Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) That's both old school and the planned fall back when the new DNA craze is over with. Edited November 23, 2011 by RedRatSnake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Huge assumption. Why assume such? I know you are smarter than to half quote me... shameful if so from a man who claims any respectability.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 If you use Firefox, you can download a plugin called Greasemonkey that will allow you to change all references to "bigfoot" and "sasquatch" to "unknown primate". That will solve your problem. Unfortunately it can't stop you from drawing any inferences from the fact the samples were collected from areas of purported Bigfoot activity. Nothing "purported" about HUMAN primate activity there...it's actual, real and undisputed, and therefore human DNA is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagniAesir Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 My vote for this thread would have been to lock it or merge it. All these threads seem to be counting the number of angels on a pin. All we seem to be doing is speculating with unknown data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) I have been asking that questions for months and only get back some gigantic answer that didn't answer anything, BF must be the only animal with little tags on it's DNA that says. Made In America Genuine Bigfoot You're saying the discovery of "unknown primate" DNA in North America wouldn't be a major discovery? Because all you need is a drop of blood to make that call. Yeah, I get it....we wouldn't know if the creature was eight feet tall and had big feet and bad breath. Some of us might wonder though if A - it's a coincidence that the "positive" samples were obtained in areas of purported Bigfoot sightings and B - the guy that provided the flesh sample that tested "positive" was telling the truth when he described a hairy, eight foot tall bipedal hominid. Regardless of whether you draw the same conclusions, it would still be a huge discovery. But we get it, you're not going to determine the morphology of the creature from it's genetic information (not yet, anyway). So what? I wouldn't be surprised at all if the words Bigfoot and Sasquatch never appear in the final paper. Nothing "purported" about HUMAN primate activity there...it's actual, real and undisputed, and therefore human DNA is there. Ketchum sure is going through a lot of trouble and expense to prove human beings leave DNA in the woods - not to mention the peer review troubles (you'd think it'd be a slam dunk; I mean, just the other day I left some DNA in the woods). If I were of the mind to reject this out of hand, I'd go with hoax. It's actually a lot more plausible. Edited November 23, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Just read stubstad's take and it seem to me the dna could be the 1 in a million human dna or a dna of a bf. If you assume that there is 5000 bf in the world you are still more likely to have a 1 in a million human dna. 7 billion human dna and 5000 bf. How many samples are in the gen bank?. Does anyone know. Is it one million. I can not find my source now, but I do remember reading that GenBank has about 750,000 human profiles in their catalog. I used that point to argue with Stubstad that his mtDNA very well could be modern human since there are over 6 billion people in the world. I guess it finally sunk in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 You're saying the discovery of "unknown primate" DNA in North America wouldn't be a major discovery? Because all you need is a drop of blood to make that call. Yeah, I get it....we wouldn't know if the creature was eight feet tall and had big feet and bad breath. Some of us might wonder though if A - it's a coincidence that the "positive" samples were obtained in areas of purported Bigfoot sightings and B - the guy that provided the flesh sample that tested "positive" was telling the truth when he described a hairy, eight foot tall bipedal hominid. Regardless of whether you draw the same conclusions, it would still be a huge discovery. But we get it, you're not going to determine the morphology of the creature from it's genetic information (not yet, anyway). So what? I don't remember saying or suggesting any of that. ??? Your putting a lot of trust in this story, i have a feeling you didn't think it out and just have a strong feeling that there needs to be a BF, that's not sound reasoning. I have no problem with there being a BF but history say's it just ain't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The most exciting development here is Stubstad's use of the word 'sasquatch' as a plural to described the creatures in question. I just hope he doesn't have a 'sasquaii' relapse. I could have wrote that paragraph myself word fir word! Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 It is confusing, just as we discussed in chat last night. If you have been a witness and know it exists, it really is irrelevant as to what the study's results will turn out to be. The longer this goes on, the more I have to assume it is more complicated than expected. I hope Dr. Ketchum has the right help to manage such a monumental task. The most I can hope for is a unique genome that is far enough away from modern human so that it can be said that we have something unidentified living in the woods of North America. The closer the results are to modern human, the less definitive the results will be unfortunately. The more likely it is to be declared contaminated or misinterpreted. Either way, no one is going to be declaring bigfoot exists based on this one study. People can argue that we have living tissue, just as we had bone fragments for Denisovans, but in this case I believe a type specimen is needed. As an example, a floor plan of a house isn't going to tell you what that house will look like on the outside once it is built. The thought of another form of contemporary homo is a little hard to swallow when compared to remains that existed 1000's of years ago. And that's just the way it is, whether you like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 "What's 'DNA'...? {Thought I'd toss-in a little humor....} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 not to be confused with NDA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) I don't remember saying or suggesting any of that. ??? Your putting a lot of trust in this story, i have a feeling you didn't think it out and just have a strong feeling that there needs to be a BF, that's not sound reasoning. I have no problem with there being a BF but history say's it just ain't there. I'm tired of hearing DNA can't prove anything. That's ridiculous. Will Ketchum prove to me there's an undiscovered hominoid out there? The safe bet says no. But since I haven't seen any evidence of hoaxing, I'm giving her benefit of the doubt. That's how I roll. I'll say this...I'm not taking anyone's word on the existence of these things. This study strikes me as the last, best chance to prove it. If Ketchum and the various researchers (some high profile and respected in the BF community) can't deliver the goods, I'll probably assume these things don't exist. I won't lock the door, but you won't see me signing in and arguing about the latest blobsquatch on YouTube. No pressure, Melba. Edited November 23, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Well there are a lot ways that a specimen can be contaminated and the kits that they use to isolate contaminates won't catch everything. You can spend an awful lot of time thinking you are looking at similarities that are really just the same contaminate in each amplification. It can lead to false conclusions regarding the "polymorphisms" seen just like the one we are discussing in this thread. Now if a researcher wants to argue about those polymorphisms versus contaminates it can cause a very big delay in the publication of the sequence when they refuse to remove them. If this is the case as rumored, what is left is probably so close to human that it can't be distinguished from us. That's probably what the hold up is if I had to guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) I won't lock the door, but you won't see me signing in and arguing about the latest blobsquatch on YouTube. No pressure, Melba. Fifty bucks says ya stick around. This Bigfoot ***** like crack ya know.... Ed: add remove expletive. Add goofy emoticons. Edited November 23, 2011 by Strick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Luckyfoot Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 So maybe this should be looked at in an inverse in not how BF is close to us, but how we got so close to the species some how... Just sayin' I wonder if it included some roses and a box of chocolates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts