DNA (Where is the DNA?)

[Backdoc]

Subject:   Bigfoot DNA

 

Ok.  I'll admit it. I find this DNA thing confusing or at least all over the map.    I get the science and the uniqueness of what it means.    I read in the news how scientists studying sewer water can tell us there is some uptick in the Covid or Polo Cases in some Zip Code.  Good enough.  We know DNA can tell us if we are the father of the child or if it's the mail man.

 

 

What about Bigfoot?

 

What is the best DNA evidence supporting the fact Bigfoot might exist or does exist?  I saw a Bigfoot expert on some YouTube video where the guy essentially said "any sample claiming DNA evidence of Bigfoot might be suspect unless [he] knew exactly how it was collected" or he might assume human contamination.   Is there any hope of finding Bigfoot DNA should Bigfoot exist?   I can understand maybe some stool sample or blood sample should we be lucky enough to have that. 

 

 

Could a person take DNA out of a stream and confirm Grizzly bears in the area? If so, why not Bigfoot?   Can we even know what Bigfoot's DNA is even supposed to look like?

 

 

It would seem DNA has a great chance to prove bigfoot exists instead of hoping for the next modern PGF.

 

Where is the DNA evidence?

 

What are the weaknesses of any claimed evidence?

 

 

Edited August 20, 2024 by Backdoc

[norseman]

If it’s close to human DNA? It would probably be better to send it to 23 and me than a wildlife lab. Because if Bigfoot and Humans share more common DNA than even a Chimp? Then a geneticist is gonna have to do the due diligence to run it out instead of claiming human contamination.

 

I get blamed for comparing Bigfoot to Apes a lot. Which it and we are….. But if it’s of our lineage? Of course it being bipedal puts it closer to us. That’s not negotiable. Bipedalism set humans apart from the rest of the great apes. Of which we are most closely related to Chimpanzees who are not bipedal.

 

The only other plausible theory is convergent evolution. Think like a linage of Orangutans has become bipedal and left SE Asia millions of years ago. We would still be related to it. But not nearly as closely.

 

Dr. Mayor scored a DNA hit of Chimpanzee DNA in Kentucky. She also has discovered legitimate new species of Primates before. I feel like she is the right person for the job. She is a scientist, she has been in the field, and she has had success in primates.
 

And technology is getting better all the time.

[MIB]

Part 1 : we can grizzly, etc because we have type sample of grizzly.   We have something to match to.

Part 2 : we don't know what bigfoot is.   It is near impossible to tell "near human" from "degraded human" reliably with DNA.

 

I think the best we could do with environmental DNA is to say that there is a source of unknown DNA that is consistent making environmental degradation less likely because of consistency across samples.

[Huntster]

36 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

........I find this DNA thing confusing or at least all over the map..........

It's confusing BECAUSE  it's all over the map, and it's all over the map because there are an unlimited number of intellectual tyrants trying to redraw the map at any and all particular moments. Example: DNA collected from a nest that still has green leaflets on some of the twigs used to weave the nest is somehow too degraded to yield results, yet a 45,000 year old sliver of petrified finger bone can yield so much information that entire new lines of humanity (perhaps 5% or more of the current human population) can be 'created' from the 'new' lineage.

 

It's all bullspit, just like all the other scientific stories out there. You're not being informed. You're being indoctrinated. Like usual, and like always.

[Catmandoo]

eDNA from the Pliocene era has been recovered from Greenland. About 2.5 million years old. The Danes worked for many many years to develop an extraction technique. The reason eDNA survived is that it combined with several minerals and was preserved. The Pliocene was warmer than the current Earth climate. The Danes are using the flora eDNA to genetically engineer plants to grow in warmer climates.

 

A simple reason that eDNA fails is that the human sampler contaminates the sample. Without a type sample on record makes evaluations difficult to impossible to reach conclusions about our cousins.

 

Am I the only one who sees that people with 3 letters behind their names and an IMDb pages take failed eDNA / DNA results and go wild ( go ape ) on the entertainment genre? 

 

Unfortunately, the legacy of sampling is poor. The first DNA sent to the FBI for analysis was submitted on April 1st. A short time ago, American black bear hair was sent to Russia, then to Bryan Sykes as  Almasty hair. What an insult.

 

I am waiting for Hiflier to pop up with the gizmo  that he is making for eDNA sampling.

Edited August 20, 2024 by Catmandoo
text

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I mean, it's been a minute, but yah there are too many hairs that tested human, the lack of the medulla, et. The blood from the Snellgrove Lake spike board that tested human like, unknown primate...that is the jihst of most samples, unknown primate or human.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Since there are examples of obviously unknown primates  collected and analyzed, the logical conclusion is the answer. 

 

[xspider1]

Could be a mouse Lemur though!  Maybe a Lemur couple just had one really Big, ugly, stinky baby.  

[Darby Orcutt]

@Backdoc

 

Great questions, and it's not unusual for folks in this community to be confused about issues of DNA. For one, most of the info floating around the BF community is misinformation (most of it hopefully unintentionally so). It is also difficult for folks to understand (without actually knowing about DNA methods) why scientists can do some almost "magical" things with DNA in some areas and yet other areas of knowledge are not yet well fleshed out at all.

 

I check in on the BFF only every few months to see what folks are asking/posting that's DNA-related. Not bragging, but stating a fact: I am the only one leading credible DNA study of potential Sasquatch samples:

https://sites.google.com/ncsu.edu/darbyorcutt/

 

Please LMK what questions you may have, as I'm sure others have the same ones. Cliff Barackman wants me to come back on his podcast soon, and I want to address the things that things that folks in the BF community are wondering about.

 

The *brief* answers to your questions are:

1) There has been very little credible testing of potential BF DNA, period. Cliff mentioned my work on tracking down prior testing during his last Q&A podcast. Most "results" are rumors, misunderstandings, or made-for-TV fictions or spin.

2) Yes, if Bigfoot is indeed an unknown species, we'd absolutely be able to tell that if we were presented with BF DNA samples. That said, depending on what a potential such species actually were, it might require a qualified team actually really looking for such to find it (which is one of the reasons I started this project).

3) Environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques are extremely powerful for looking for *known* DNA sequences, which is why the almost magical examples that you mention (Covid detection in wastewater, Grizzly detection in the wild). Generally speaking, eDNA is an exceedingly much harder path towards discovery of new species.

 

Darby Orcutt

NC State University

[Dave]

On 8/25/2024 at 8:08 PM, Darby Orcutt said:

@Backdoc

 

Great questions, and it's not unusual for folks in this community to be confused about issues of DNA. For one, most of the info floating around the BF community is misinformation (most of it hopefully unintentionally so). It is also difficult for folks to understand (without actually knowing about DNA methods) why scientists can do some almost "magical" things with DNA in some areas and yet other areas of knowledge are not yet well fleshed out at all.

 

I check in on the BFF only every few months to see what folks are asking/posting that's DNA-related. Not bragging, but stating a fact: I am the only one leading credible DNA study of potential Sasquatch samples:

https://sites.google.com/ncsu.edu/darbyorcutt/

 

Please LMK what questions you may have, as I'm sure others have the same ones. Cliff Barackman wants me to come back on his podcast soon, and I want to address the things that things that folks in the BF community are wondering about.

 

The *brief* answers to your questions are:

1) There has been very little credible testing of potential BF DNA, period. Cliff mentioned my work on tracking down prior testing during his last Q&A podcast. Most "results" are rumors, misunderstandings, or made-for-TV fictions or spin.

2) Yes, if Bigfoot is indeed an unknown species, we'd absolutely be able to tell that if we were presented with BF DNA samples. That said, depending on what a potential such species actually were, it might require a qualified team actually really looking for such to find it (which is one of the reasons I started this project).

3) Environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques are extremely powerful for looking for *known* DNA sequences, which is why the almost magical examples that you mention (Covid detection in wastewater, Grizzly detection in the wild). Generally speaking, eDNA is an exceedingly much harder path towards discovery of new species.

 

Darby Orcutt

NC State University

 

How fast is DNA technology moving? To ask another way, what's the degree of advancement, say, 2020 to 2024 vs 1980 to 2000?

[Davo the blue]

Enormous.  There was little to no DNA tech in 1980 by 2000 it was a massive and utilisable science.  In the last 4 years I don't know exactly how far forward it's moved but sampleable sizes get smaller and older.  I'm not a geneticist so I can't answer specifically but I do work regularly with law enforcement in the UK (I'm in IT forensics) and they utilise it ever more for proof of guilt and innocence.  DNA ancestry is the big thing of the moment over here and I've seen several cases over there (eg Golden State killer) where it's been used.  Every breakthrough will get worked to death until the next one comes along.

Edited September 11, 2024 by Davo the blue

[bipedalist]

bump

[wiiawiwb]

On 8/20/2024 at 2:46 PM, MIB said:

Part 2 : we don't know what bigfoot is.   It is near impossible to tell "near human" from "degraded human" reliably with DNA.

 

 

Let me start by saying I know almost nothing as it relates to DNA processing and results.  Having said that, why is it nearly impossible to distinguish near human from degraded human? If a DNA sample was determined to be 99% human, why would the issue of degraded come into play? For example, I think chimps share ~98.5% similar DNA with humans but we don't call that result degraded.

[Darby Orcutt]

@wiiawiwb Generally speaking, it would indeed not difficult to distinguish these if that was what you were intending to do. However, in practice:

1) If DNA is sufficiently degraded, it can indeed become very difficult if not impossible to distinguish closely related species (e.g., you might be able to tell that a sequence is from Hominidae ("great apes") but not which one).

2) For cost and efficiency, scientists often use less discriminating tests and analytical short cuts. Since in North America, only Homo sapiens are the only known (native) Hominidae (and since there are so many of us everywhere), findings of Hominidae sequences would be assumed to be human; no one would typically bother to look more deeply.  

[bipedalist]

At this point in the DNA search for the genotype of Sasquatch, increasingly it seems increasingly remote that we will be finding archaeological remnants of the organism but the technology of archaeogenetics is evolving so if an when something pops up perhaps technology will be refined enough to step up to the plate.