Unknown Primate Dna

[Guest DWA]

I say, DNA evidence is only one item in the rather large body of evidence. I agree with DWA that it is almost impossible that it, and it alone, would result in a confirmation of the species. That said, does it justify our attention? Oh yeah. Should you look closer when and where you find unidentified DNA? Yeah, again.

 

^^^This.

 

If you find hair, and you can link it with an encounter, why would you not send it in and get it tested?

 

Look.  It's like the eyewitness testimony and the footprints.  It has long since gotten past silly to chalk all of that up to Wrong or Lying People.  So.  How many DNA tests can come back, "primate, species not identifiable" and scientists keep going, escaped gorilla?

 

One adds to the evidence where one can.  One increases the weight to tip the balance of scientific interest. 

 

In other words:  it doesn't matter whether evidence is proof, but whether it is evidence, it can't be explained by the usual lassitude, and it is accumulating.  All that matters.

Edited February 24, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Urkelbot]

Matter of fact, the only truly serious question on this thread is this one:

 

Has there ever been a case of an animal identified solely on the basis of its DNA signature, with no other evidence in scientific custody, and no, for reasons we all should know, hair doesn't count...and what the heck, has any animal been ID'd solely on hair?

Sure urine, feces, sloughed off skin, eggshells can be used to identify a species.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=WR02077.pdf

As far as new species of plants, fungi, bacteria, archaea, and viruses are discovered everyday from DNA alone.

[Guest DWA]

A rapid read - and I can't devote more without good reason - says that DNA can be compared with type specimens on file to determine what species left this.  Not what we're talking about.

[dmaker]

"DNA tests can come back, "primate, species not identifiable" and scientists keep going, escaped gorilla?"   DWA

 

 

Yes, but the challenge in this thread is to provide evidence of where such a test produced those results.  So far, no one can do this. So you can create as many scenarios that you want where you get to vilify mainstream science and portray them as dismissive to alleged bigfoot evidence, but your scenario is a fantasy. 

 

No one seems able to point to where these results have been produced. So your scenario is only something you created with obvious intentions.  Unless of course you would like to point to some published results of unknown primate dna?  No?  Well then let's stop pretending that it happens and guessing  how imaginary scientists would react, shall we?

Edited February 24, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^Didn't I tell you to just enjoy yer snipe hunt?  Enjoy yer snipe hunt.

[kitakaze]

 

Nobody will be satisfied with a DNA result - and 'unknown primate' has come back more than once - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now as to the numerous "unknown primate" finds which have occurred, I have no interest in scanning the archives and documenting them for anyone who will accept nothing but a body as evidence let alone proof.  That I've read them is sufficient for me.  Anyone - including any scientist - who wants to bother expanding his horizons a bit can read.  Useful skill that.

 

[WSA]

Me-my-own-personal-self has never been privy to a DNA collection/study with "unknown primate" being the result. I can't assert from firsthand experience when, or if, purported BF DNA has ever been collected. I would wager very few here have either, and I doubt many could report the findings here with the expected degree of credibility even so. I also doubt we have very many trained geneticists here, though I know we have a couple, but they would also need to see the data before making an informed opinion.

The nature of DNA evidence is such that it doesn't lend itself to informed interpretation unless you were in the evidence collection/results reporting loop. Second best would be to have access to the data, but then you get into trust/credibility issues still. In this regard it differs fundamentally from other evidence on this subject. I should note it is also the kind of evidence most vulnerable to skeptical analysis, and for that reason I don't consider it to be of much value without an identified specimen. (I would consider a reporting by Mssr. Sykes' of a result like this to be especially noteworthy, but I don't even kid myself such would be roundly accepted.)

So, yeah, if you go chasing this "hare", it could be a long and vexing exercise. I've never been much interested in doing that.

Edited February 24, 2014 by WSA

[dmaker]

WSA, if a legitimate study published results then it should not be difficult to find. Since no one can provide evidence of such results then we can conclude that none have been made public if such a result ever occurred.  Which also reduces this proponent claim of unknown primate dna to the level of rumor or hearsay at best with no factual basis that can be demonstrated. Despite DWAs claim that unknown primate DNA results are "numerous".  

 

Perhaps someone in the proponent camp could convince him to reveal his supporting evidence that he must surely have that allows him to  make the claim of numerous results? It would seem unfair to the bigfoot community to keep such results private. At the very least you would think he would want to share the results on the BFF.  Sadly, we must conclude that supporting this claim is one more in the list of claims that DWA will make, yet fail to confirm when asked.

Edited February 24, 2014 by dmaker

[WSA]

dmaker, I only speak for myself, of course.  It may be the "unknown primate" result is an urban myth....although no less a scientist than Jane Goodall has fallen for it, if so. My view is that the lack of a confirmation of such results does not lessen the stature of the other evidence in the least.  It also probably bears to mention... this little BF community board is not the be-all, end-all for Sasquatch research. Plenty goes on, I'm sure, that the members don't know about, or do know about and don't care to share here. This is hardly the definitive last word on the matter of DNA results (or any other evidene), don't you think?  

[dmaker]

Where did Dr.Goodall fall for the claim of unknown primate DNA?

[Guest DWA]

So, yeah, if you go chasing this "hare", it could be a long and vexing exercise. I've never been much interested in doing that.

 

This smacks like so many other "...if I get x answer, then bigfoot isn't real" tacks I have seen here and elsewhere.

 

Sorry.  Not the way stuff works.  The presence or absence of a particular type of evidence says nothing, one way or the other, about the validity of the other evidence.

 

Evidence that stands unaddressed, stands unaddressed.

 

But do keep this up, I'm anxious about the results for sure, yessiree Bob.

[dmaker]

DWA and WSA, I am not ( in this thread) trying to discuss the importance of a finding of primate DNA. I am simply trying to see if the claim that it even exists as a published study result has any merit. And it seems that it does not. No one has been able to, so far, furnish anything convincing that would indicate that any study has published any such result.  That was the intention of this thread.  

 

Now when the claim to unknown primate dna fails under scrutiny to be found, you wish to talk about how unimportant such a finding would be anyway. Or we cannot find the results because it's just a rabbit hole to go looking for them in the first place or whatever other smoke and mirrors you wish to waive about to distract from the fact that the claim to unknown primate dna often made by proponents seems to be a myth. 

 

Please start a different thread if you wish to emphasize how unimportant it would be if it did exist, but for now let's just focus on actually confirming the claim in the first place.  Thanks

Edited February 24, 2014 by dmaker

[WSA]

Looks like this is right dmaker, yes, to the extent the BFF members have the ability to confirm or deny.  I was only trying to say why I don't find this outcome especially definitive, and why I wouldn't much consider substantiation of the event to be all that significant anyway. If I once thought DNA was the avenue to confirmation, I no longer think so.  To the extent I might have at one time, I'm not sure now how much I did. Still, I'm open to all new information. 

Edited February 24, 2014 by WSA

[WSA]

Where did Dr.Goodall fall for the claim of unknown primate DNA?

Oh, in the interview done a couple of years back when the subject of BF was raised. You've probably heard it, but my recall is she cited that as one of the more interesting things to consider. I've no idea what DNA study she was referring to. She didn't specify. It might have the Sykes' Bhutan study that was later contradicted. It might have been some other study entirely. I can't say.

[Guest Urkelbot]

A rapid read - and I can't devote more without good reason - says that DNA can be compared with type specimens on file to determine what species left this.  Not what we're talking about.

The question asked was animals identified by DNA alone not hair. It doesn't matter if you don't have Bigfoot DNA on file when you do the alignment it gives back all related DNA sequences from humans to ecoli. You'll get a 98% match just not 100% enough for phylogeny and pinpoint to within a few 10000 years evolutionary divergence.