Leaderboard

I think that’s because we are the only species left in the genus Homo (officially). So we get to claim not only the species prize but the genus prize as well. And I think those scientists are used to speaking from that angle. Finding another species belonging to the genus Homo would be earth shattering for science. But even a North American great ape would do that.

My pleasure, NorthWind. I am a gadget junky, so I am always on the lookout for deals on field equipment. If I ever run across a great deal on the Scout TK, I will be sure to post it up here. It has internal memory. Enough for about 4 hours of video and around 1000 photos. You can then download the images via the included USB cable. All in all, a very user friendly piece of equipment.

Don't forget there is roughly 3B base pairs in human DNA. If 1% are different, you are still talking about 30M base pairs that are different and each one will cause something to be a little bit different. 30 million little differences can certainly make a big difference.

Used ones come up on eBay fairly frequently, although you will probably get one out of warranty. I looked for awhile before finding a deal on a one. The best regular price that I could find was through Scheels. $499...free shipping and no sales tax. They are out of stock now, but keep an eye out and I am sure that they will get it back in stock. FLIR Scout

Something I should probably be doing myself LOL.

Didn't you or somebody else link to an article addressing that very question? I recently scanned over such an article, and the author argued in the affirmative. Whoops! Edited to admit that the blind guy (me) sees your link now. This illustrates why I fear snakes so much.......

^^^^ I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing the point: many physical traits can come from more than one DNA "source." Red hair, for instance, in some cases seems to come from that fraction of Neaderthal DNA, but not in every case. In other words, finding a physical trait present is non-deterministic so far as DNA "cause." You can work with probabilities but not certainties. The complexity there comes in where probabilities are essentially equal. Or, in other words, we're dealing with something non-deterministic. We want it to be, maybe so badly it blinds us to the fact that it simply is not. It's kind of pareidolia .. we're attaching too much meaning to coincidental convergence of data, connecting dots that don't belong connected. MIB

I agree, the unit's simplicity is terrific. And light enough to use for extended periods too. If there was ever a reasonably priced PASSIVE device to carry into the field this is the baby to take. The 9hz refresh rate is a complaint that some have but for quick scanning I have no issues "reading between the lines" to quickly check a perimeter. ANYTHING warm blooded will stand out and once one gets used to seeing such things and realizing the contrast differences then scanning becomes a non issue IMHO. Don't think I properly welcomed you to the BFF so welcome!

What stood out for me in this article: https://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-a-bunch-of-eel-dna-in-loch-ness-raising-questions-about-nessie-s-identity is the fact that soooo much DNA was found that belonged to land mammals. Needless to say, no Nessie: "There was - and this may or may not be a surprise, depending on your feelings about the Loch Ness Monster - absolutely no evidence of any Jurassic-era animal DNA, including plesiosaurs, in any of the samples tested.......We find a large amount of eel DNA. Eels are very plentiful in Loch Ness, with eel DNA found at pretty much every location sampled - there are a lot of them," the researchers wrote on the project's website. "Researchers had earlier suggested that a giant eel might explain some sightings. That idea then lost popularity as theories about extinct reptiles became more common. But there have been ongoing reports of very large eels by a number of witnesses." Specifically, the DNA is from European eels (Anguilla anguilla), which does present another problem. As far as biologists know, these fish don't grow any larger than about 1.5 metres (4 feet, 11 inches). To be consistent with Nessie reports, an eel would have to be quite a bit bigger. The data doesn't reveal the size of the eels shedding their DNA into the loch, but the whole idea is not without precedent. Another strange beast sighted in a highland loch could have been an eel. In 1865, a huge "sea serpent" was reported in a loch in Leurbost, eel-like in appearance - leading to the conclusion that it was, probably, an eel. More research will need to be undertaken to understand how an eel fits in with Monster sightings, if it does at all, but the team's findings revealed more about the loch than just ruling out Nessie candidates." What this really means for us Sasquatch researchers is that soil samples needn't be the ONLY place to search for Sasquatch DNA: "One of the more intriguing findings was the large amount of DNA from land-based species in the Loch system," the researchers wrote. "These included high levels of DNA from humans and a variety of species associated with us, such as dogs, sheep and cattle. We also detected wild species local to the area e.g. deer, badgers, foxes, rabbits, voles and multiple bird species. These findings show eDNA surveys of major waterways may be useful for rapidly surveying the biological diversity at a regional level." There has been a lot of water sampling done everywhere at minimum in the last five years. I think some deeper research needs to be done by folks here into just what F&W and academia is finding for land mammal DNA in their local ponds and lakes. It's something we never really hear about. Just stick with the science and all will be well. https://labs.wsu.edu/edna/documents/2015/05/field-protocol.pdf/

@at: The Point Event Center, 7989 NE Salish Ln, Kingston, WA $50 Friday, October 11, 2019 6-9pm PST meet and greet buffet dinner $40 Saturday, October 12, 2019, 10am PST speakers Pat Neal Ron Morehead Sonia Zohar Thom Powell Shane Corson Rich Germeau