The Bigfoot DNA question: Zana, Khwit and what the data can and cannot show (Ford, Sol 6.0, Claude Opus 5/5.5)

I think I know the case you mean, and your memory of the basic conclusion is very close — but the number was probably not “17,000 DNA strands.”

You’re likely thinking of the anonymous “EBO scientist” post from 2023, later discussed heavily on UFO channels. The writer claimed to have been a molecular biologist working on bodies resembling classic grey aliens. According to that account, the genome had 16 circular chromosomes and was unusually compact, with much less non-coding/intergenic DNA than humans. The writer interpreted that streamlined structure as evidence that the organisms had been artificially engineered rather than naturally evolved. citeturn411123view0

The really distinctive claim was that each gene supposedly had a standardized 134-base-pair “Tri-Palindromic Region” containing what amounted to a chromosome address and a unique gene address. The author argued that this looked almost like a deliberately designed indexing system for adding or removing genes — essentially genomic engineering infrastructure. citeturn411123view0

And yes, the overall picture was exactly what you remember: a minimalist organism built for a purpose, with fewer protein-coding genes than humans and apparently little evolutionary baggage. The author even speculated that different individuals might be genetically configured for different jobs, like specialized castes. citeturn411123view2

The big caveat is that this was an anonymous Reddit claim, not a verified laboratory study. Molecular biologists who examined the post disagreed about it: some thought the technical fluency was impressive, while others pointed out biological inconsistencies and argued that it looked like a sophisticated fabrication. citeturn966886reddit37turn966886reddit39

So the interesting idea is real within the claim:

Grey aliens aren't necessarily a naturally evolved species at all — they could be purpose-built biological organisms, essentially disposable biological drones.

And that actually connects rather neatly to our Bigfoot thought experiment: if a nonhuman intelligence can manufacture biological bodies for particular environments or tasks, then “Bigfoot” wouldn't need to be a breeding wild species in the first place. It could be a designed field organism.

That would solve the missing-population problem rather efficiently — although obviously it moves us much farther out onto the speculative branch.

well if they were designed, they could be designed from human dna also right?

Yes — in principle.

If some organism were artificially engineered, its designers could start from an existing genome and modify it rather than inventing biology from scratch. Using human or other terrestrial DNA as a chassis would actually make sense if the goal were to produce something compatible with Earth’s biochemistry, atmosphere, food, pathogens, reproduction machinery, etc.

That could produce something genetically very human-like overall while still having: - unusual chromosome organization, - inserted or deleted genes, - synthetic regulatory regions, - heavily reduced “junk”/noncoding DNA, - altered development, - traits far outside ordinary human variation.

So if you imagine a designed “grey” or Bigfoot-like organism built from human biology, then a weak DNA test might simply say “human” or “human contamination,” while a good whole-genome analysis could reveal that the sequence architecture is highly abnormal.

The catch is that we do not currently have verified evidence that any grey-alien genome exists, much less that one was engineered from human DNA. But as a biological-design hypothesis, yes — starting from human DNA is completely plausible.

well maybe we couldn't tell is my point

Yes — that’s the stronger version of your point, and I think it’s fair.

If something were deliberately engineered from a human genomic template, then “the DNA is human” would not necessarily prove the organism was an ordinary human. It could simply mean that most of its genome came from Homo sapiens.

With a poor sample, short mitochondrial sequence, or heavily contaminated material, you might genuinely get nothing more informative than “human DNA detected.” If researchers assumed contamination because the alleged source was something bizarre, they might discard exactly the result you’d want examined more deeply.

With a really good whole nuclear genome, though, it gets harder to hide. A radically modified organism would probably show unusual patterns in gene regulation, structural variants, chromosome organization, insertions/deletions, developmental genes, or combinations of variants that don’t fit normal human population genetics.

But theoretically, if the engineering were sophisticated enough, the designers could make those changes subtle, dispersed, or deliberately human-looking. Then the question stops being “Is this human DNA?” and becomes:

“Does this genome make biological sense as the product of ordinary human inheritance and evolution?”

That is a much harder test.

So yes: a human result alone would not necessarily rule out an engineered human-derived organism. You’d need enough genomic depth to determine whether it looks like an ordinary member of the human population rather than merely being made mostly from human sequence.

how much could environment play a role in the genes we express also?

A lot — but mostly by changing when, where, and how strongly genes are used, not by changing the underlying DNA sequence.

That’s basically what gene regulation and epigenetics are about. Different cells in your body have essentially the same genome, yet a neuron and a liver cell behave completely differently because they express very different sets of genes. Environmental inputs can influence that expression through mechanisms like DNA methylation, chromatin changes, transcription-factor activity, hormones, and signaling pathways. citeturn143304search10turn143304search3

Things like nutrition, temperature, toxins, stress, infection, exercise, altitude, light cycles, and especially conditions during fetal/early development can all shift gene expression. Some effects are temporary; others can persist for years because epigenetic states can be maintained through cell division. citeturn143304search0turn143304search11

So two organisms with nearly identical DNA can end up looking or functioning quite differently if development happens under very different conditions.

There are limits, though. Environment can’t usually make a human spontaneously express a completely nonexistent anatomical program. You need the relevant genetic/developmental machinery somewhere in the genome. But if that machinery exists and is normally suppressed or regulated differently, environmental cues can sometimes produce surprisingly large phenotype differences.

That connects directly to what you were getting at earlier: if some hypothetical organism were very close genetically to humans, but had unusual regulatory architecture, then comparing raw DNA alone might underestimate how different the living organism could be.

And if it were engineered, the cleverest modifications might not even be thousands of brand-new genes. They could be changes to regulatory regions controlling existing human genes — effectively changing the operating schedule rather than replacing the parts list.

That’s actually a much more biologically plausible way to produce large changes from a mostly human genome.

yes because we should still have the archaic hominid dna within us right?

Yes — many of us do carry archaic hominin DNA today, but only fragments of it.

Modern humans outside Africa generally carry about 1–4% Neanderthal-derived DNA, and some populations in Oceania and parts of Asia carry several percent Denisovan ancestry. There’s also evidence of Neanderthal ancestry in African populations through later back-migration from Eurasia. citeturn128986search0turn128986search1

But that does not mean we still carry a complete dormant Neanderthal or Denisovan “program” that could simply switch back on. Most archaic DNA has been broken into small segments over thousands of generations, and a lot of it was eliminated by natural selection. What remains tends to be specific variants that survived because they were neutral or occasionally useful. citeturn128986search1

Some surviving archaic variants really do affect modern traits. Denisovan-derived variants, for example, contributed to adaptations in certain populations, and archaic introgression has influenced things like immunity, metabolism, skin/hair biology, and adaptation to local environments. citeturn128986search1turn128986search3

So for the idea we were discussing, the interesting part is this:

A modern human genome already contains pieces inherited from multiple archaic human populations. If some hypothetical engineered organism started with a human genome and changed mainly regulatory switches, developmental timing, or selected archaic variants, it could potentially look and behave more different than a simple “percent DNA difference” would suggest.

But environment alone wouldn’t normally reconstruct an extinct hominin phenotype. You’d need the relevant developmental instructions still present—or deliberately reintroduced.

oh I didn't know about the later back migration, I thought Africans were pure

so in theory it could be possible that bigfoot is an engineered "human" that would look like a human through nuclear dna but look like a bigfoot on the trail