FOUND IN 5 DIFFERENT STATES:
Along with the fact that all Bigfoots seem to have several different
mtDNA mutations from each other, they also are found in 5 different
states. It suggests that if a single T2b human female mated with a
Bigfoot male 13,000 years ago, that the descendants of the T2b ancestor
have spread widely in USA since then.
AGE OF T2b:
Web site
http://www.nature.com/srep/
If T2b is 12-10kya, and T1/ T2 coalesced about 19kya, T2b might very roughly originate about 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.
THINGS I NOTED ABOUT MUTATIONS DIFFERENT IN BIGFOOT AND HUMANS:
One thing I noted was that all the 52 number diverse T2b haplogroup
listed humans in the T2 project had a mutation 146T, but none of the
Bigfoot had that mutation. It seems in fact that all T haplogroup have
146T. I am guessing that the earliest common ancestor of all Bigfoots
had a back mutation on that marker to the CRS value.
Another
thing I noticed was that all Bigfoots which appear to have been tested
on the lower number markers, have mutation 73G. Yet not one of the
52 human mtDNA T2b persons had the mutation 73G. Why not? Was 73G a very early mutation in the Bigfoot line?
All the fully tested 4 Bigfoots had the 263G mutation, but not one single one of the 52 humans had 263G. Why not?
It seems all human T2bs have have 16187C and 16189T, but no bigfoots
have either. In fact, all human haplgroup T are postive for both these
mutations, so presumably in the common ancestor of all Bigfoots there
was a mutation reverting to CRS.
According to the Ketchum
knockers, all the mtDNA Haplotypes in her project are modern
contamination. All of these Bigfoot haplotypes are different.
Isn't
it a bit puzzling that all of these humans mistaken as Bigfoot have
different T2 mtDNA haplotypes, all have 73G and 263G mutations not found
in humans, and all seem to have had back mutations on 146T, 16187C and
16189T, where these back mutations are apparently not found in any human
T2b s?
John.
T2 BIGFOOTS FOUND IN 5 DIFFERENT STATES:
Along with the fact that all Bigfoots seem to have several different mtDNA mutations from each other, they also are found in 5 different states. It suggests that if a single T2b human female mated with a Bigfoot male 13,000 years ago, that the descendants of the T2b ancestor have spread widely in USA since then.
AGE OF T2b:
Web site
http://www.nature.com/srep/
If T2b is 12-10kya, and T1/ T2 coalesced about 19kya, T2b might very roughly originate about 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.
THINGS I NOTED ABOUT MUTATIONS DIFFERENT IN BIGFOOT AND HUMANS:
One thing I noted was that all the 52 number diverse T2b haplogroup listed humans in the T2 project had a mutation 146T, but none of the Bigfoot had that mutation. It seems in fact that all T haplogroup have 146T. I am guessing that the earliest common ancestor of all Bigfoots had a back mutation on that marker to the CRS value.
Another thing I noticed was that all Bigfoots which appear to have been tested on the lower number markers, have mutation 73G. Yet not one of the
52 human mtDNA T2b persons had the mutation 73G. Why not? Was 73G a very early mutation in the Bigfoot line?
All the fully tested 4 Bigfoots had the 263G mutation, but not one single one of the 52 humans had 263G. Why not?
It seems all human T2bs have have 16187C and 16189T, but no bigfoots have either. In fact, all human haplgroup T are postive for both these mutations, so presumably in the common ancestor of all Bigfoots there was a mutation reverting to CRS.
According to the Ketchum knockers, all the mtDNA Haplotypes in her project are modern contamination. All of these Bigfoot haplotypes are different.
Isn't it a bit puzzling that all of these humans mistaken as Bigfoot have different T2 mtDNA haplotypes, all have 73G and 263G mutations not found in humans, and all seem to have had back mutations on 146T, 16187C and 16189T, where these back mutations are apparently not found in any human T2b s?
John.
From what I can gather from this, is that we have just completed step one. Just to get science to look at these creatures/beings as a
ReplyDeletereal biological fact. That just took a couple
of hundred years. I hope now the DNA study and
the work done by so many will be accepted by those that rejected the project. But like I said
this is just step one.