Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 I find it strange how his alternative explanation made a lot more sense, yet he decided to go with the explanation that the results were due to laboratory contamination (which would have had to have come from a non-human primate).
Guest Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 Actually, in this case, the lab was unable to find any DNA on the rock. Page 97 http://media.texasbigfoot.com/OP_paper_media/OuachitaProjectMonograph_Version1.1_03112015.pdf
norseman Posted May 5, 2015 Admin Posted May 5, 2015 What I find astonishing is that the blood they collected from a certain area was contaminated??? By what??? I still haven't heard a good answer to that one???? What I find astonishing is that the blood they collected from a certain area was contaminated??? By what??? I still haven't heard a good answer to that one???? Not contaminated but degraded. http://www3.appliedbiosystems.com/WebTroubleshooting/SNPNotAmplifying/You_may_have_degraded_genomic_DNA.htm
Guest Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Norseman is correct in that degraded DNA is often labelled contaminated as well. Of course any organism that happens along the sample can contaminate it. Bacteria are everywhere and we have not identified more than a few thousand species or so. Considering most samples are collected by individuals with no experience handling such evidence, there is no reason to be mystified by the large number of inconclusive reports.
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Red blood cells do not contain a nucleus or mitochondria. Therefore no chance of getting nuclear or mitochondrial DNA from that type of blood cell.. White blood cells do contain a nucleus and mitochondria, however, they comprise 1% of blood (if that). So the DNA in a sample of blood is very tiny.
Sunflower Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 OK thanks. I was talking about the blood that came from the plate with broken glass glued to it. I thought I read that it was included in the testing of Melba's project???
southernyahoo Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 I guess it's one thing to get the DNA & another thing entirely to interpret the DNA. So.... as Kathy Strain says, it's gonna take a body on a slab & the organization(NAWAC) she's involved with has all their ducks in order. You could take a specimen if the DNA would show an undocumented ape is present. If the DNA is as human as was found in the Snelgrove Lake samples, the body will be illegal to possess. This is why you still need the DNA and to know before you take one. 2
Guest Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 I have a question, I'm not sure if any one here can answer, put I'll put it out there. I was just reading that Neandertal DNA differs from Homo Sapiens by only 0.12% To be clear, I don't think BF is a Neandertal, but my question is this: Would Neandertal DNA show as human in these commonly used tests? If so, what percentage difference would be required to register as non-human?
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project An animal with the physical description of Bigfoot will probably be closer to us than a chimp, but not as close as the Neanderthals. If for whatever reason they're modern human, analyzing their mitochondrial DNA won't work for proper identification, as it'll be indistinguishable from regular modern humans. If someone manages to obtain a specimen, I suspect there will need to be at least several DNA tests done before they realize that the results aren't due to contamination. Edited May 6, 2015 by OntarioSquatch
Guest Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project An animal with the physical description of Bigfoot will probably be closer to us than a chimp, but not as close as the Neanderthals. If for whatever reason they're modern human, analyzing their mitochondrial DNA won't work for proper identification, as it'll be indistinguishable from regular modern humans. If someone manages to obtain a specimen, I suspect there will need to be at least several DNA tests done before they realize that the results aren't due to contamination. Different studies have shown different numbers for the percent difference between us and Neandertal, the lowest being about 0.10 percent and the highest around 0.3. The intro paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthalhas it as 0.12%. No matter though, the number is very small. Do these DNA tests that the purported BF samples are being subjected to test both mDNA and nuDNA? Do they analyze the entire sequence? I thought I read somewhere that many DNA tests use only 10 or so common markers rather than the whole sequence. That may just when comparing known humans though, not sure. I'm still wondering what degree of difference would be necessary to get a clear result. Would a 0.5% difference to human DNA be immediately identifiable? Also, what reason would there be for them to have modern human DNA? Monsanto ? Edited May 6, 2015 by lastlaugh
Guest diana swampbooger Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Do we know how many chromosomes BF have? The zebra has between 32 and 46 (depending on species).
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Regarding Neanderthal DNA, if you watch Finding Your Roots with Henry Louis Gates on tv, when he gives the person their DNA racial/ethnic breakdown often you can see a category marked "Other" on the lab result paper. It's usually in the 1% to less than 1% range. I suspect this "Other" DNA is Neanderthal DNA that some people carry in their genome. I think the problem with BigFoot DNA is that we need a known sample of BF DNA. Gates had a similar problem with African and Asian ethnic groups: until they got known samples of a specific ethnic group, it was hard for him to say "Yes, you are 22% Bachere." Without those known samples from the Bachere people, the most he could say was "Your roots are in the Cross River area of Nigeria".
southernyahoo Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Sykes used two different loci of mtDNA when he encountered a human result in his bigfoot DNA study. He did this to ensure he didn't have a Neanderthal descendent sample. So according to Brian Sykes, a Neanderthal sample can be distinguished from modern human with a couple of relatively short sequences from the mitochondria. Bigfoot, if not human or even genus homo would likely be distinguishable with a 600 base pair sequence from the CO1 gene in the mtDNA. If bigfoot has been fornicating with us for thousands of years, we're skewered.
ShadowBorn Posted May 6, 2015 Moderator Posted May 6, 2015 Sykes used two different loci of mtDNA when he encountered a human result in his bigfoot DNA study. He did this to ensure he didn't have a Neanderthal descendent sample. So according to Brian Sykes, a Neanderthal sample can be distinguished from modern human with a couple of relatively short sequences from the mitochondria. Bigfoot, if not human or even genus homo would likely be distinguishable with a 600 base pair sequence from the CO1 gene in the mtDNA. If bigfoot has been fornicating with us for thousands of years, we're skewered. Would that mean male fornicating with female since the gene would be stronger in the female? or is it the other way around?
Guest Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Ah that makes sense. There is no Neandertal DNA on the human mtDNA, so they only need to test the mtDNA to see what they have. ^ the mtDNA is passed only from mother to daughter, so the human mtDNA would only have BF DNA if BF females had human hybrid offspring that then had human offspring that then had a BF hybrid again. Repeatedly, if I understand correctly.
Recommended Posts