Destination Truth Yeti Hair Sample

[norseman]

http://www.ghosttheory.com/2009/11/06/destination-truth-yeti-hairs

The Findings:

Back in the States, Josh takes the photographs of the bones to mammalogist, Dr. Jim Dines to examine. Dines finds that the bones are far too big to be human, but notices they are extremely similar in size to the vertebrae of an Asian black bear. This evidence discounts the existence of the Yet, but the hair samples found in the woods tell a different story. Josh travels to Texas to meet with a forensic analyst who confirms that the hairs are from an unknown sequence. This leaves Josh to conclude that there may in fact be a Yeti— or something like it, lurking somewhere in Bhutan, waiting to be discovered.

A couple of questions:

1) Do we know anything more about this hair sample?

2) I was arguing with Bob Zenor and more recently Saskeptic about what emphasis should be placed on a type specimen as opposed to trace evidence. And while it's not fair that both of them had the same exact position (Bob was pretty sure that a find like this would seal the deal so to speak). This article does raise the question of.........ok we have a hair sample, ok we have sequenced it, ok we have tried unsuccessfully to match it in our data base, ok....so what? What has been accomplished?

I must have missed the NBC evening news segment that stated emphatically that "Yeti in all probability exists because of a sequenced unknown hair sample" or "Smithsonian now organizing large expedition to find a Yeti whose existence is now probable".

Read the last sentence of the paragraph above, please note "waiting to be discovered". I thought you guys said that a hair sample was apart of the discovery process? Let's face it, Josh Gates and the rest of us (who are interested in the subject)are no better off now than before the hair sample was discovered. I see zero movement on this, and unless there is some more recent data that shows the hair sample was tampered with or something? Why?

Ultimately I feel this story endorses my position of taking a type specimen should be of first priority. And if a hair sample from the highest and most remote mountains in the world isn't taken seriously? How does that make you guys collecting hair samples in Ohio feel?

(I realize I am stirring the pot here, but I think we need to hash this out because I feel the community is off track)

[Guest]

At this point it's time to send samples to Quantico.

Without access to great lab facilities, I can see this continuing endlessly. In fact once "chain of evidence" questions crop up it's a still the "DNA Merry-go-round". No results will be looked at seriously unless collected by a sanctioned collector, preferably by their own organization, processed by the lab of their choice. So the Catch 22 begins if you can't get the Smithsonian or The Sierra Club, Nat Geo involved it's still square one.

This may be the time to get the NRA involved. (repugnant as killing one may be) They have the manpower, resourses to move this forward. If enough hunters come together and a large hairy thing in the woods is concerning enough, well maybe we can shift the current paradigm.

It's either that or Bill Gates, or Soros, or Oprah.

Without financial resourses, or significant pressure applied nothing is going to happen.

JMO

Edited for spelling

Edited February 23, 2011 by grayjay

[Guest Sallaranda]

He also took one of the most convincing footprint casts in an episode on the Yeti, also in Bhutan. The camera footage shows there was clearly nobody at the site of the footprint and all accounted for castmembers did not have any sort of object to make a fake footprint.

[norseman]

He also took one of the most convincing footprint casts in an episode on the Yeti, also in Bhutan. The camera footage shows there was clearly nobody at the site of the footprint and all accounted for castmembers did not have any sort of object to make a fake footprint.

But footprints are not suppose to convince anyone, but a hair sample is, because you can extract DNA.

[Guest]

(I realize I am stirring the pot here, but I think we need to hash this out because I feel the community is off track)

I think that's a bit strong. I don't think the vast majority of us here disagree with you on the need for a type specimen. I think many of us have differing ethical views on whether it's the right thing to do for various reasons. That's just a difference of opinion. Having a difference of opinion on this particular topic does not make you either wrong or right, or going in the wrong direction, as you put it. You don't need a consensus of opinion from us to get a group together to attempt to secure a specimen. If you feel that way why don't you try petitioning a sponsor or organizing something to accomplish the goal? You can always deal with the fall out later because tomorrow is another day, as Scarlett O'Hara always said.

Substitute " I'll think of some way to get that bigfoot" for "I'll think of some way to get him back."

[Guest]

It amazes me also that more has not been done or news forthcoming about these hairs because if they were tested and they came back as a species never ever before documented and the locals say there are Yetis there, then i would think this is pretty good news.Because we do know that Snow Leopards exist, we know that Yaks are there,and maybe a sun bear or other bear type and it is been determined that it is none of these.Not much else up there at the top of the world right ?

[southernyahoo]

But footprints are not suppose to convince anyone, but a hair sample is, because you can extract DNA.

I think if you go back and watch the DT episode you will hear Dr. Ketchum tell Gates that more samples like it would be needed to establish a population and indeed a new species. The amount of DNA you can get from hairs can be limited but can be matched to higher yeild samples like tissue.

When you look at the definition of species you can find a number of ways to establish a new one, but each one includes an established population of the particular organism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Typological species A group of organisms in which individuals are members of the species if they sufficiently conform to certain fixed properties or "rights of passage". The clusters of variations or phenotypes within specimens (i.e. longer or shorter tails) would differentiate the species. This method was used as a "classical" method of determining species, such as with Linnaeus early in evolutionary theory. However, we now know that different phenotypes do not always constitute different species (e.g.: a 4-winged Drosophila born to a 2-winged mother is not a different species). Species named in this manner are called morphospecies.^[13]Morphological species A population or group of populations that differs morphologically from other populations. For example, we can distinguish between a chicken and a duck because they have different shaped bills and the duck has webbed feet. Species have been defined in this way since well before the beginning of recorded history. This species concept is highly criticized because more recent genetic data reveal that genetically distinct populations may look very similar and, contrarily, large morphological differences sometimes exist between very closely related populations. Nonetheless, most species known have been described solely from morphology.Biological / Isolation species A set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations. This is generally a useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but more problematic for organisms that do not reproduce sexually. The results of breeding experiments done in artificial conditions may or may not reflect what would happen if the same organisms encountered each other in the wild, making it difficult to gauge whether or not the results of such experiments are meaningful in reference to natural populations.Biological / reproductive species Two organisms that are able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species.Recognition speciesBased on shared reproductive systems, including mating behavior. The Recognition concept of species has been introduced by Hugh E. H. Paterson, after earlier work by Wilhelm Petersen.Mate-recognition species A group of organisms that are known to recognize one another as potential mates. Like the isolation species concept above, it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually. Unlike the isolation species concept, it focuses specifically on pre-mating reproductive isolation.Evolutionary / Darwinian species A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, some members may diverge from the main population and evolve into a subspecies, a process that eventually will lead to the formation of a new full species if isolation (geographical or ecological) is maintained.Phylogenetic (Cladistic)^{[verification needed]} A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another: when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are regarded as separate species. This differs from evolutionary species in that the parent species goes extinct taxonomically when a new species evolve, the mother and daughter populations now forming two new species. Subspecies as such are not recognized under this approach; either a population is a phylogenetic species or it is not taxonomically distinguishable.Ecological speciesA set of organisms adapted to a particular set of resources, called a niche, in the environment. According to this concept, populations form the discrete phonetic clusters that we recognize as species because the ecological and evolutionary processes controlling how resources are divided up tend to produce those clusters.Genetic species Based on similarity of DNA of individuals or populations. Techniques to compare similarity of DNA include DNA-DNA hybridization, and genetic fingerprinting (or DNA barcoding).Phenetic speciesBased on phenotypes.^{[verification needed]}Microspecies Species that reproduce without meiosis or fertilization so that each generation is genetically identical to the previous generation. See also apomixis.Cohesion species Most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms. This is an expansion of the mate-recognition species concept to allow for post-mating isolation mechanisms; no matter whether populations can hybridize successfully, they are still distinct cohesion species if the amount of hybridization is insufficient to completely mix their respective gene pools.Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) An evolutionarily significant unit is a population of organisms that is considered distinct for purposes of conservation. Often referred to as a species or a wildlife species, an ESU also has several possible definitions, which coincide with definitions of species.

[Guest parnassus]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/gates-ketchum.htm

That will tell u what Ketchum said. U can read it. There are only three points that are informative:

1. The DNA shows human markers

2. It does not match any known "animal"

3. The hair strands look thick to Ketchum.

Not rocket science: it's human DNA and the hair is that of a human with thick hair i.e. an east Asian, who, by the way, has a number of DNA polymorphisms not found in the typical American DNA. East Asians and Native Americans have thick hair, and polymorphisms different from most Americans.

Edited February 24, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest parnassus]

The Snelgrove Lake DNA, the "Yeti" hair and DNA, and the pending Paulides hair, bone and DNA are all of the same sort: East Asian or Native American hair and DNA. The bug DNA expert didn't recognize it in the Snelgrove Lake sample, but he does now. Ketchum the vet didn't recognize it, but she will be told if she ever submits it for peer review. I see that Paulides is now hedging his statements about publishing a paper, so Ketchum may already have been clued in by someone, maybe Todd Disotell. I imagine that the whole DNA thing will die an awkward death in the next thee months.

Edited February 24, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest Blackdog]

The Snelgrove Lake DNA, the "Yeti" hair and DNA, and the pending Paulides hair, bone and DNA are all of the same sort: East Asian or Native American hair and DNA. The bug DNA expert didn't recognize it in the Snelgrove Lake sample, but he does now.

Source?

Edited February 24, 2011 by Blackdog

[norseman]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/gates-ketchum.htm

That will tell u what Ketchum said. U can read it. There are only three points that are informative:

1. The DNA shows human markers

2. It does not match any known "animal"

3. The hair strands look thick to Ketchum.

Not rocket science: it's human DNA and the hair is that of a human with thick hair i.e. an east Asian, who, by the way, has a number of DNA polymorphisms not found in the typical American DNA. East Asians and Native Americans have thick hair, and polymorphisms different from most Americans.

Does this not conflict with:

Josh travels to Texas to meet with a forensic analyst who confirms that the hairs are from an unknown sequence.

If Native American DNA is not cataloged in Texas? That's a pretty narrow catalog.

[Guest parnassus]

Curtis M. Nelson, Dept. Of Entomology, University of Minnesota

[Guest parnassus]

Does this not conflict with:

Josh travels to Texas to meet with a forensic analyst who confirms that the hairs are from an unknown sequence.

If Native American DNA is not cataloged in Texas? That's a pretty narrow catalog.

Your supposed account Is NOT what Ketchum said; pls read WHAT KETCHUM SAID at the link I provided. Your supposed account is just Inaccurate, which u will see if u read what she actually said.

[Guest RayG]

I find this part somewhat puzzling:

Ketchum: The hair, visually, is not human.

Visually? Does she mean as viewed with the unaided eye? Why wouldn't she say microscopically?

RayG

Edited February 24, 2011 by RayG

[Guest ajciani]

East Asians and Native Americans have a few polymorphisms not found in the West Asian, European and African populations, but their DNA is still very, very similar to normal DNA. In fact, the DNA in Native American populations has been traced back to family lines in Europe and Western Asia. The polymorphisms found in the samples Ketchum and "the bug DNA expert" analyzed would be the difference between human and pre-human, or would be VERY atypical for humans of any ethnic background. Some of the polymorphisms were known to exist as traits in individual family lines, while others had been unobserved. Finding the known ones together in the same individual shouldn't happen, but statistically could by a very small chance. The unknown polymorphisms could be a new find in the human genome, or some sort of error.

The reason this requires more testing is that a single sample could be from a mutant individual, or degraded. There could be a 1 in 1 billion chance of finding a human with all of these various polymorphisms, but if 20 consistent samples showing these polymorphisms show up in 20 different places, then it looks a lot less like 1:1,000,000,000, and a lot more like a new, near-human species.

As an educational primer:

A polymorphism is a point of divergence. For example, the same gene (named "Pra") might read

1) ATG CCG ATG ACG ... TTA GAC GAC TAT CCC TAG

or

2) ATG CCG AAG ACG ... TTA GAC GAC TAG CCC TAG

or

3) AAG CCG ATG ACG ... TTA GAC GAC TAG CCC TAG

or

4) AAG CCG ATG ACG ... TTA GAC GAC TAG CCC TAG

The effect of the change between #1 and #2 is to shorten the gene by 2 codons on the tail end (premature termination). The difference between #1 and #3 shortens the gene by 2 codons on the head end (later start). Sequence #4 is just a combination of both #2 and #3. For simplicity, I will list the name of each gene as three letters followed by the ordinal number of the observed specific sequence; for example, from the above, Pra-1, Pra-2, Pra-3, and Pra-4.

So within different family lines, we might find mtDNA sequences coding for:

AF: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-2, Smi-4, Ret-3, Rat-2, Ghe-1, Jun-1, Pro-2

NE: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-4, Ret-3, Rat-2, Ghe-1, Jun-1, Pro-3

WA: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-2, Smi-3, Ret-3, Rat-2, Ghe-2, Jun-1, Pro-3

EA: Pra-2, Bet-1, Jaz-2, Smi-4, Ret-3, Rat-2, Ghe-2, Jun-1, Pro-3

NA: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-2, Smi-4, Ret-3, Rat-2, Ghe-2, Jun-1, Pro-3

Chimp: Pra-1, Bet-2, Jaz-3, Smi-2, Ret-2, Rat-1, Rat-2, Ghe-1, Jun-2, Pro-4

Orang: Pra-2, Bet-2, Jaz-4, Smi-2, Ret-2, Rat-3, Rat-2, Ghe-1, Jun-3, Pro-4

In this hypothetical exercise, we see that Chimps and Orangs have an extra copy of Rat, as well as non-human versions of Jaz, Smi, Ret, Jun, and Pro. All humans have Bet-1, Jaz-2, Ret-3, Rat-2, and Jun-1, and share versions of Pra, Rat, and Ghe with apes. Family AF has Pro-2 while all others have Pro-3, and family NE has Jaz-1 while all others have Jaz-2. Only AF and WA have Smi-3.

Unknown: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-2, Rat-1, Ghe-1, Jun-1, Pro-2

The unknown is strange. It has Pro-2, but also has Jaz-1, which is never found together with Pro-2. It also has Smi-3, which is never found with Jaz-1 or Pro-2. This is a combination of three genes normally not found together. Not only that, but it has Ret-2 and Rat-1. No human has Ret-2, or Rat-1. These are genes found in apes, but the unknown only has 1 copy of Rat, so it is not an ape.

So what are we looking at? Is this just some mutant human with throwback genes? These polymorphisms are not encountered in any analyzed human population. It must be a mutant, there is only one sample. Then we get multiple samples....

Unknown-1: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-2, Rat-1, Ghe-1, Jun-1, Pro-2

Unknown-2: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-2, Rat-1, Rat-2, Ghe-1, Jun-2, Pro-2

Unknown-3: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-3, Rat-1, Ghe-1, Jun-2, Pro-2

Unknown-4: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-2, Rat-1, Rat-2, Ghe-1, Jun-1, Pro-2

Unknown-5: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-3, Rat-1, Ghe-2, Jun-2, Pro-2

Unknown-6: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-2, Rat-1, Ghe-1, Jun-2, Pro-2

Something becomes clear. These are multiple individuals, but they often have the throwback gene Ret-2, and often have throwbacks Rat-1 and Jun-2, and sometimes have an extra copy of Rat. There is a pattern emerging, which possibly indicates an unknown human family, but with so many throwback genes, it is more likely to be a different species.

The reason the samples sometimes return human is that the test hits on Ret-3, which is present in some. Other times, it hits on Rat-1 and shows ape, but it doesn't know which kind because those tests look for Jaz-3 and Jaz-4.

So you can see that a large sample is required to build up a genetic pattern for the species. That pattern may also tell us where it lies in the phylogenetic tree.