Bigfoot Dna

[Guest]

I'm not the DNA expert by any means but, as I understand it, all living things accumulate genetic mutations along their genome over thousands of years. Some species split off from existing ones and become new ones. Bigfoot is described as a bipedal humanoid type creature but with the distinction of hairyness and robust size. If it exists, it's DNA will have a relatedness to other known great apes but with it's own mutations somewhere in it's genome. The DNA plus it's mutations will not only place it on the primate/hominid branch of the phylogenetic tree of life, but distinguish it as a new species.

Multiple samples with the same unique mutations (and good provenance) is the clincher, because it would establish a population of them.

The quick and dirty method is to sequence the mitochondria DNA, that will give a good idea. The nuclear DNA is more comprehensive but will take much longer.

[indiefoot]

If we can't catch one one, maybe some one will clone one.

[Guest Llawgoch]

To answer some of your questions, they can come up with partial strands that can definitely put the animal in the primate category. It would take several good quality DNA samples and more than one living or dead specimen to define a new species. I think all that has been obtained so far in the way of DNA is partial samples, and don't forget, we fall into the category of primate too, so one could say it was a contaminated specimen as well as an unknown primate.

Well exactly. 'Unknown primate' is always hailed as an exciting finding but does it actually mean anything more than "actually, it could be human". Does anyone actually have any reference to someone claiming an 'unknown primate' result as meaning 'undiscovered primate' rather than just generally a primate but we're not sure which one? Because if the result is "could be human", it's obviously worthless. When 'uknown primate' is reported, which of these meanings did they say they were using?

What I don't know is whether that's how DNA works. Can DNA findings put something into the category of primate? Or are the sequences distinct enough that if we have a partial sequence, we'd just not know what it was, rather than be able to attribute it to an order of mammals rather than a species. As in, this could be anything from a slow loris to a human, but it's certainly not a rodent.

[Guest]

It's the later, they can only give you a ball park idea of what it is which , as you say, could be a lemur or a human but definitely isn't a reptile or rodent. Another thing people don't realize, and I touched on this in the old forum, there is a vast difference between a forensic DNA lab and a commercial DNA lab. Forensic labs have tighter quality controls and accreditation standards. You can send the same sample to various commercial labs and get several different results depending on what protocols they follow and what standards they adhere to, just FYI.

[indiefoot]

"Unknown Primate" would exclude humans since we are primates. Dr Ketchum already released the finding on the original sample and she excluded humans by visual examination. I assume she has done further work on those samples and possibly others if I remember an older post correctly. I believe she was collecting samples.

[southernyahoo]

This is an excellent article on Primate DNA and species ID. DNA can get you alot closer to a cryptic hominid than just primate, don't let anyone kid you folks.

http://www.bolinfonet.org/pdf/Hajibabaei_et_al_2006_Benchmarking_DNA_barcodes.pdf

[Guest]

It's the later, they can only give you a ball park idea of what it is which , as you say, could be a lemur or a human but definitely isn't a reptile or rodent. Another thing people don't realize, and I touched on this in the old forum, there is a vast difference between a forensic DNA lab and a commercial DNA lab. Forensic labs have tighter quality controls and accreditation standards. You can send the same sample to various commercial labs and get several different results depending on what protocols they follow and what standards they adhere to, just FYI.

this is the lab jodie, it appears they do forensic stuff too, so I would venture to say they would do the right job...

http://www.dnadiagnostics.com/index.html

[Guest Llawgoch]

This is an excellent article on Primate DNA and species ID. DNA can get you alot closer to a cryptic hominid than just primate, don't let anyone kid you folks.

http://www.bolinfonet.org/pdf/Hajibabaei_et_al_2006_Benchmarking_DNA_barcodes.pdf

I May be wrong but this doesnt in any way rule out an assumption that 'unknown primate' could mean human. I may have missed the point that proved this, please tell me where it is if I did.

[Guest Llawgoch]

"Unknown Primate" would exclude humans since we are primates. Dr Ketchum already released the finding on the original sample and she excluded humans by visual examination. I assume she has done further work on those samples and possibly others if I remember an older post correctly. I believe she was collecting samples.

Did she? Where did she say this? Once again, I want to know if unknown primate means 'undiscovered primate' or "primate, but not enough info to tell which"

[Guest]

this is the lab jodie, it appears they do forensic stuff too, so I would venture to say they would do the right job...

http://www.dnadiagnostics.com/index.html

Yes, that lab company has a good reputation. As for the article in the previous post in order to get the long bands they are referring to you would have to have a good sample to work with, and as far as I know, I don't think we have that yet with bigfoot. The short bands won't give you the specificity you would need for identifying a cryptid. Saying something is an unknown primate or contaminated is probably about the best any good lab could do with suspected bigfoot hair or dung as a sample. However, I think they have just recently improved the process of extracting amplifiable DNA from hair without the root ball attached.

In identifying criminals, they only use 13 areas, out of the 3 billion base pairs we have, that have the most variation to determine the person's identity. The reason for this is because it is extremely rare to have two people with all 13 the same, although not impossible. You use the DNA evidence in conjunction with other evidence when going to trial. DNA by itself is never 100% conclusive, even for humans, whether it is for diagnostic purposes or just a matter of establishing identity or relationships between individuals. That may change in the future as we progress and the process becomes less expensive, more exact, and easier to do.

I think someone had previously mentioned the DNA extracted from the ancient finger segment. It is extremely difficult to do that, they got lucky. In order to get DNA from an ancient specimen you have to be able to get pretty close to the age of the specimen and know what climatic and other environmental conditions were at the time that person lived to be able to replicate the DNA strand from the sample for identification. You also have to have many amplifications yielding the same result because the older the sample is the more likely you are to get false mitochondrial DNA strands. It is by no means a cut and dry process now, but that doesn't mean advances won't improve the process in the future.

I'm not discounting that people are finding valid evidence I'm just explaining why at this point in time it may not be good enough to say with any certainty that it is an unknown primate due to the limitations in the processes. That doesn't mean that it will always be that way. If you find a hair ball, giant foot prints, and a pile of poop in the middle of no where, and get it analyzed by two or three different labs resulting in "unknown primate" as a result, that in combination with your area and the circumstances you found it in would make me think that there was a high probability of it being a sasquatch. Yet you could never say that it definitely was, just something unknown. Do you see what I'm saying?

[indiefoot]

Did she? Where did she say this? Once again, I want to know if unknown primate means 'undiscovered primate' or "primate, but not enough info to tell which"

It was in the Destination Truth thread on the old site. Dr Ketchum did the work on the hair that were recovered in Bhutan.

[Guest]

Did she? Where did she say this? Once again, I want to know if unknown primate means 'undiscovered primate' or "primate, but not enough info to tell which"

Look where I pointed out in my long winded post how they use human DNA to ID criminals. They use similar markers on other primates and animals. Unknown primate means it is a primate but we don't know what kind.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Look where I pointed out in my long winded post how they use human DNA to ID criminals. They use similar markers on other primates and animals. Unknown primate means it is a primate but we don't know what kind.

So 'unknown primate' does mean 'could be human'. Fine.

but then you say

"If you find a hair ball, giant foot prints, and a pile of poop in the middle of no where, and get it analyzed by two or three different labs resulting in "unknown primate" as a result, that in combination with your area and the circumstances you found it in would make me think that there was a high probability of it being a sasquatch."

So three labs analysing something as possibly human would make you think it was Bigfoot? How does this make sense?

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

I wish them luck on their paper. I'm sure it will be an interesting and informative read if published. Unfortunately, until there is a specimen on file to compare DNA results with, any DNA evidence collected will simply be affixed with the now common finding as "an unknown primate". Until someone finally brings in the critter(s) that supplied the DNA sample and possibly another one like it for a rock solid DNA comparison. I put an (s) behind critter because again unfortunately, according to my research, it took 2 specimens of gorilla to put them on the books. I hope with the advances made in our science since then we'll not require more than 1 body this time. Chris B.

[southernyahoo]

I May be wrong but this doesnt in any way rule out an assumption that 'unknown primate' could mean human. I may have missed the point that proved this, please tell me where it is if I did.

If a lab tells you a sample is not human but is primate, how would you prove them wrong? Unknown primate is not human because humans are primates and the sample is unknown. If you prefer your opinion over science in such cases then don't bother with science. The Lab would be able to match a sample to a known with no trouble and they do just that, everyday.

Thats the point of the paper I posted.