Guest Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 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. Okay so then it seems to be extremely important to sequence the entire mtDNA when looking at purported BF material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Sasquatch DNA doesn't seem to match the physical and behavioral description of the animal. If they're modern human, I suspect they'll receive special recognition instead of species establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Okay so then it seems to be extremely important to sequence the entire mtDNA when looking at purported BF material. I don't know how many samples that were sequenced were actually left by a sasquatch. Anything could deposit hair in an area with sasquatch sightings, including humans. Sasquatch DNA doesn't seem to match the physical and behavioral description of the animal. If they're modern human, I suspect they'll receive special recognition instead of species establishment. No offense intended but who do you know that has some fully sequenced sasquatch DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 There isn't any DNA that can be directly attributed to Sasquatch. It's actually the provenance of the samples and repeated pattern of results that tells me the modern human result may be accurate. The more I look into it, the less likely it seems that no one has recovered a biological sample from a Sasquatch. If it's true that Sasquatch possess modern human DNA, then this field of research is in a predicament where DNA evidence won't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Provenance of which samples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Mostly hair samples that have been shown to possess unknown primate morphology. One that comes to mind are the hairs from the Skookum cast. Some of the samples that aren't hairs, like the blood sample obtained at Snelgrove Lake are credible as well. The animal that stepped on the board of screws left a footprint that was much larger than any human would make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I'll have to back track to get the details on those stories. I do know there was a question about the Skookum cast being an elk, what did that sample come back as? Addendum; I looked at Skookum artilcles on wiki and a few other sites. They found several bear, coyote, deer and elk hairs. One hair was identified through morphology as a primate's hair. No explanation was given as to why this isn't considered a regular human hair. As far as I can tell, no one ever did DNA testing on the primate hair. If there was testing done, I saw no mention of it. I found postings on another forum by someone visiting the Snelgrove cabin. Evidently he claims to have talked to the producer and goes on to decsribe his own visit to the place. This is what he said the producer told him: The results from the DNA which was extracted from the board of screws concluded human DNA with Chimp divergent genes. See MonsterQuest episode/ Sasquatch Attack for more details http://z15.invisionfree.com/OWFR/index.php?showtopic=544 That comment makes no sense to me. Humans have divergent chimp genes, that's why we are human. http://www.evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm In the case of human and chimpanzee, the divergence occurred sufficiently long ago that there are significant numbers of rearrangements in the chromosomes but not so long that all chromosomes have rearrangements. Chromosomes 1, 4, 5, 9,12, 15, 16, 17 and 18 in humans have inversions of major tracts of code compared with homologous chromosomes in chimpanzees, and human chromosome 2 results from the end to end fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes that remain separate in all the other great apes. (6), (7), ( . Go here for a more comprehensive explanation of chromosome 2 fusion. I couldn't find any scanned copies of the DNA reports floating around on the internet, you would think that would be readily available if they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 We share many of the same genes as chimps, but the Snelgrove Lake sample apparently had some variations that's only seen in non-human primates, which is why Todd Disotell went with the explanation that it was the result of contamination. Since the DNA was well within the range of modern human, the sample on its own isn't evidence of Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Do you have a link to Todd Disotell's comments? Or a link to a report of some kind? Oh never mind, here is a clip from the show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgsCOrJguj0 He basically says there was nothing there......then he goes on to explain why it might be contamination or just a person. I'm not getting the same impression that you seem to be getting from his comments. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Can you explain to me why a couple of polymorphisms means non-human to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted May 10, 2015 Moderator Share Posted May 10, 2015 Can you explain to me why a couple of polymorphisms means non-human to you? Maybe because there is no other organism that matches that DNA, so the only conclusion is " contamination " . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Can you explain to me why a couple of polymorphisms means non-human to you? To me it doesn't mean non-human. The DNA is still in the range of modern humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I'm not following the logic for why you would think those results would indicate that Sasquatch's DNA is indistinguishable from HS in the Snelgrove incident. Maybe because there is no other organism that matches that DNA, so the only conclusion is " contamination " . Hi Shadow-We all vary in our DNA makeup where one or two polymorphisms is just an indication for variety within a species. Not every human has had their DNA profile sequenced and added to GenBank. The HS DNA profile used for comparison in GenBank is based on a composite of about 6 individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 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???? IIRC, NAWAC sent the samples off for analysis however, no copy of the laboratory's report (on their letterhead) has ever been published regarding the alleged contamination and/or degradation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Thanks. I think more testing needs to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 I'm not following the logic for why you would think those results would indicate that Sasquatch's DNA is indistinguishable from HS in the Snelgrove incident. Hi Shadow-We all vary in our DNA makeup where one or two polymorphisms is just an indication for variety within a species. Not every human has had their DNA profile sequenced and added to GenBank. The HS DNA profile used for comparison in GenBank is based on a composite of about 6 individuals. I think there is more complete Human genomes in genbank than 6 by now and certainly alot more than that if we are only dealing with mitochondrial genomes. The Snelgrove sample had a single nucleotide polymorphiosm difference from the majority (not all) of humans and it was a diffence that chimps also have at that location. This is why the finding was insignificant in the bigger picture and didn't distinguish the sample to the point of excluding a human source. It still might have been a BF that left it, but the hair could have been on the board before anything stepped on it also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts