Bigfoot Dna

[Cisco]

Ok, I'm a little confused. I did NOT read Sykes report but I was under the impression that Sykes was able to publish findings on the DNA and none of those findings were human or primate. I know he identified DNA, from other animals such as bear and horses.

 

In short, I thought he'd verified all or most of the more promising samples, from known researchers, and none of them were remotely close to being human or primate?

[southernyahoo]

Would that mean male fornicating with female since the gene would be stronger in the female? or is it the other way around?

 

 

Most testing done to screen the samples is mtDNA testing and you would have it right that the mtDNA comes from the mother. So if all Sasquatch had modern human mtDNA then they'd all be descendants from modern human females or hybrid females between humans and some other hominin species , unless humans can go feral like hogs do.

 

Cisco, Sykes did have one human result in his study and he explains what I said above in his paper.

[ExTrumpet]

I am certainly not a DNA expert, but if DNA is so easily contaminated why is it allowed in a court of law to determine one's guilt or innocence?

[Yuchi1]

^^^ IMO, "contamination" is the oft used out when the lab has discovered something that is outside their nine dots.

[Sunflower]

And Melba was asked by one of the examining labs if she had discovered a "new species" because they said they had never seen anything like it.

[Guest]

I am certainly not a DNA expert, but if DNA is so easily contaminated why is it allowed in a court of law to determine one's guilt or innocence?

 

Well, when using it in a court case it's usually all human samples that you are dealing with.  If you have have contamination, it is either someone that was at, say the scene of the crime, or someone who handled the evidence.  So if the DNA comes back as a lab worker or detective, they know that it's been contaminated.  If the DNA comes back as a suspect, then you can be pretty sure that the suspect was at the scene.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

My knowledge of DNA is too limited to really delve into this conversation. However, claims were made that the Sykes study threw out any DNA samples that showed human markers. My concern would be that sasquatch samples could have been discarded without testing. Obviously this would be the case if their DNA was identical to ours, but how much difference would there have to be for initial testing to show human? The main reason of my concern probably stems from my lack of knowledge, but if preliminary testing to discard "contaminated" samples was done, this implies that the end result of any testing took multiple steps. Or to put it another way, why not just test all the samples and classify the results, as opposed to only doing thorough testing on samples that met other criteria? So you would test samples, and find out what they are, instead of doing preliminary testing to discard certain samples. Again, my knowledge is very limited, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding something.

 

Sasquatch DNA would never be identical to human DNA, or they would look like us. There must be differences. However, I think that the difference between our DNA and theirs is much less than the difference between our DNA and that of other primates. Chimpanzees are our closest relative I believe, and the difference in DNA amounts of a few percent, give or take. Sasquatch appear to display much more human-like attributes, therefore it stands to reason they are more closely related. Obviously this is not how it works in all instances, but it CAN work that way to my knowledge.

 

One really huge problem I have with DNA testing in general is the fact that there is a need for interpretation. Interpretation is a magnet for controversy considering that even top scientists can disagree. That should tell us right there the limitations present. One thing DNA analysis appears to be pretty good at is making comparisons. You can see the problems that might arise when there is nothing with which to compare a sample. Another huge problem I have is the fact that the search for sasquatch through DNA is done largely by amatuers. The problem is not the amateurs, but the fact that very few samples ever get tested, at least not proportionate to the number of samples collected. So we are very limited in the amount of samples that we can get tested, and even then, scientists must be involved to analyze the finds to even attempt to prove the existence of a new species. The main problem arises from the fact that so many samples are collected based on little or no evidence. It is MUCH more likely for a hair sample found in the woods to be from a known animal, therefore the majority of samples are going to come to nothing. There are two solutions to this issue. First, we adopt a highly selective method of determining which samples to test, or second, we test many more samples. Those are really the only solutions. By testing a large percentage of the whole we will likely hit on a small percentage of sasquatch samples. By being selective instead, we can eliminate samples that were randomly picked up in the woods, and which are likely to belong to a known animal. Another problem is that most of the testing is done in two ways: very rarely an actual scientist will undertake a study. How many times has this occurred in comparison to what is done in "professional" science? The other way is for amateurs to have their own testing done. Even if they find something interesting, there are many ways for them to handle it, and some of those ways are bad and will result in the results coming to nothing. The closed-mindedness of scientists in general towards this subject will also result in a tendency to dismiss even good results based upon reasons that might be accurate in some cases, but that are not correct in this particular case. They could question the methods, the skill of those doing the testing, etc. So the results will be unlikely to speak for themselves in my opinion, but again, my knowledge is limited.

[Guest Divergent1]

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?

The mtDNA for Neanderthal and HS have different species specific barcodes for identification. No HS living today has Neanderthal mtDNA, what we do have is a certain percentage of nucear DNA in common. This is why they think we intermingled at some point.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

That also gives insight into why Melba Ketchum's hybrid theory for Bigfoot doesn't work. The hybridization would be detectable in the DNA of Native Americans, similar to how Neanderthal DNA is detectable in non-African humans. It would be even more easily detectable than the Neanderthal DNA that humans have mixed in.

[Rockape]

Something else???

Feral humans.

[Guest]

The mtDNA for Neanderthal and HS have different species specific barcodes for identification. No HS living today has Neanderthal mtDNA, what we do have is a certain percentage of nucear DNA in common. This is why they think we intermingled at some point.

 

 

So the next question is, what does the Sasquatch mtDNA look like?  We know what Neanderthal mtDNA looks like because we have known samples, but would we know what we were looking at if we had Sas mtDNA?  How close could it be to human?

[southernyahoo]

Neanderthal mtDNA is identical to human in most of it. With only about 200 differences spread out across about 16,500 base pairs, you would think you were looking at human mtDNA if you looked in the wrong place. Denisovans have about 385 differences and chimps have about 2000 differences. You have to know where each differs from each other to properly formulate an effective ID test.

 

There is the barcode method which is suitable for screen testing and assigning unknown sequences to known species. It might not be effective enough to distinguish certain subspecies however if they are identical in the target sequence and differ in another.

[Guest Divergent1]

What Southernyahoo said above but with one caveat, there is no way to misidentfy HS with complete sequencing of the mtDNA. If you are sending your samples to a commercial lab then all they are probably looking at is the bar code ID to identify the species.

[Guest diana swampbooger]

I was gonna get the 'DNA for Dummies' book, then I remembered that DNA is just a blueprint. It's the epigenetics that turn on/off this or that sequence .... so, yeah, I'll just be patient & wait for the full-color cartoon version 'splainin' the 411.

[ShadowBorn]

I was gonna get the 'DNA for Dummies' book, then I remembered that DNA is just a blueprint. It's the epigenetics that turn on/off this or that sequence .... so, yeah, I'll just be patient & wait for the full-color cartoon version 'splainin' the 411.

Would not a Holiday Inn do better.

 

You know that the DNA of these creatures say that within the mtDNA the female is the dominate which I would say is the human side of these creatures. The male I would believe would be the unknown side of the DNA, and this where in my opinion we should be putting all our efforts. In my opinion I would say that a unknown male creature mated with a female human species and this is how these creatures were created. This is speculation of course, but does make sense on how there is a human side to DNA that is found in the samples. For some reason females were liked by these creatures and the cross breeding began. Again this is speculation.