Unknown Primate Dna

[BobbyO]

Dmaker and his endless quest of showing the world and anyone who will look just how poor current Sasquatch research actually is.

I can't say I disagree to be honest.

But make no mistake people, this has nothng to do with the existence of the animal, just more about current research practices.

[norseman]

Dr Curt Nelson pulled DNA off of the board at snelgrove lake.

http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/DNA_of_Bigfoot_e.htm

[Drew]

The Josh Gates sample came back as 'Bear' according to Dr. Meldrum.

 

The Snelgrove lake sample was retested and found not to contain any unknown primate DNA.

[norseman]

Who tested it ?

[southernyahoo]

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/entire-neanderthal-genome-finally-mapped-amazing-results-001138

 

 

 

 

• The Denisovans share up to 8 percent of their genome with a “super achaic†and totally unknown species that dates back around 1 million years.
• 
  

 

 

 

Science has no problem using the term "unknown" in their current published works. And yes that would be a primate. Some fraction of that DNA still lives on in us, So the question is whether there is another version of "us" that retained the majority of that unknown hominin's genetic contribution. That would appear to be what Ketchum say's BF would be.

[hiflier]

Hello Drew,

 

The Snelgrove lake sample was retested and found not to contain any unknown primate DNA.

 

So then what? Known primate DNA? I was under the impression from the article that the sample tested was Human and Chimpanzee:

 

 

"Nelson:  Scientific evidence, at this point, is now suggesting there really is an animal there.  I cut it out, I re-purified it, and amplified it again using the same primers, and I got a very strong reaction.  When I did that I got rid of the inhibitory stuff by running it out that way.  And I found it was identical to human DNA, except it had one nucleotide polymorphism.  That nucleotide that was different was a difference that is shared with chimpanzees.  I got DNA that was primate DNA, and I knew that I might be looking at the DNA of a sasquatch.

Narrator:  The DNA says primate, but not quite human and not quite nonhuman primate.  One of the base pairs is deviated."

Edited February 4, 2014 by hiflier

[Cotter]

^good find hiflier.

 

I'm looking forward to a response on that one.

[hiflier]

Hello Cotter,

 

Thanks, but credit where credit is due. That excerpt was from Norseman's link What I'm having trouble finding though is the follow-up retesting. Looks like it's time for some serious email inquiries to be sent out. 

[dmaker]

[Drew]

Who tested it ?

See above

[dmaker]

And here is Dr. Disotell on the same sample that Nelson analyzed: http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/09/07/02/transcript/

 

 

 

Todd: We actually did not get DNA, so, in a sense, I don’t even have a result. There was not DNA present in the material given to us. Either, that material was so degraded that any viable DNA within it had basically been destroyed by other organisms or by nature; or, those were not biological samples.

 

Blake: Now, I, I… this is not gonna be a well constructed question, I apologize. The Canadian “screw board†DNA, my understanding was that after you didn’t find anything, they came back, and took it to a different place and had different filters and were able to track something down?

Todd: Uhhhhhh, how to be polite here?

Ben: [Laughter]

Karen: [Laughter]

Todd: Uhhmm, I actually eventually received those sequences. They were, I don’t remember if it was 1 or 2 bases different from human, but again you and I might differ. So, my interpretation of that result was, with very careful and selective editing, a 1 base difference in that region is still a human. Just might not be you, might be the guy down the street. So, I honestly think, that particular example, was just an example of laboratory contamination. And I can’t tell you how often that happens. Our methods are so sensitive, that, you know, one molecule that you sneezed out last week on the tip of your pippetter, might be the one that you end up analyzing. So the Canadian example of, I mean, we were very careful with it, I honestly don’t think that 1 base different sequence which falls completely in the realm of modern humans, and that was what was edited out. I analyzed that sequence as well, I found there are humans with an identical sequence to that. The human sequence that they tested it against, was 1 base different. There are other humans with exactly that same signature, and so my…

It's an interesting article overall with some great advice on how to approach a scientific endeavor for bigfoot researchers.

Edited February 4, 2014 by dmaker

[norseman]

Drew,

Right.

The article addresses this. To summarize Todd went first, he could not extract anything.

Curt went second , found that the galvanization process of the screw was inhibiting DNA extraction. Once the problem was addressed he extracted good DNA.

Edited February 4, 2014 by norseman

[dmaker]

Uhm, no. Read what I posted. Dr.Disotells comments are after that.  

 

I believe that Curtis Nelson found what Monsterquest wanted him to find.  I believe Dr.Disotell is more qualified in this arena. 

Edited February 4, 2014 by dmaker

[Drew]

Drew,

Right.

The article addresses this. To summarize Todd went first, he could not extract anything.

Curt went second , found that the galvanization process of the screw was inhibiting DNA extraction. Once the problem was addressed he extracted good DNA.

 

Todd went first- found no DNA

Curt went second, found some DNA, claimed it could be an unknown primate.

Todd said, that one base difference, matches modern humans, not unknown primate, indicating lab contamination.

 

Todd: Uhhmm, I actually eventually received those sequences. They were, I don’t remember if it was 1 or 2 bases different from human, but again you and I might differ. So, my interpretation of that result was, with very careful and selective editing, a 1 base difference in that region is still a human. Just might not be you, might be the guy down the street. So, I honestly think, that particular example, was just an example of laboratory contamination. And I can’t tell you how often that happens. Our methods are so sensitive, that, you know, one molecule that you sneezed out last week on the tip of your pippetter, might be the one that you end up analyzing. So the Canadian example of, I mean, we were very careful with it, I honestly don’t think that 1 base different sequence which falls completely in the realm of modern humans, and that was what was edited out. I analyzed that sequence as well, I found there are humans with an identical sequence to that. The human sequence that they tested it against, was 1 base different. There are other humans with exactly that same signature, and so my…

 

Edited February 4, 2014 by Drew

[hiflier]

Hello All,

Now, Dr. Disotell is a scientist. IMO this particular DNA sample would be EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT!. So I absolutely fail to understand this; "They were, I don’t remember if it was 1 or 2 bases different from human, but again you and I might differ".  Would someone please explain to me how an intelligent person in the field can possibly believe this statement is acceptable?

 

Then there's this: "So, my interpretation of that result was, with very careful and selective editing, a 1 base difference in that region is still a human." How can he think he can continue here with any credibility. He's just steered the public's mindset away from his apparent memory loss to one of absolute conviction. SHAME on him!