Guest ajciani Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 First, humans are considerably LESS variable than other species. From the variations in our mtDNA, it is quite clear that there was a choke point in the human population sometime about 60,000 to 70,000 years ago, from which we all became a bunch of inbred hicks. Unless you are using "human" to refer to the genus Homo. The published bigfoot DNA results to date demonstrate very little. Most of the species identification tests do not (or did not) use sequencing of the mtDNA. They used marker based tests, where certain genetic patterns would be searched for. Sometimes those tests would find a human (probably a genus=Homo) pattern and sometimes they would find a primate pattern, but be unable to find the genus. For those marker-based tests to fail does not require a significant difference in the DNA from the known pattern. A few dozen bases changed in the CO1 gene could be the difference between Homo and ???. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 First, humans are considerably LESS variable than other species. From the variations in our mtDNA, it is quite clear that there was a choke point in the human population sometime about 60,000 to 70,000 years ago, from which we all became a bunch of inbred hicks. Unless you are using "human" to refer to the genus Homo. Yes I've heard of the bottle neck in our lineage , yet physically we do exibit a wide range of appearance in height, bulk, hair color , hairiness etc. This is where our variability is apparent even though our mitocondrial DNA is very similar. I've read that Neanderthals have about 200 differences across the MtDNA from (human SS) and Denisovans around 400. I guess this is where we should see some sort of divergence from Homo sapiens if I'm following you. The published bigfoot DNA results to date demonstrate very little. Most of the species identification tests do not (or did not) use sequencing of the mtDNA. They used marker based tests, where certain genetic patterns would be searched for. Sometimes those tests would find a human (probably a genus=Homo) pattern and sometimes they would find a primate pattern, but be unable to find the genus.For those marker-based tests to fail does not require a significant difference in the DNA from the known pattern. A few dozen bases changed in the CO1 gene could be the difference between Homo and ???. Thanks, I've read about the short comings of Barcode analysis or genetic fingerprinting. I suppose they are better at identifying knowns than describing nonmatching unknowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 It would be interesting to have some of this girl's DNA to compare to the "unknown primates". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The 'wolf child' delighted to be named the world's hairiest girl By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 11:12 PM on 28th February 2011 Her nicknames may include 'wolf girl' and 'monkey face'. But 11-year-old Thai girl Supatra Sasuphan today insisted that she was after being officially recognised as the world's hairiest girl. Although the schoolgirl from Bangkok has faced merciless teasing at school, Supatra says being given a Guinness World Record for her hair has helped her become extremely popular. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361409/Supatra-Sasuphan-hairiest-girl-Wolf-child-says-Ambras-syndrome-makes-popular.html#ixzz1FSANL9Om Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Her DNA would most certainly come back as fully human. I'm not sure how "wide" the range in appearance is compared to other species. We have three basic variations in skull shape, and three or four basic variations in body shape, primarily dealing with distribution of fat. I do not consider differences in size to be a variation. If you think about other animals, there is considerably greater morphological and genetic variation. Just a few examples would be cats, dogs, horses, cows, and dolphins. Yeah, I think the largest mitochondrial gene (CO1) has about 20 differences between sapiens and neanderthal. There are about 60 differences between humans and chimps in that gene. I think CO1 makes up about 10% of the heavy strand. I was not aware that the full mtDNA for denisova was obtained. I thought it was just a couple of genes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I was not aware that the full mtDNA for denisova was obtained. I thought it was just a couple of genes It might have been something calculated. I'll see if I can find the article. It was one of those X-woman articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 This one says they had twice as many differences as Neanderthal but I didn't see the actual numbers. http://news.discovery.com/human/x-woman-human-ancestor.html The genetic sequence was then compared with those for 54 present-day modern humans, a Late Pleistocene early modern human from Russia, six complete Neanderthal mtDNAs, one bonobo and one chimpanzee. None of them matched with the new sequence, but they revealed that the individual was a human that carried twice as many genetic differences as Neanderthals do with our species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 There it is, got it. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18699-meet-xwoman-a-possible-new-species-of-human.html X-woman's mitochondria differ from a human's at nearly 400 DNA letters; Neanderthals show only half as many differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 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. Sasfooty, You are too cute! Hugs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) .... The published bigfoot DNA results to date demonstrate very little. Most of the species identification tests do not (or did not) use sequencing of the mtDNA. They used marker based tests, where certain genetic patterns would be searched for. Sometimes those tests would find a human (probably a genus=Homo) pattern and sometimes they would find a primate pattern, but be unable to find the genus.... AJ I am not aware of ANY published DNA studies on Bigfoot. Since you seem to have analyzed them, please cite these reports u refer to so we can read them, and please explain the methods used in each. Specifically, please explain on what specific basis anyone has ever used the term "primate" as a result in a published Bigfoot DNA report. Thx Edited March 5, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Everything from monkeys to humans are primates, and publicized is probably a better word for presentation of the results to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Presentation and publication are two different things. A publication is a publicly reviewable record, usually in video, audio, or in print (web, book, magazine, journal, etc). A presentation is live, but I guess if a presentation is recorded and made publicly available, then it becomes a publication. I guess the publications would include a couple MQ episodes, a couple DT episodes, a few books, and the NABS website. I think Rugg mentioned an outcome of testing in a Bigfoot Discovery Museum video. Parn is just thinking of peer reviewed articles, while ignoring the more general usage of the term. There is only one peer reviewed article for bigfoot (well, yeti) genetic analysis that I know of, but the sample turned out to be from some species of horse. I have also heard some non-published results, and since they are unpublished, there is absolutely no way for anyone to look them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) Presentation and publication are two different things. A publication is a publicly reviewable record, usually in video, audio, or in print (web, book, magazine, journal, etc). A presentation is live, but I guess if a presentation is recorded and made publicly available, then it becomes a publication. I guess the publications would include a couple MQ episodes, a couple DT episodes, a few books, and the NABS website. I think Rugg mentioned an outcome of testing in a Bigfoot Discovery Museum video. Parn is just thinking of peer reviewed articles, while ignoring the more general usage of the term. There is only one peer reviewed article for bigfoot (well, yeti) genetic analysis that I know of, but the sample turned out to be from some species of horse. I have also heard some non-published results, and since they are unpublished, there is absolutely no way for anyone to look them up. Wadr "Publication" was your word, not mine. It has meaning and a it doesn't mean words from a narrator on a ttelevision show. At the very least it means someone is setting down their findings in a durable and archivable fashion and standing behind them. A presentation "becomes" a publication?! Does that happen like fermentation or is there a magic wand involved? Or alchemy? Seriously that just doesn't happen. There are no such publications of Bigfoot DNA. Not a one. A horse is not a Bigfoot. Here are the usual suspects ( not published) and the actual outcomes: The Oxford yeti sample? Bear (actually published as an abstract). Gates Yeti? Human. Snelgrove? Human. If you have some other one in mind, as you indicate, that you think might qualify, please be specific and give us all a way to read it. p. Edited March 6, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Snelgrove? Human. Near human, but not. http://www.alamas.ru/eng/publicat/DNA_of_Bigfoot_e.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Sorry Mulder, but it was human. I wrote Nelson to ask about it, and he said that the MQ writers or producer embellished and misrepresented what he had said. The result was fully human, with a single polymorphism which is rare, but known to exist in humans. Now, I did recall that Nelson had only sequenced a small section of the mtDNA, but he didn't tell me how long the sample he sequenced was. Out of about 16500 base pairs, 300 isn't all that many. Perhaps he was unable to get anything more? On average, there would be about 4 differences between humans and neanderthals in a 300 bp sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 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 Grayjay, I really respect and admire your ethics. I also understand how you feel about killing such a creature. The best scenario would be finding a fairly new dead body of BF. Of course, trying to document such a find would be difficult, moving a 6-900 pound body almost impossible, IMHO. I am aware of several times when BF has been caught in traffic, so perhaps a car accident could provide us with the truth, even tho that makes me feel sad as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts