Robert Lindsay offers clarification about Bigfoot nuclear DNA issue

When Robert Lindsay released the preliminary data on the Bigfoot nuclear DNA study, he set off a firestorm of confusion. Phantoms & Monsters blog re-posted the article and even gave it the title, "Bigfoot DNA Preliminary Result = Confusion." Part of the confusion stemmed from Robert's initial explanation about the MC1R gene. Robert had some time to think about it what he wrote and decided to clear things up a bit.

"I did not understand this issue very well when I first wrote about it. But neither did my sources," wrote Robert.

For humans, genes determine our physical traits, what you look like, what you inherit from either one of your parents. And everyone has a unique genetic makeup. Even identical twins have different DNA.

What about the MC1R gene? What does it do for Bigfoot?

Below is Robert's clarification.

Bigfoot nuclear DNA: The speculation and nonsense that our previous post about Bigfoot nuclear DNA generated is quite extraordinary but not unexpected. Part of it is my fault, as I did not understand this issue very well when I first wrote about it. But neither did my sources.

After a week or so thinking it over, I have developed some new theories about the nuclear DNA. I will also deal below with critiques leveled at the findings that I reported. Many were taken from skeptic sites, and they were such terrible critiques it is embarrassing. Of all people, skeptics ought to know better.

As reported earlier, we have results from only three samples, all of one gene, MC1R. MC1R was said to be “the color gene, and the default color for Bigfoots is ‘red’.” While that may be true, the data we have available does not support that. Instead, I believe that the MC1R gene is the “red hair gene,” and I don’t know what the default hair color for Bigfoots is.

If Bigfoots have the red hair gene, then obviously some of them have red hair. Reports of auburn Bigfoots would indicate this. In fact, the Bigfoot steak from the Sierra Kills, although it was mostly grey, had some red in it. The exact words from a source: “…and yes, it was a little bit red.” Fahrenbach has reported that much Bigfoot hair has a red tinge, and there are jokes that Bigfoot is Irish. I don’t know what to make of all of this, except that obviously, reddish hair is not unknown in Bigfoots.

Once again, there is mass confusion about the “1/3 of the way from a human to a chimp.” This is in terms of %. Let us say that a chimp shares 94% of our genes. Then a Bigfoot shares 98% of our genes, 1/3 of the way from a human to a chimp. Get it?

Let’s lay it out statistically. Nuclear DNA consists of 3 billion base pairs.

Difference  Human  Chimp         Bigfoot
Human       0      180 million*  60 million**

*or 6%
**or 2%

Let us say we look at 30,000 nuclear base pairs. The chimp would differ on 1,800 of those, and the Bigfoot would differ on 600 of those. The 600 base pair difference would be “1/3 of the way from a human to a chimp.”

Got it?

Previously, I reported that the nuclear DNA findings were
“within the human range, but just barely.” That is not correct. It is difficult to use a phrase like “within the human range” when looking at a single gene. One thing that is clear is that the nuclear DNA results came back “hominid.” They are within the hominid range, so to speak. The findings look like Homo sapiens except that they differ in two polymorphisms not found in humans. Two samples were concordant for one of the differing polymorphisms, and one represented the other polymorphism.

However, the DNA of Neandertal for the MC1R gene also looks like Homo sapiens, except that it differs in a single polymorphism. To say that the nuclear findings represent Homo sapiens DNA as skeptics are now doing is not correct. If they were right, Neandertal would be Homo sapiens, and he is not. The nuclear results are not “human DNA.” They are hominid DNA, which may be human (Homo sapiens) or may not be human (subhuman).

Since human contamination of the samples has been ruled out, the only alternate theory is that modern humans left this DNA.

That means that in the Four Corners region of New Mexico, a human trapped a skunk in a drain pipe, smashed the pipe on either side, captured the skunk, gutted and eviscerated it and removed part of the insides for parts unknown. When it did this, the human cut itself and left blood all over the pipe.

I think that is ridiculous.

That means that in Crittenden, Kentucky, a modern human came to a feeding station at night in 100% darkness with no flashlight and tried to eat the food that was set out there. The feeding station was a trap with glass superglued to the plate, so the human cut its fingertips trying to get the food. Keep in mind that this is in very heavily forested land, on private property in an area where “shoot on sight” is the rule.

I think it is ridiculous that a modern human did that.

All of that aside, is it possible that there are modern humans with these two strange MC1R polymorphisms, which have not been previously found in humans? It’s possible, but I think it is unlikely. In fact, I think it is ridiculous. 20 different polymorphisms have now been found on this gene. That these two very strange samples would be concordant for a polymorphism previously unknown in humans is bizarre indeed.

Related:

• First preliminary data on Bigfoot nuclear DNA