Bigfoot Dna

[Drew]

Oh, baloney! If scientist can create dinosaurs by taking DNA from mosquitoes stuck in Amber for a million years, then they can get it from bone!

Oh, wait......that was a movie!

Nevermind.

Mitachondrial DNA can be extracted from bone. They recently did from a 40,000 year old finger bone.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Drew

[Guest parnassus]

parnassus, your post sounds as if you have already seen Dr. Ketchum's paper. I would like to find out if that is true. If not, then how can you reach the conclusions you have?

sorry if I didn't make that clear when I wrote "predictions." I have not seen any paper.

My predictions were based, firstly, on several ideas about where Paulides wants to take this whole field,(based on his background and his books), and what his audience wants, and the fact that no "ape" body or DNA is going to appear. It is simply a good business strategy to take the tack that Bigfoot has some sort of human DNA and a bigfoot phenotype. This takes bigfoot more into the realm of Enoch and the "wildman" and Native American stories, and explains why no "bigfoot" DNA has been found: because bigfoot DNA is just human DNA with a few minor variations that result in big feet and hairiness; or maybe just a bunch of pituitary giants. That would account for bigfoot's supposed intelligence, language, and benign behavior towards humans. As I suggested, the only person who would object to a human bigfoot would be Meldrum, who says bigfoot is definitely NOT human.

Secondly, my predictions were based on what I have seen of Ketchum's background and methods and statements and Paulides statements about her methods and findings. Her "panels" and "large primate" are not, imho/not-so-wag, gonna make it in a serious journal, and neither are "combination of human and animal attributes." That is my opinion/prediction, based on the statements I've read and what I know of primate genetics.

It was sort of like a superbowl prediction. I can read about what a team has done during the season, and predict what they're gonna do; it may not be right; they might change their playbook completely, or a key player might be injured.

If Paulides and Ketchum continue to run the same plays they have been running and talking about, then they are gonna come up with a model of a near human bigfoot, and it isn't gonna gain any credibility among serious scientists/journals. Would it get published somewhere? I can tell you from experience that almost any paper can get published somewhere. Paper doesn't refuse ink.

That is my prediction.

Edited October 4, 2010 by parnassus

[southernyahoo]

Sasquatch is closely related to humans?

This is actually my prediction too Parnassus, but is not just based on what Paulides and Ketchum says, It is based on all the knowledge we have on known extant great apes and the DNA on "some" ancient hominids. What else would Sas be?

Thats some crystal ball you have there! LOL

It only stands to reason that a great ape fitting the description of bigfoot would likely be closer to human than a chimp.

I also would agree that a simple preliminary test for ID is not going to place or definitively ID a new species of Hominid, thats why I expect Ketchum is going alot deeper into the DNA than sequencing a single gene or testing for a few human markers. That kind of work takes time, and I am patient.

[Guest]

That kind of work takes time, and I am patient.

Agreed. My beef isn't with Ketchum per se, it's with folks who take what they've seen of her work on Monsterquest or whatever and claim that we've got confirmed bigfoot DNA. Such statements are misleading and premature. If Ketchum - or anyone else - has material remotely that valuable then we'll all hear about it through mainstream channels and in due time. I can wait.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I am not patient. If it's really this important, wouldn't there be a need to get it done? Burn the midnight oil and get it done on week one? Wouldn't it be the scientific find of the century, or is it on an everyday list, behind everyday items with no sense of importance? Does it need to soak for a few years?

Not that it would happen here, but usually when there is a potential for this huge of a find, it's kept a secret so nobody beats them to the results. How does a schlub like me know about it? The answer is hype. How long should I be patient, until 2030? '40? Are the results going to be added into Dr. Bindernagel's documentary, hitting theaters in 2083? To me, it's not about getting the results (positive or negative) it's about how those results are packaged. If it were something substantial, we would be looking at it already. If it's something that just isn't there (I'm trying to be really careful about not saying the word "fabricated"), then it takes time to package.

Edited October 5, 2010 by FuriousGeorge

[kitakaze]

FYI just to set the record straight- Bone is not a common sample to extract DNA from and the circumstances in where it was located, age of the sample, etc have an affect on the results. Just because you have a bone doesn't mean you can get a good sample, it has different protocols than hair and tissue for extraction. Comparing hair/tissue DNA extraction to bone DNA extraction is like comparing apples to oranges. That is why it is hard to get valid results from ancient remains.

I think she knows what she is talking about based on what I've read. As everyone else said, wait until you see the paper with details on the processes before you start the critique. I think what they will find will be more or less a stepping stone to build upon, not definitive results identifying Bigfoot as a species.

Extracting DNA from bones...

A simple method for extracting DNA from old skeletal material.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7557753

DNA Extraction from Bone Fragments without Pulverization

http://www.pressurebiosciences.com/downloads/app_notes/AN-10003.v1.pdf

A simple and efficient method for PCR amplifiable DNA extraction from ancient bones

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/12/e67.full

A simple and efficient method for extracting DNA from old and burned bone.

http://www.citeulike.org/user/Yamo20/article/933686

DNA Isolation: Isolation of DNA from Bone

http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/lab_manual/Linked%20Documents/Protocols/pdi_lab_pro_3.04.pdf

Improved DNA Extraction From Ancient Bones Using Silica-Based Spin Columns

http://www.sfu.ca/~donyang/adnaweb/Yang%20DY%20AJPA1998.pdf

I did some cursory searching. It looks like she developed a software program called VeriSNP that can ID animals and humans. Here is the link for those interested:

http://www.trademarkia.com/verisnp-77111689.html

Your cursory search missed Ketchum being successfully sued by OptiGen over patent infringement and VeriSNP...

http://patentdocs.typepad.com/files/optigen-v-texas.pdf

http://www.optigen.com/opt9_imppatlawx831.html

Your cursory search missed Ketchum having a business association with Tom Biscardi...

Tom Biscardi, has been working very hard to find a DNA house with the integratiy and courage to share the results they find in an open and honest format. He has found a professional with the courage to step out of the "comfort zone" and simply tell it like it is!

DO YOU NEED RELIABLE DNA DATA

Go to: DNA Diagnostic to learn more!

http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/DNA_Diagnostic

Did Tom Biscardi scoop Paulides with Bigfoot DNA?

ANALYSIS OF RECOVERED DNA:

"In total we generated 328bp of mitochondrial sequence. The next step was to ask whether this actually was ancient DNA, and if it was, how does it compares to modern human DNA and previously isolated Homo Erectus DNA. This case was especially important, as we had generated relatively long PCR products from an ancient non-permafrost sample. Radio carbon dating of the sample dated it to 29,000YBP (roughly 30,000 BC) (K. Liden); therefore, products greater than 100-150bp were not expected. COMPARISON TO MODERN HUMANS The first part of the analysis was to compare our aDNA to the Cambridge Reference Sequence (CRS) (4). The two sequences were aligned and any base substitutions, insertions or deletions were recorded. Figure 2 shows one of the cloned PCR products in comparison to a modern human mtDNA identical to the CRS's hypervariable region I showing one insertion and one substitution: in total there were 22 substitutions and one insertion. When comparing any two modern Europeans, the average number of base substitutions over the equivalent region of mitochondrial sequence 5.28 +/- 2.24; therefore, the level of variation between obtained from the Homo Erectus and the CRS was extremely high. This high level of differentiation was seen in a larger scale comparison to 300 modern European sequences with an average number of substitutions of 23.09 +/- 3.27. Similar results were obtained when the sequence was compared to modern Asians and sub-Saharan Africans: 23.27 +/- 4.06 and 23.09 +/- 2.86, respectively. Based on these results, it appeared that the DNA extracted from the rib was not closely related to any modern mtDNA. CONCLUSION Analysis of the aDNA sequences showed two things. First, the DNA recovered from the “Skeletal finding†Site was very similar to the Sanders Site and has subsequently been shown to be similar to the Topper Site samples. Therefore, it can be concluded with a high degree of confidence that Homo Erectus DNA has been recovered and that this in not some kind of peculiar contamination. Second, the Homo Erectus DNA is significantly different from modern human mtDNA, forming a distinct group. These results indicate that Homo erectus contained a distinct type of mtDNA. While it is not possible to know whether Homo Erectus and modern humans did interbreed, based on the Homo Erectus and modern humans analyzed to date, it is possible to conclude that Homo Erectus did not pass any of their mtDNA on into the modern European mtDNA pool. Further analysis of Homo Erectus DNA will provide information on the molecular diversity of Homo Erectus."

http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/Possibly_The_Most_Important_Find_In_Bigfoot_History

1) Where the heck did we get Homo erectus DNA for comparison?

2) There are no confirmed Homo erectus finds in North America. Think there are? Here you go...

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/earlyhum/earlyman.htm

3) Bigfoot is Homo erectus? Homo erectus was a human ancestor that was not hirsute, used tools, and possibly even fire. You could have Homo erectus in North America, and you still absolutely have done nothing to help the case for Bigfoot. Bigfoot is a great big bipedal ape covered in hair. Descriptions vary on the amount of hair and the placement, but all agree Bigfoot is hairy. Homo erectus is us. Homo erectus are our direct ancestors and we Homo sapiens came from them. They were not Patty. They were not covered in dark fur and had females with giant sagittal crests. If you would go as far as arguing Bigfoot was an erectus that just evolved these things and re=evolved a tapetum lucidum, you simply don't understand evolution or basic genetics. For a species to undergo such evolutionary changes, they would no longer be the same species or have matching DNA. Think wolves and dire wolves. The differences between Bigfoot and erectus would be far greater than that, as would the amount of evolutionary change. How many generations did it take for these guys...

...to become these guys...

...to then become these guys...

...but also these other guys?...

It's too far gone, there's no way back. I don't think that DNA result summary even had anything to do with Tom Biscardi or anything Bigfoot related at all.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

The promise of evidence that never comes is just a hoax in disguise. It happens between 3 and 10 times a year on this forum. Each more clever than the next. Usually with a different cast finding a new color bow to wrap the bs.

[Guest vilnoori]

Kitakaze: "3) Bigfoot is Homo erectus? Homo erectus was a human ancestor that was not hirsute, used tools, and possibly even fire."

Whether H. erectus was hirsute or not is not known. Given that there is no evidence that it used clothing, and lived in temperate areas such as China, it may well have been hirsute (hairy).

Chimps and other apes use tools. Tool use (simple stone hand axes, for example) is not evidence of them "being us." Evidence for hafting does not arise until fully modern humans were on the scene. Before then so called tool use was picking up a rock, shaping it, and using it to smash something. Great apes do that. Even crows and monkeys can pick up a rock or sharp stick and use it as a tool to obtain food.

Fire use is extremely difficult to prove, since ash in dig levels sometimes are possibly due to later inhabitants or to chance.

"You could have Homo erectus in North America, and you still absolutely have done nothing to help the case for Bigfoot. Bigfoot is a great big bipedal ape covered in hair. Descriptions vary on the amount of hair and the placement, but all agree Bigfoot is hairy."

Kit, don't get all caught up in the hair issue (lol). It takes only a very simple sequence of genes to be turned on or off for hairiness to appear or disappear in any given lineage. Think of naked dogs, long haired poodles. If anything it could be rapidly selected for in colder climates, such as North American Montane forests.

"Homo erectus is us. Homo erectus are our direct ancestors and we Homo sapiens came from them."

There is a lot of discrepancy about that. Most consider that H. erectus was the more robust, later occurring Asian offshoot of the earlier occurring African H. ergaster whose pictorial representations you have posted. Technically H. erectus was NOT an ancestor of modern humans, since African H. ergaster led to H. heidelbergensis which diverged to H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis. In fact there was an archaic lineage of H. sapiens which has been found as far as the Levant but that died out, our own lineage emerging from South Africa a mere 50,000 years ago according to genetic evidence.

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

"They were not Patty. They were not covered in dark fur and had females with giant sagittal crests. If you would go as far as arguing Bigfoot was an erectus that just evolved these things and re=evolved a tapetum lucidum, you simply don't understand evolution or basic genetics."

Don't complicate the issue by bringing in the whole Patterson film debate AND the question of a tapetum lucidum. Those are separate issues both of which can be discounted without rejecting the hypothesis that sasquatches are possibly H. erectus.

For a species to undergo such evolutionary changes, they would no longer be the same species or have matching DNA. Think wolves and dire wolves. The differences between Bigfoot and erectus would be far greater than that, as would the amount of evolutionary change."

Since we have neither a sample of H. erectus DNA nor a sample of sasquatch DNA the point is moot. However, one would expect the DNA to be extremely similar given that chimp and human DNA are so similar. A comparison of chromosome numbers and very fine differences such as those which distinguished "X-woman" from other species would be required. I know the Max Planck Institute in Europe did that study, and was very meticulous at it. I don't think any other lab has come even close to that kind of work and I don't even know of any in North America that would be capable of doing so.

Edited October 5, 2010 by vilnoori

[Guest nycBig]

I always thought humans lost hair on their bodies because they developed sweat glands that enabled them to stay cool on long journeys searching for food and to out run predators.

[Guest Spazmo]

I always thought humans lost hair on their bodies because they developed sweat glands that enabled them to stay cool on long journeys searching for food and to out run predators.

...no, actually. There was a caveman named Jilett who pioneered the shaping of ferrous rocks into fine blades, and later these blades were used to remove body hair. His ancestors kept the name alive, and they are now Gillette.

Ok, sorry, I just couldn't resist.

I've been known to be somewhat of a smartass...

[Guest vilnoori]

LOL! Good points. Hair loss was an adaptation to long distance running, sweating, and cooling needed by H. sapiens in endurance hunting. Otherwise, body hair is a good thing for an animal, it protects from cold and also skin injuries. The cons needed to outweigh the pros.

[Guest parnassus]

LOL! Good points. Hair loss was an adaptation to long distance running, sweating, and cooling needed by H. sapiens in endurance hunting. Otherwise, body hair is a good thing for an animal, it protects from cold and also skin injuries. The cons needed to outweigh the pros.

Vitamin D metabolism might also have played a role in the selective advantage of less hair. It seems likely that the use of animal hides for clothing would have enabled hair loss in temperate climates, and the use of hides probably followed the use of sharpened tools to kill moderate to large animals.

But more to the point, H. erectus was the size, and had the limb proportions, of modern man.

Edited October 5, 2010 by parnassus

[Guest nycBig]

so can we infer that, if bf exist, they do not engage in long distance hunting, and get their vitamin d through diet?

[Guest]

Kitakaze, I thought I replied but evidently not, I PM'ed you with corrections to your response to my post. You get an "A" for effort.

[Guest vilnoori]

so can we infer that, if bf exist, they do not engage in long distance hunting, and get their vitamin d through diet?

From various reports, no, it doesn't sound like endurance hunting is used but rather ambush.

"In non-human, furry primates, vitamin D is synthesized in the skin and then secreted into the fur. It is then digested orally through the process of grooming themselves and others. Each one of those little bugs and skin flakes carries with it some vitamin D. Given that humans are the “hairless ape,†but we no doubt evolved from a hairy ape, we can be pretty sure that this method of ingestion is in our evolutionary history. "

from http://zinjanthropus.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/vitamin-d-in-furry-primates/