Destination Truth Yeti Hair Sample

[Guest parnassus]

Yahoo

When u post stuff like this I wonder what u are up to. It is clear that others are citing the program, most without even knowing what was really said and by whom, let alone understanding the science of it.

If one reads the transcript one will learn at least what was said by the scientists and what was inserted by the producers/staff. Even at that u don't know the things that the scientists said but were cut.

Edited February 24, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

Ditto!

Amen to that! Wow, I stand humbly in your presence..Thank you taking the time to explain this so very thoroughly.

[Guest]

This is from Adrian Erickson at;

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

What will we all do after the discovery is verified? A little of the magic and wonder we feel about the world will be gone. I believe they exist, and one day all will know about this creatures' reality.

Will skeptics still be skeptics?

[Guest fenris]

Yahoo

When u post stuff like this I wonder what u are up to. It is clear that others are citing the program, most without even knowing what was really said and by whom, let alone understanding the science of it.

If one reads the transcript one will learn at least what was said by the scientists and what was inserted by the producers/staff. Even at that u don't know the things that the scientists said but were cut.

so as much as anyone else, you admit you're speculating, adding more weight to the fact that this one is heading towards being inconclusive. Human markers, skeptics say its human, believers say maybe not, will NEVER know likely for sure.

[Guest fenris]

What will we all do after the discovery is verified? A little of the magic and wonder we feel about the world will be gone. I believe they exist, and one day all will know about this creatures' reality.

Will skeptics still be skeptics?

ya have to prove it conclusively first, so again, we need that pesky specimen. I know this is not the most popular viewpoint but if ya can't prove me wrong, well here we are, again.....

[Sasfooty]

What will we all do after the discovery is verified? A little of the magic and wonder we feel about the world will be gone.

Will skeptics still be skeptics?

Don't worry, Suz. They will still find plenty to be skeptical of.

They probably already have contingency plans, so I doubt if they will even need to stop and regroup.

[Guest gershake]

will NEVER know likely for sure.

nice wording

[BobZenor]

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.

That would be very careless of him if true, if that position was an actually SNP that exists in any modern human population. It actually contradicts what someone said if I remember correctly. I am relying on my memory from a few years ago but didn't Dr. Meldrum or somebody say that the SNP doesn't exist in humans but the base pair is the same as the base pair as it is for chimps. It still doesn't mean much and even if it were verified, it would still be the DNA of a modern human. That was really my only point. They aren't going to talk about frequency of something that doesn't exist in the population and finding an example of it would be called not normal. If it does exist in the population then either I am wrong about how I remember it being presented or it was rather misleading how they phrased it. My point is that anything other than saying it was from a modern human was misleading so it isn't any great revelation that it was confusing and/or misleading.

Where did you get the data that showed the actual SNP that was different based on Nelson's work? Did he actually release that or are you just basing that on 1 in 5000 statement. I remember that statement about the 1 in 5000 chance of it belonging to a modern human and ignored it. It would be like saying that there was a 99.98 percent chance that Bigfoot was a modern human. That was obviously a creative edit or some kind of bizarre logic. If they meant that it was present in only 1 in 5000 people, then how is it even worthy of mentioning. If it is normal for a population somewhere, it would be rather bizarre of them to consider that even something out of the ordinary.

[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. The bug DNA expert didn't recognize it in the Snelgrove Lake sample, but he does now.

Parnassus , Paulides says that the hair samples range in color across the entire range for humans, something not found in any other primate. Do you think your East Asian Native American hypothesis can account for this? Which ethnic background will step forward to claim the red haired bigfoots? The poor guys...

[bipedalist]

The Neanderthals?

[Guest Old Fishing Man]

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.

Did you talk to Mr. Nelson and he told you what the DNA polymorphisms were? Or you saw the results? I'm not sure how/why you think the hair sample is Native American. I would think that any DNA lab would have all the known human polymorphisms available to them (not that I know anything about polymorphisms. Didn't the Power Rangers polymorph or something?).

[norseman]

East Asians and Native Americans have a few polymorphisms not found in the West Asian, European and African populations, but their DNA is still very, very similar to normal DNA. In fact, the DNA in Native American populations has been traced back to family lines in Europe and Western Asia. 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. Some of the polymorphisms were known to exist as traits in individual family lines, while others had been unobserved. Finding the known ones together in the same individual shouldn't happen, but statistically could by a very small chance. The unknown polymorphisms could be a new find in the human genome, or some sort of error.

The reason this requires more testing is that a single sample could be from a mutant individual, or degraded. There could be a 1 in 1 billion chance of finding a human with all of these various polymorphisms, but if 20 consistent samples showing these polymorphisms show up in 20 different places, then it looks a lot less like 1:1,000,000,000, and a lot more like a new, near-human species.

As an educational primer:

A polymorphism is a point of divergence. For example, the same gene (named "Pra") might read

1) ATG CCG ATG ACG ... TTA GAC GAC TAT CCC TAG

or

2) ATG CCG AAG ACG ... TTA GAC GAC TAG CCC TAG

or

3) AAG CCG ATG ACG ... TTA GAC GAC TAG CCC TAG

or

4) AAG CCG ATG ACG ... TTA GAC GAC TAG CCC TAG

The effect of the change between #1 and #2 is to shorten the gene by 2 codons on the tail end (premature termination). The difference between #1 and #3 shortens the gene by 2 codons on the head end (later start). Sequence #4 is just a combination of both #2 and #3. For simplicity, I will list the name of each gene as three letters followed by the ordinal number of the observed specific sequence; for example, from the above, Pra-1, Pra-2, Pra-3, and Pra-4.

So within different family lines, we might find mtDNA sequences coding for:

AF: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-2, Smi-4, Ret-3, Rat-2, Ghe-1, Jun-1, Pro-2

NE: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-4, Ret-3, Rat-2, Ghe-1, Jun-1, Pro-3

WA: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-2, Smi-3, Ret-3, Rat-2, Ghe-2, Jun-1, Pro-3

EA: Pra-2, Bet-1, Jaz-2, Smi-4, Ret-3, Rat-2, Ghe-2, Jun-1, Pro-3

NA: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-2, Smi-4, Ret-3, Rat-2, Ghe-2, Jun-1, Pro-3

Chimp: Pra-1, Bet-2, Jaz-3, Smi-2, Ret-2, Rat-1, Rat-2, Ghe-1, Jun-2, Pro-4

Orang: Pra-2, Bet-2, Jaz-4, Smi-2, Ret-2, Rat-3, Rat-2, Ghe-1, Jun-3, Pro-4

In this hypothetical exercise, we see that Chimps and Orangs have an extra copy of Rat, as well as non-human versions of Jaz, Smi, Ret, Jun, and Pro. All humans have Bet-1, Jaz-2, Ret-3, Rat-2, and Jun-1, and share versions of Pra, Rat, and Ghe with apes. Family AF has Pro-2 while all others have Pro-3, and family NE has Jaz-1 while all others have Jaz-2. Only AF and WA have Smi-3.

Unknown: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-2, Rat-1, Ghe-1, Jun-1, Pro-2

The unknown is strange. It has Pro-2, but also has Jaz-1, which is never found together with Pro-2. It also has Smi-3, which is never found with Jaz-1 or Pro-2. This is a combination of three genes normally not found together. Not only that, but it has Ret-2 and Rat-1. No human has Ret-2, or Rat-1. These are genes found in apes, but the unknown only has 1 copy of Rat, so it is not an ape.

So what are we looking at? Is this just some mutant human with throwback genes? These polymorphisms are not encountered in any analyzed human population. It must be a mutant, there is only one sample. Then we get multiple samples....

Unknown-1: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-2, Rat-1, Ghe-1, Jun-1, Pro-2

Unknown-2: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-2, Rat-1, Rat-2, Ghe-1, Jun-2, Pro-2

Unknown-3: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-3, Rat-1, Ghe-1, Jun-2, Pro-2

Unknown-4: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-2, Rat-1, Rat-2, Ghe-1, Jun-1, Pro-2

Unknown-5: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-3, Rat-1, Ghe-2, Jun-2, Pro-2

Unknown-6: Pra-1, Bet-1, Jaz-1, Smi-3, Ret-2, Rat-1, Ghe-1, Jun-2, Pro-2

Something becomes clear. These are multiple individuals, but they often have the throwback gene Ret-2, and often have throwbacks Rat-1 and Jun-2, and sometimes have an extra copy of Rat. There is a pattern emerging, which possibly indicates an unknown human family, but with so many throwback genes, it is more likely to be a different species.

The reason the samples sometimes return human is that the test hits on Ret-3, which is present in some. Other times, it hits on Rat-1 and shows ape, but it doesn't know which kind because those tests look for Jaz-3 and Jaz-4.

So you can see that a large sample is required to build up a genetic pattern for the species. That pattern may also tell us where it lies in the phylogenetic tree.

Can you describe what a large sample might be? How many hairs? A finger? etc?

Thanks for the very detailed post.

[Huntster]

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.

Where does Joe Sixpack acquire tranquilizer dart guns? I've never even seen such a gun for sale at all those terrible gun shops I hang out in, and I certainly don't know where to get the ammo.

Do I go to my family doctor and ask for sasquatch tranquilizer, because I'm going hunting for a bigfoot?

That ought to go over like a fart in church.

Ya' think that's just one more reason why the professional biologists need to get involved?

[gigantor]

I may be wrong, but I'm starting to think that the monkey wrench in DNA analysis of a hair sample that does not match a known sequence, is that it relies on statistical analysis to reach a conclusion as far as the identity of the source.

Rightly or wrongly (based on your point of view), any result will be subject to debate and interpretation until a slab monkey, or part of it is produced for a conclusive comparison.

Edited February 25, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest ajciani]

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?

Without talking to Nelson, it is impossible to know whether the polymorphism he found was atypical for a human, or not human at all. At the time of the MonsterQuest episode (Sasquatch Attack), he had only analyzed a single mitochondrial gene, which contained a single polymorphism found between human and chimp mtDNA. In the mitochondrial gene that was tested, there are 35 differences between humans and chimps. Nelson estimated that if the gene he studied contained the only polymorphism, then there would be a 1 in 5000 chance that the sample was human. That probability does not necessarily mean that the polymorphism is found in 1 out of every 5000 humans, but could include the probability of experimental error. If the polymorphism was known to exist in humans at all, then I suspect the probability of it being human would have been much higher, closer to 100%. Nelson clearly and undeniably concludes that the DNA is an unknown primate, closer to human than chimp. But maybe some giant, drunk, poorly evolved injun did stomp his bare foot down on that screw board.

Now, you have stated that the polymorphisms Nelson and Ketchum have found are common among Asians and Native Americans; however, it was never identified what gene Nelson tested, or which polymorphism he found. Neither was it revealed for Ketchum's DT result. It is true that Amerindians have a high prevalence of polymorphisms which are rare in Asians, but these are recent mutations, not chimp throwbacks.

So it seems you are the one making unsupported and misleading claims.

As for Ketchum's current work, all I have heard are some early rumors, and tid-bits that have slipped in private communications. There is a LOT of excitement. That wouldn't happen for something as mundane as a single erroneous or rare polymorphism.