Bigfoot Dna

[indiefoot]

Humans are a very well known primate, so are gorillas, chimps and so on. If it says "Unknown Primate" it means primate but not one we are familiar with.

[Guest]

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?

I'm working off the assumption that no human has size 27 feet or could poop small logs for turds. As I said, you take DNA evidence along with other circumstantial evidence to draw a conclusion. I'm also working off the assumption that bigfoot is indeed a primate, which is not a given until we find several of them to establish that fact.

[Guest gershake]

What else might it be, assuming it exists?

[Guest]

No one is incorrect, it just depends on how far you can take a sample. Visual comparison is subjective so I hope she has other peers verify that point.

If the DNA markers do not match all 13 regions used to ID something as human, but do match all markers for primate you still haven't ruled out that it could be human. It really depends on the quality of the sample, the amount of amplifications that come back with the same result. If you get a bunch of results that say human on one, gorilla on the other, and chimp on the other, etc. all you can say is that it is an unknown primate because you don't have the long strands to determine specificity. It says that in the paper that was posted.

Now if you had something like fresh blood or skin, you might be able to amplify it to n'th degree, but you are still going to come up with "unknown primate" because there isn't a sample in the database, as Chris said, of a Sasquatch to compare it to. I thought that was what they were trying to do with all of the samples gathered so far, to see if they get the same results each time they dilute and clone. After getting the same results over and over again, they will have something to justify mapping the genome, but until then, you won't have a pattern in the database for comparison. Your samples will always come back as "unknown primate" or " contaminated" even if you document that you used good technique in collecting the specimen.

[Guest]

No one is incorrect, it just depends on how far you can take a sample. Visual comparison is subjective so I hope she has other peers verify that point.

If the DNA markers do not match all 13 regions used to ID something as human, but do match all markers for primate you still haven't ruled out that it could be human. It really depends on the quality of the sample, the amount of amplifications that come back with the same result. If you get a bunch of results that say human on one, gorilla on the other, and chimp on the other, etc. all you can say is that it is an unknown primate because you don't have the long strands to determine specificity. It says that in the paper that was posted.

Now if you had something like fresh blood or skin, you might be able to amplify it to n'th degree, but you are still going to come up with "unknown primate" because there isn't a sample in the database, as Chris said, of a Sasquatch to compare it to. I thought that was what they were trying to do with all of the samples gathered so far, to see if they get the same results each time they dilute and clone. After getting the same results over and over again, they will have something to justify mapping the genome, but until then, you won't have a pattern in the database for comparison. Your samples will always come back as "unknown primate" or " contaminated" even if you document that you used good technique in collecting the specimen.

Jodie,

what if since the show aired when she first said that she was testing "unknown primate hairs", that some more people sent in different hairs and other things to be tested for the same thing? would the markers for this DNA align to almost the same type of markers? in other words,what if all the testing showed similar traits in the DNA that weren't human or ape? could a consensus be formed then that there are several specimens that all have common identifying traits? even though unidentified? would this class it as a new species? just something to ponder....

[southernyahoo]

Here's an article from David Coltman who tested a sample thought to be bigfoot but found it to be bison.

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/david_coltman/uploads/pdf/TREE2006.pdf

Note that when Coltman ran the results through genbank he retrieved a number of different species the sample was related to and was able to place it on the phylogenetic tree. The sample had the highest degree of relatedness to Bison, so it was determined to be bison.

An "Unknown primate" result is analogous to "Unknown Ungulate". Real sasquatch DNA will be more conclusive than this and we will know how closely related it is to humans or other great apes. If it falls in the human lineage then it will ofcoarse require a great deal of DNA sequences to find it's unique mutations and differentiate it. It will show us whether it is in the great ape realm and whether it is hominid, not just a primate.

[Guest]

Jodie,

what if since the show aired when she first said that she was testing "unknown primate hairs", that some more people sent in different hairs and other things to be tested for the same thing? would the markers for this DNA align to almost the same type of markers? in other words,what if all the testing showed similar traits in the DNA that weren't human or ape? could a consensus be formed then that there are several specimens that all have common identifying traits? even though unidentified? would this class it as a new species? just something to ponder....

It wouldn't classify it as a new species but it would definitely be a step in the right direction for further study.

[Guest]

Here's an article from David Coltman who tested a sample thought to be bigfoot but found it to be bison.

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/david_coltman/uploads/pdf/TREE2006.pdf

Note that when Coltman ran the results through genbank he retrieved a number of different species the sample was related to and was able to place it on the phylogenetic tree. The sample had the highest degree of relatedness to Bison, so it was determined to be bison.

An "Unknown primate" result is analogous to "Unknown Ungulate". Real sasquatch DNA will be more conclusive than this and we will know how closely related it is to humans or other great apes. If it falls in the human lineage then it will ofcoarse require a great deal of DNA sequences to find it's unique mutations and differentiate it. It will show us whether it is in the great ape realm and whether it is hominid, not just a primate.

Yep, it takes years to definitely ID a species this way as opposed to finding a body. They do it with ancient DNA but it is a lot of work and has a lot of potential for error depending on how degraded the sample is and how many dilutions have to be done to get a statistically significant result.

[Guest]

This isn't an article about bigfoot DNA but if what I read is to be believed, this guy does not have dwarfism. It just shows how quickly things can mutate. He is human, yet very different looking from us:

http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/colombian-edward-nino-hernandez-named-worlds-shortest-man-at-27-inches/19622367

[southernyahoo]

I saw this gene mentioned in another thread, so decided to bring it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MYH16_gene

The MYH16 gene looks to be one that could distinguish the sasquatch from humans if present. The FOXP2 gene would be another of great interest to me.

[southernyahoo]

Just thought I would bump this thread up again.

This is how we should be able to prove bigfoot.

New species of bottle nose dolphin discovered.

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/australian-bottlenose.html#cr

another link to same,

http://www.science.mq.edu.au/the_faculty/news_and_events/news/new_dolphin_species

DNA analysis

Using DNA analysis, the researchers found that coastal bottlenose dolphins from southern Australia were more closely related to the Fraser's dolphin which is found mostly in deep waters of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Dr Möller also said that her research team's findings demonstrated how important DNA studies are to uncovering hidden marine diversity.

[Guest TooRisky]

Well I am hoping for the best but planning for the worse... There have been studies before but no one can or will pull the trigger and say we have a new species... Because of their fear of persecution, like here in the previous BFF, they would like to keep their tenure, their respect among peers and well just at best say that the sample was inconclusive or just unknown...

We have been here before and it was depressing...

[Guest]

they may write something up and get rejected by the journals,

Then the "skeptic" side forever loses the right to bring up the "no peer reviewed papers" meme as evidence against the existence of BF.

It's the same sort of underhanded intellectual dishonesty that plagues the "origin of life" debate. One side controls all access to publication and routinely refuses papers that do not cleave to their side of the debate. Then smugly trot out "no peer review" as if it were reinforcing proof of the correctness of their side, rather than their biased censorship of dissenting interpretation and opinion.

It's the same as if a prosecutor had the power to order the sheriff to bar the defense's witnesses from the courthouse and then telling the jury that "the defendent cannot produce a single witness to corroborate his case".

[Guest]

Blah, blah, blah conspiracy, closed-minded scientists, biased reviewers, etc.

I've written many times on the subject that the "pro" side has no right to claim that editors refuse to publish bigfoot papers without providing any evidence of that editorial refusal. Show us some rejected bigfoot papers - and the rejection letters please - if you can't actually get this stuff published.

[Guest]

Just like **** floresiensis, the initial release will not be accepted, and the debate will rage on for years. For this sort of thing I think the minimum we will need is an un-fossilized bone, a tooth perhaps, with surviving dna inside it. Then the age of the bone will be debated ad nauseum.

Incredible Theories require Incredible Evidence...

Thing is, there's nothing "incredible" about BF. just another critter, going about it's life. There is nothing whatsoever in the understanding of science that argues against BF, as opposed to debatable "phenomina" such as spirits, ets, etc.

I don't know anything about DNA. "Unknown primate" is aways taken as meaning "belonging to an as yet unclassified primate", but it strikes me that it could equally well mean "it's a primate, but we can't be sure which one". Is the second of these someting you could possibly take from a DNA test?

If you go back and re-read the releases (they used to be all over the old forum...wish we had them now), many of them EXPLICITLY say that "unknown primate" means definitely primate, but matching no primate sample in the record.