Destination Truth Yeti Hair Sample

[Guest alex]

The Snelgrove Lake DNA, the "Yeti" hair and DNA, and the pending Paulides hair, bone and DNA are all of the same sort: East Asian or Native American hair and DNA. The bug DNA expert didn't recognize it in the Snelgrove Lake sample, but he does now. Ketchum the vet didn't recognize it, but she will be told if she ever submits it for peer review. I see that Paulides is now hedging his statements about publishing a paper, so Ketchum may already have been clued in by someone, maybe Todd Disotell. I imagine that the whole DNA thing will die an awkward death in the next thee months.

If we found neanderthal hair, it would look identical to human hair

[southernyahoo]

Visually? Does she mean as viewed with the unaided eye? Why wouldn't she say microscopically?

I'm sure this will be clarified at some point Ray, but I've seen hair that wasn't entirely within established morphological criteria for human, but looked very much like it to the naked eye.

[BobZenor]

It really isn't all that complicated. You DON'T get unknown result from a mitochondrial sequence test that was done on a hair sample assuming that it is not degraded. If they report unknown, then the sample wasn't correctly run or they checked for markers or used a test that doesn't prove anything. I never claimed they can't run an unreliable DNA test. If you sequence the mitochondrial DNA, you get something with a known approximate time that it diverged from all other animals. Yeti might be a bear for all I know if it exists at all. The same can't be said about bigfoot. It is clearly an ape as are we assuming they exist. It is going to show a closer relationship to some group of apes than others. On the slight chance that it diverged before 12 million years ago, I will add or old world monkeys, gibbons.... It still isn't going to be unknown primate. That is meaningless and if a show used that terminology, they either didn't sequence the MtDNA or they have lost credibility with me.

They can run the test multiple times to eliminate the possibility of contamination or degraded DNA. That might not be as useful if they digested the whole sample in a single batch. The Snellgrove (sp) lake is an example. They sequenced 388 base pairs but they could have sequenced over a thousand. They found 1 base pair that wasn't normal modern human DNA. So what does that mean. It means that they found modern human DNA with a single SNP or mutation that deviated from normal. IF they verified it which they didn't to my knowledge, it wouldn't prove a thing except that they have modern human DNA that was analyzed. If they did the thousand base pairs and a few more SNP's existed, then they could say that they have an unusual modern human. That is why I said, probably ad nauseum, that as long as it isn't a modern human or too close to a modern human, it would essentially be a slam dunk and something to the effect that no scientist is going to able to live in denial for long as much as many would like to. A genuine sample with nuclear DNA is what I said would verify it assuming that it isn't too close to a modern human but even MtDNA should actually be enough if it were verified.

It isn't that I think it likely that it is close to a modern human, it has to do with the statistical likelihood of a modern human having a particular DNA. There is virtually no chance of there being someone undiscovered with a mitochondrial sequence that diverged from us one million years ago. They sure wouldn't have divergent nuclear DNA as well. To give an idea of what that takes, we share about 91% of the sequence with a chimp. The area that they check is a region on the mitochondrial DNA that doesn't code for a protein called the hypervariable region because it is allowed to accumulate mutations. The 9% difference from us and a chimp translates to an estimate of about 5 to 6 million years since we shared a common ancestor or since chimps diverged from our lineage. On a 1000 base pair sequence, you would expect the chimp to have about 91 differences. That is roughly 60,000 years per mutation on a sequence 1000 base pairs long. If something diverged 500,000 years ago you would only get maybe 9 differences on that 1000 base pair sequence assuming I didn't make some stupid math mistake.

That is still enough to make it highly unlikely or virtually impossible for that to happen randomly. In the real world, that means that the changes will happen in a pattern and not randomly. It is the pattern that will prove it to the scientists. Most people, even most scientists, don't see these patterns before they happen. It has to do with how peoples minds work. I build models in my mind so it is obvious to me how a hominid diverging 500,000 years ago will look. It isn't really rocket science either. It is simple logic and I will spell it out in a simple example. The sequence of my hypothetical 0.5 million year divergent hominid sample will show about 80 of the same differences that we have with chimps but there will be about 9 that we don't share with the hominid that diverged 500,000 years ago. It only had 80 differences 0.5 million years ago and had the 0.5 million years to accumulate the other changes that we and the hominid don't share with chimps. Very simple logic. Modern humans vary amongst ourselves by about 200,000 years in their mitochondrial DNA. It obviously is going to be more persuasive if the creature is found to be significantly more distantly related, like about 2 million years which is what I think is more likely. The apparent sloping forehead, lack of technology, feet difference... makes me think a DNA from them will likely be significantly more than a million years divergent from us. That will almost certainly be proof positive and undeniable. You have to expand the numbers and they become far more convincing as you go back in time for the divergence date. Don't expect me to be surprised that even most scientists underestimate the significance. Most people don't build models of the universe in their minds so they miss things that are actually obvious after the fact. That example is just with the mitochondrial DNA. It obviously requires that the sequences be verified. A single hair sample tested only for 380 base pairs isn't going to show much if they happen to be much closer than a million years. It isn't going to prove anything to anyone. That is why I included the statement that as long as it isn't too close to modern humans and it is verified, it would prove it. That is even going farther than what I said before because that is essentially proving it with just verified mitochondrial DNA. If it is close to a modern human, like less than a half a million years, this isn't going to go too well and it would probably take years to prove it. It has to do with the odds of the sequences occurring randomly and the patterns that you would see in non-coding regions of DNA. There just isn't much to see when we are very close that couldn't be explained by random mutations. The same isn't true if they are significantly divergent from us. Then we can compare Denisova and Neanderthals and chimps and the underlying patters are going to be the proof. I would say it is just my opinion but it seems far too obvious to me for me to use that qualification even though it is obviously true. There are other possibilities like hybrids or unknown but conceivable circumstances that might complicate this to the point that DNA wouldn't be a slam dunk proof. I try to not confuse everything I say with endless qualifications. Who would have guessed that they essentially proved that we mated with Neanderthals by finding Neanderthal genes in Non African modern humans. I sure didn't see that coming. Real DNA likely has those sorts of unexpected details as well beyond the obvious patterns that I mentioned that will fit together in undeniable patterns even if it takes a few years to publish them all.

Edited February 24, 2011 by BobZenor

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Bob, you are probably the only one here that I won't skip a single word when they write a full page. Great work once again.

[Guest fenris]

http://www.ghosttheory.com/2009/11/06/destination-truth-yeti-hairs

A couple of questions:

1) Do we know anything more about this hair sample?

2) I was arguing with Bob Zenor and more recently Saskeptic about what emphasis should be placed on a type specimen as opposed to trace evidence. And while it's not fair that both of them had the same exact position (Bob was pretty sure that a find like this would seal the deal so to speak). This article does raise the question of.........ok we have a hair sample, ok we have sequenced it, ok we have tried unsuccessfully to match it in our data base, ok....so what? What has been accomplished?

I must have missed the NBC evening news segment that stated emphatically that "Yeti in all probability exists because of a sequenced unknown hair sample" or "Smithsonian now organizing large expedition to find a Yeti whose existence is now probable".

Read the last sentence of the paragraph above, please note "waiting to be discovered". I thought you guys said that a hair sample was apart of the discovery process? Let's face it, Josh Gates and the rest of us (who are interested in the subject)are no better off now than before the hair sample was discovered. I see zero movement on this, and unless there is some more recent data that shows the hair sample was tampered with or something? Why?

Ultimately I feel this story endorses my position of taking a type specimen should be of first priority. And if a hair sample from the highest and most remote mountains in the world isn't taken seriously? How does that make you guys collecting hair samples in Ohio feel?

(I realize I am stirring the pot here, but I think we need to hash this out because I feel the community is off track)

Rather than my normal quasi-convince me stand I am going to reserve judgement until I read the whole thread, I was aware of the yeti hair sample but forget where the Dest. Truth crew had left off with it.

[southernyahoo]

The Snelgrove Lake DNA, the "Yeti" hair and DNA, and the pending Paulides hair, bone and DNA are all of the same sort: East Asian or Native American hair and DNA.

Your crystal ball is broken, Bigfoot is from Ireland.

[Guest gershake]

Bob, you are probably the only one here that I won't skip a single word when they write a full page. Great work once again.

Ditto!

[Guest parnassus]

AJC:

U wrote: The polymorphisms found in the samples Ketchum and "the bug DNA expert" analyzed would be the difference between human and pre-human, or would be VERY atypical for humans of any ethnic background.

-----

Unfortunately u are mistaken. I don't know where you are getting your misinformation (?making it up?) but you may want to check the transcript of that Snelgrove Lake episode and get the correct data on that DNA and on the distribution of the polymorphism before posting more misleading stuff.

As regards Ketchum's data I doubt very much that u have that either.

Do u?

Edited February 24, 2011 by parnassus

[southernyahoo]

As regards Ketchum's data I doubt very much that u have that either.

Do u?

Doesn't this go for you too Parnassus? Are you making things up?

[southernyahoo]

Unfortunately u are mistaken. I don't know where you are getting your misinformation (?making it up?) but you may want to check the transcript of that Snelgrove Lake episode and get the correct data on that DNA and on the distribution of the polymorphism before posting more misleading stuff.

Are you saying you are relying on a TV show for your "analysis" Parnasus? Say it aint so!

[Guest parnassus]

Bob Z

U wrote

" The Snellgrove (sp) lake is an example. They sequenced 388 base pairs but they could have sequenced over a thousand. They found 1 base pair that wasn't normal modern human DNA. So what does that mean. It means that they found modern human DNA with a single SNP or mutation that deviated from normal. "

----

Not quite. The polymorphism is frequent in the population in that area but rare in Anglos. This is where the misconception started. The idea of "normal" is not very useful in population genetics and frequency comparisons are generally used instead. The mtDNA SNP from the porch at Snelgrove Lake is found in about 30 per cent of the people of the region, and probably higher in the indigenous people, who are most certainly modern normal homo sapiens. However, it is found in way less than 1 per cent of the U.S. population (u may recall them using "1 in 5000"). Nelson did not take into account this issue of population genetics.

Bottom line, the odds are that a young man from the area who is not a pure Anglo left that DNA.

Edited February 24, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest fenris]

Are you saying you are relying on a TV show for your "analysis" Parnasus? Say it aint so!

why not, kit's whole PGF agenda stems most from a single book.

[Guest parnassus]

Doesn't this go for you too Parnassus? Are you making things up?

I am indeed speculating on Ketchum's findings based on what I know of her and Gates and Paulides, what they have said and written, where Paulides has done his research and Paulides' recent announcement of a six month delay, that "it is more complicated", the timeline of events, what has transpired at Snelgrove Lake, my understanding of variations in hair and DNA and population genetics, and a couple of other bits which I cannot disclose.

Edited February 24, 2011 by parnassus

[indiefoot]

This is from Adrian Erickson at;

http://www.sasquatchthequest.com/about.html

After many attempts, we perfected methods that enabled us to collect saliva, blood, and hair from several sasquatch. The mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA of these samples are presently being analysed.

The chronicles of the study have been documented on video and are part of the documentary Sasquatch the Quest which also includes a review of the multiple evidence collected, and various scientific points of view on the subject. Upon conclusion of the peer reviewed DNA analysis by scientists the documentary will be released.

[Guest]

At this point it's time to send samples to Quantico.

Without access to great lab facilities, I can see this continuing endlessly. In fact once "chain of evidence" questions crop up it's a still the "DNA Merry-go-round". No results will be looked at seriously unless collected by a sanctioned collector, preferably by their own organization, processed by the lab of their choice. So the Catch 22 begins if you can't get the Smithsonian or The Sierra Club, Nat Geo involved it's still square one.

This may be the time to get the NRA involved. (repugnant as killing one may be) They have the manpower, resourses to move this forward. If enough hunters come together and a large hairy thing in the woods is concerning enough, well maybe we can shift the current paradigm.

It's either that or Bill Gates, or Soros, or Oprah.

Without financial resourses, or significant pressure applied nothing is going to happen.

JMO

Edited for spelling

My hubby's family,along with hubby and my sons, are all members of the NRA. I quake in fear about the idea of sending hundreds of very well armed people into the woods hunting BF. Instead of bullets, use tranquilizer darts. Take pictures and hair samples, and release the animal. I suspect that their lives are difficult enough without being killed.

However, I agree that it is important to have this creature authenticated, which would be a very big deal, and could lead to the protection of the species being instituted.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Susiq2