southernyahoo Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Which I take to mean that 100% human test results coming back are because of contamination. And not because a 8' tall hairy forest giant is 100 percent human....... It's a convenient assumption for a sample here or there, but when the numbers reach into the hundreds you either have to wonder if the science of DNA extraction is either not worth a **** at getting the sample source DNA or that's what it really is. Contamination should show multiple profiles, not just one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted June 19, 2014 Admin Share Posted June 19, 2014 I wasn't aware that there had been hundreds of DNA submissions, is there a list of these somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 19, 2014 Admin Share Posted June 19, 2014 It's a convenient assumption for a sample here or there, but when the numbers reach into the hundreds you either have to wonder if the science of DNA extraction is either not worth a **** at getting the sample source DNA or that's what it really is. Contamination should show multiple profiles, not just one. Here is my problem with that. We can certainly assume that squatch has anatomical differences to us based on observation. Why isn't this being picked up in the DNA? We have mapped the human and neanderthal genome. We can discern differences in both homo species. So why do squatch samples come back as homo sapien? I'm not being a jerk but this makes no sense to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I wasn't aware that there had been hundreds of DNA submissions, is there a list of these somewhere? Maybe, but when folks ( semi-scientists like Disotel) throw ALL human so called contaminated submissions away with no record. Well, you get the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted June 19, 2014 Moderator Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) So why do squatch samples come back as homo sapien? I'm not being a jerk but this makes no sense to me The assumptions behind the testing were biased by the preconceived ideas of the time. Only a small part of the mtDNA is tested for species identification. When the markers in that area match, you assume match. In the past, because of the cost, and because of the assumption that bigfoot was just an ape, an upright gorilla as some still assert, when the initial pass shows human, not ape, at the gene locus (locii?) that are used to separate human from known ape, then the testers assumed human contamination and stopped testing. It is likely if those were real bigfoot DNA, if they had continued testing, they would have found differences. I don't think it is right to conclude that those samples WERE bigfoot DNA. What it is proper to conclude is that the testing was terminated before going far enough to make any determination other than whatever provided the DNA, it was very very humanlike if not actually human. There is another possibility if this is taken to extremes. It's not as simple as specific genes being present or not. Some genes can be present but "turned off" by the actions of other proteins, RNA for instance, which determines whether the trait the gene is for actually manifests itself. It could be possible ... I'm not claiming this is true, but possible ... that the DNA could be essentially identical but different pieces active or inactive because of some slight difference on a completely different section of the DNA producing a protein that toggles it one way or the other. This stuff is NOT simple and people who are trying to make it so are doing the rest a disservice. For all I know, those seemingly contaminated samples were just that. I'm throwing out possibilities, I'm not doing a Giorgio Tsoukalous imitation jumping from "might be" to the assumption of "must be" or "is". What I believe we know now and all should agree on is that the past testing didn't go far enough, we assumed it was adequate to prove human contamination or not, and we don't know that for sure anymore. I wish we had some of those old samples to retest with today's techniques and at today's costs. MIB Edited June 19, 2014 by MIB 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Here is my problem with that. We can certainly assume that squatch has anatomical differences to us based on observation. Why isn't this being picked up in the DNA? We have mapped the human and neanderthal genome. We can discern differences in both homo species. So why do squatch samples come back as homo sapien? I'm not being a jerk but this makes no sense to me Yes, I agree and don't understand this part. Is the entire genome of BF known? MIB, just read your post, and this seems logical. What are the cost issues and problems with not stopping and going clear to the end of testing? Seems like when we have all the genes of a BF identified, the any sample can be tested and determined to be BF or not. Correct? Edited June 19, 2014 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Fascinating! So chimps are *more* human than bigfoot. Right? For a study or observation of any kind in any field to be valid, it must be repeatable. Therefore, there has been exactly zero valid/reputable studies done of bigfoot DNA. For you to cling to this paltry record so as to maintain this myth of bigfoot humaness says more about you than them. Win big win I don't understand why we keep having these convos? I think a lot of this comes down to the big "R" word that we aren't allowed to say on the forum. You are pretty good at misunderstanding statements Bipto. I take this statement to mean that 95 % of all tests done on purported BF samples returned a 100% human result. He's talking about all the individual results from seperate samples in the track record he aquired from Crowe. Some samples logically would be known animals or not produce at all. So you mean that 95% of tests on the contaminated "BF DNA" came back human 100% of the time? ...How about rather than attacking Bipto everyone cracks open a Biology book, and learn the procedures of taking a DNA sample. oh and the scientific method would help too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Zen you can save that mess for the taxonomist. Nobody is attacking Bipto, It just feels that way because a non-human ape should have proven itself already with DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 The assumptions behind the testing were biased by the preconceived ideas of the time. Only a small part of the mtDNA is tested for species identification. When the markers in that area match, you assume match. In the past, because of the cost, and because of the assumption that bigfoot was just an ape, an upright gorilla as some still assert, when the initial pass shows human, not ape, at the gene locus (locii?) that are used to separate human from known ape, then the testers assumed human contamination and stopped testing. It is likely if those were real bigfoot DNA, if they had continued testing, they would have found differences. I don't think it is right to conclude that those samples WERE bigfoot DNA. What it is proper to conclude is that the testing was terminated before going far enough to make any determination other than whatever provided the DNA, it was very very humanlike if not actually human. There is another possibility if this is taken to extremes. It's not as simple as specific genes being present or not. Some genes can be present but "turned off" by the actions of other proteins, RNA for instance, which determines whether the trait the gene is for actually manifests itself. It could be possible ... I'm not claiming this is true, but possible ... that the DNA could be essentially identical but different pieces active or inactive because of some slight difference on a completely different section of the DNA producing a protein that toggles it one way or the other. This stuff is NOT simple and people who are trying to make it so are doing the rest a disservice. For all I know, those seemingly contaminated samples were just that. I'm throwing out possibilities, I'm not doing a Giorgio Tsoukalous imitation jumping from "might be" to the assumption of "must be" or "is". What I believe we know now and all should agree on is that the past testing didn't go far enough, we assumed it was adequate to prove human contamination or not, and we don't know that for sure anymore. I wish we had some of those old samples to retest with today's techniques and at today's costs. MIB That's a fair post MIB, Ketchum did however take it all the way on mtDNA and with an outsourced Lab. I was and am still not a fan of testing small amounts of mtDNA, however I do think it can weed out known animals with little trouble with contamination. What would you do with one of these old samples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted June 19, 2014 Moderator Share Posted June 19, 2014 I don't understand all I think I know about what went on with Ketchum. I probably should not say a lot more than that. As far as what I'd do ... well, I'm not pro-proof, or at least not 'til my confidence in what I'm proving and what the impacts would be goes up, but lets say I had a BF DNA sample I was 100% sure of and I wanted to know what could be learned from it, I would try make it into 4 pieces. The first I'd take down to the US F&W Service forensic lab and hope they'd be willing to test it. The second would go to a university assuming I could afford it. Possibly Trent U where Bart and Tyler had Smeja's bear meat tested? Possibly somewhere else. I'd hold onto one as a control sample and have a trusted friend hold the fourth in case I had some unfortunate mishap on my way to hear the results. The side question I wonder about is if I had that solid proof, and if it was known that I was having it cross-checked, whether some gov't agency would come along and ask for my silence. It would be interesting to have real proof of whether such things actually happen or it is just urban legend. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted June 19, 2014 Admin Share Posted June 19, 2014 Maybe, but when folks ( semi-scientists like Disotel) throw ALL human so called contaminated submissions away with no record. Well, you get the picture. Semi-science is just the worst, isn't it? http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/ SY, I'm still trying to locate something showing that hundreds of (purported) BF DNA samples have been analyzed, as you seemed to elude to. Any idea where one might find that info? Were you just referring to all the samples sent to MK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 MB, I would be referencing the samples sent to Ketchum, and those prior which were located by Paulides in Ray Crowes track record. Those were probably just anecdotes from those involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Gulliver's Travels was a work of fiction. Am I missing something in the point of referencing the yahoos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Here is my problem with that. We can certainly assume that squatch has anatomical differences to us based on observation. Why isn't this being picked up in the DNA? We have mapped the human and neanderthal genome. We can discern differences in both homo species. So why do squatch samples come back as homo sapien? I'm not being a jerk but this makes no sense to me They would have to be Genus Homo, and fully human on the mtDNA but hybridized with a more archaic hominin. That would be the only answer that could explain it. The mtDNA could be from us while the nuDNA is recombined and could explain the differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Awesome podcast Bipto. It blows my mind to think that such a massive creature spends much of it's time - or any of it's time - up in the trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts