Backdoc Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 (edited) 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 by Backdoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 20 Admin Share Posted August 20 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted August 20 Moderator Share Posted August 20 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catmandoo Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 (edited) 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 by Catmandoo text Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 Since there are examples of obviously unknown primates collected and analyzed, the logical conclusion is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 Could be a mouse Lemur though! Maybe a Lemur couple just had one really Big, ugly, stinky baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darby Orcutt Posted August 26 Share Posted August 26 @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 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davo the blue Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 (edited) 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 by Davo the blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts