hiflier Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Hello ShadowBorn, I'm only posting this as a reference: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted January 30, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted January 30, 2016 There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding on this forum about how DNA works. Having done the human DNA genome tests to determine my ancestry I learned a lot I did not know. Even though there is no question I am human, there are certain designated markers that are evident if your ancestry was at a specific time and place in human history. Those markers went back to before my ancestors were homo Sapiens. I have Neanderthal DNA. I was able to compare the ancestry of my paternal and maternal lines. In only a few cases were the markers the same. In other words in only a few cases were my paternal and maternal ancestors at the same place at the same time. Certainly they had to be same place same time for me to be conceived in modern times. Some here seem to think that human and animal DNA is significantly different. "The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168).These 'Human Accelerated Regions' (HARs) provide clues into our evolution. (Photograph: Image by Owen Booth.) " So there are only a few short DNA sequences that have changed since our species diverged. These things are called Human Accelerated Regions, and those are located to differentiate humans from other animals with common ancestry. What people seem to be missing here is that an unknown bipedal mammal with common ancestry at any point, the DNA is going to look very similar to human. Without an accepted BF DNA type, DNA labs are not going to know where to look for markers that differentiate BF from other species with common ancestors. They can tell you it is not a chimpanzee or not a human because they know where to look for markers that define the chimpanzee and human. That is why we get so many unknown species results or suggestions of human DNA contamination. It looks sort of human but is missing some modern human markers but yet contains strange ones. I think some here expect some kind of red light and alarm to go off to alert a lab they have found an unknown species. Does not work that way. Most labs would likely assume contamination when something strange is sequenced. So basically what you are saying is that its useless in this line of work? Nope, when you bring that body into a lab and the body is accepted as a BF, they will run DNA tests with different labs compare results, and then declare which markers differentiate BF from other similar species including our self. What if its only a biopsy dart's small tissue sample???? Thats my question. Can DNA crack the case without the body? Well if we had a group of biologists which included a couple of credible PHD types, who managed to observe a BF, perhaps get lots of good video, then got a tissue sample via darting or some other method like injury, they might be able to establish the species without body on the lab table. But they are going to have to be very persuasive and write a really good paper. Meldrum, Bindernagel, and Krantz have not been persuasive enough yet to get their colleagues interested. I just think the reality of the situation is that at this point a body that can be examined at leisure is the only thing that can get the attention of main stream science. Nothing else seems to be working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I'm very open to the idea of sasquatches being real, but until we have actual proof, the only "science" is in the form of chasing shadows. Honestly, if the NAWAC guys can't bag a type specimen, I'm having a hard time believing it can be done (assuming there is an extant species.) Well, now actually, science is a process, performed on evidence. The work of the scientific proponents has established an unclassified animal beyond significant doubt. But one has to be up on the reports, the footprints, and what the proponents have said about them - and of course leavened this with one's own careful thought and experience - to know this. No shortcuts at scientific frontiers, sorry; the only ones getting any rewards worth having are the ones putting in the work. What makes frontiers so cool. Proving stuff to the satisfaction of the ignorant may feed the bulldog; but it's really all the work preceding that that is properly called "science." NAWAC is not even doing this part time. And the rules of engagement when everyone thinks that might be a guy in a suit are a far cry from bagging a new species of tapir. They're where we should all expect: everyone has seen one, but clear shots are hard to come by and fraught with risk. Everything we know about this species says that chimps bonobos and gorillas are sitting ducks by comparison; this is simply a hard animal to hunt, and even harder when no one has even figured out what the rules are yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 They can tell you it is not a chimpanzee or not a human because they know where to look for markers that define the chimpanzee and human. That is why we get so many unknown species results or suggestions of human DNA contamination. It looks sort of human but is missing some modern human markers but yet contains strange ones. I think some here expect some kind of red light and alarm to go off to alert a lab they have found an unknown species. Does not work that way. Most labs would likely assume contamination when something strange is sequenced. Great post, SWW. I've been trying to imagine if there could be a circumstance under which a DNA lab might come back and say: "Hey! You discovered Bigfoot". It looks like that just can't happen without being able to reference the DNA from a type specimen. I've often wondered the same, DNA is most useful when you are looking for something or markers of something that are already in the database. Now if one company doing studies had multiple samples from multiple independent sources that all had the same DNA and markers then its to reason, while they would not determine what species they came from but could reason they all came from the same species?? Am I correct in assuming that? Again, DNA confuses me a lot. You guys gonna hurt yourselves with all this DNA theorizing! Not needed. And yes. No one will accept DNA results that did not come from a type specimen. Nature of the, pardon the pun, beast. DNA determines what already-known species you are. OK, you can be determined a new species by DNA. But only if: a specimen is in hand; DNA is taken from that specimen; consensus is a clean read on the sample; ...and the animal was previously determined to be a member of an existing species. In fact this is how most "new" species, of mammals at least, are "found." To late, I already have a headache from it DWA, Wait, did I just agree with both Spider and DWA in the same post??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted January 30, 2016 Moderator Share Posted January 30, 2016 Hello ShadowBorn, I'm only posting this as a reference: Moose Eyes.jpg Those eye balls do not even do it justice compare to what I seen on the video. They are of the same color but way bigger size and the spacing seems to be right. All I can say is that you would be amaze at this video if I could download this to a CD and copy and paste this to a sizable size so that I can load it on this forum. I was super amaze by it , but now I am amaze by a picture I have of one standing just beyond the flash of my camera trap by my bait pile. The eyes are not like the moose nor are they like the ones on the video, But the shine is blue which does change things a bit with in the eye. This has me complex at what I am looking at to what I have to reference with. And the rules of engagement when everyone thinks that might be a guy in a suit are a far cry from bagging a new species of tapir. They're where we should all expect: everyone has seen one, but clear shots are hard to come by and fraught with risk. Everything we know about this species says that chimps bonobos and gorillas are sitting ducks by comparison; this is simply a hard animal to hunt, and even harder when no one has even figured out what the rules are yet. DWA That's just it, there are no rules like you have in physics that you can follow. We are making up the rules as we go as we progress with this creature existence. Science works by rules and process in order for science to solve mystery. It follows these rules diligently in order to solve life's mysteries. If it did not have rules there would be chaos with in the science world, so it must have rules in order to provide order. It is universal within our universe and amongst our stars, with out order worlds would collide and there be total chaos. But then some how the saying goes that " out of chaos comes order " or we can reverse this saying by saying that " out order comes chaos " which does seem to happen a lot on these threads. But this is suppose to make us work our brains and come up with a solution to a problem that has existed since this creature was first sighted or even shot. science is the key to solving this mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) And the rules of engagement when everyone thinks that might be a guy in a suit are a far cry from bagging a new species of tapir. No one in the organization is worried about encountering a person in a costume. The times when they held off from taking a shot were because they didn't know where another member of their group was. Edited January 30, 2016 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) Which is close to the same thing. Either way: no one should be expecting a carcass by now. They haven't been on the ground enough. You guys gonna hurt yourselves with all this DNA theorizing! Not needed. To late, I already have a headache from it DWA, Wait, did I just agree with both Spider and DWA in the same post??? We'll have a tech right out there! Edited January 30, 2016 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Which is close to the same thing. Either way: no one should be expecting a carcass by now. They haven't been on the ground enough. You guys gonna hurt yourselves with all this DNA theorizing! Not needed. To late, I already have a headache from it DWA, Wait, did I just agree with both Spider and DWA in the same post??? We'll have a tech right out there! Please do, or at the least, we should both be playing some lotto numbers, to bad that billion dollar + mega millions is gone, we could both do some pretty serious damage to the BF mystery with that kind of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aether-drift Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 DWA - I disagree: science has not come anywhere near establishing a new species. Just because people at the NAWAC claim to have had experiences, without even HD video evidence to go on, who knows what they are seeing? And footprints - they are not proof... Dr. Meldrum is highly suspect in my book as he defends the PGF (which I would rate as having a less than a 1% chance of being real) and associates with Todd Standing. Sadly, the field of BF research is full of fakery, hoaxing, and more than a few crappy TV shows. It is a kind of joke at this point... Until there is a type specimen, there's no science to be conducted or claimed - just the collection of anecdotes and stories. Which are fine as far as they go for entertainment, but let's all get real for a moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) I know somebody who worked at the store in TN that sold one of the winning tickets! That's prolly as close as I'll ever get to winning the lottery but, hey, at least I finally said something here that Twist could (sort of) agree with. Sadly, the field of BF research is full of fakery, hoaxing, and more than a few crappy TV shows. It is a kind of joke at this point... I disagree. Certainly there are those who hoax Bigfoot (and also some crappy shows) but, from what I can tell, the majority of folks interested in this subject are honest and they apply whatever resources they can in an effort to solve the mystery. That will happen one day and the naysayers will have some splainin' to do! lol Edited January 31, 2016 by xspider1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Yeah. Anyone who thinks the hoaxes are even part of the discussion just isn't aware of the evidence. hoaxes EVIDENCEbs ^^ SEARCH^^THIS PILE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding on this forum about how DNA works. Having done the human DNA genome tests to determine my ancestry I learned a lot I did not know. Even though there is no question I am human, there are certain designated markers that are evident if your ancestry was at a specific time and place in human history. Those markers went back to before my ancestors were homo Sapiens. I have Neanderthal DNA. I was able to compare the ancestry of my paternal and maternal lines. In only a few cases were the markers the same. In other words in only a few cases were my paternal and maternal ancestors at the same place at the same time. Certainly they had to be same place same time for me to be conceived in modern times. Some here seem to think that human and animal DNA is significantly different. "The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168).These 'Human Accelerated Regions' (HARs) provide clues into our evolution. (Photograph: Image by Owen Booth.) " So there are only a few short DNA sequences that have changed since our species diverged. These things are called Human Accelerated Regions, and those are located to differentiate humans from other animals with common ancestry. What people seem to be missing here is that an unknown bipedal mammal with common ancestry at any point, the DNA is going to look very similar to human. Without an accepted BF DNA type, DNA labs are not going to know where to look for markers that differentiate BF from other species with common ancestors. They can tell you it is not a chimpanzee or not a human because they know where to look for markers that define the chimpanzee and human. That is why we get so many unknown species results or suggestions of human DNA contamination. It looks sort of human but is missing some modern human markers but yet contains strange ones. I think some here expect some kind of red light and alarm to go off to alert a lab they have found an unknown species. Does not work that way. Most labs would likely assume contamination when something strange is sequenced. So basically what you are saying is that its useless in this line of work? Nope, when you bring that body into a lab and the body is accepted as a BF, they will run DNA tests with different labs compare results, and then declare which markers differentiate BF from other similar species including our self. What if its only a biopsy dart's small tissue sample???? Thats my question. Can DNA crack the case without the body? IMO, yes, if the event was properly documented (video, etc.) and the chain of custody firmly established. And the rules of engagement when everyone thinks that might be a guy in a suit are a far cry from bagging a new species of tapir. No one in the organization is worried about encountering a person in a costume. The times when they held off from taking a shot were because they didn't know where another member of their group was. I beg to differ as the two shooting events (especially McClurkin's) were comprised of shots fired at either a poorly ID'd target or something that scared the shooter into pulling the trigger at a blurry image and sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I was addressing what I said to Cryptic Megafauna's post. However, science is not failing us when it comes to portals, mind speak, or any of the paranormal things spoken of. Currently there is no way to scientifically test for those things. Some of the other items could be tested if we had a cooperative live sasquatch. I'm curious how those people that C M saw would react if you told them they looked like pre-human ancestors. Like to see the reaction. The person knew they were Neanderthal, not prehuman. They can tell you it is not a chimpanzee or not a human because they know where to look for markers that define the chimpanzee and human. That is why we get so many unknown species results or suggestions of human DNA contamination. It looks sort of human but is missing some modern human markers but yet contains strange ones. I think some here expect some kind of red light and alarm to go off to alert a lab they have found an unknown species. Does not work that way. Most labs would likely assume contamination when something strange is sequenced. Great post, SWW. I've been trying to imagine if there could be a circumstance under which a DNA lab might come back and say: "Hey! You discovered Bigfoot". It looks like that just can't happen without being able to reference the DNA from a type specimen. Exactly, or a biopsy dart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 My point, being, at this point. BF has a non human foot. It may or may not have a human ancestor skull. But real close. It diverged from our Ancestors. But the point at which it diverged is where it's interesting. For lot's of reasons. Since the break was between Homo Habilis and Australopithecus The question is where there other branches not in the fossil record that bridged the gap between Habilis and Australopithecus? And if so what does that imply for our development and for the lost branches development? Kind of like if Australopithecus did not go extinct completely, leaving us alone, but evolved and exchanged genes with us for longer period. Making us much closer than apes. DNA won't solve this. Archaeology, Anthropology, specimen's, P-F films, theory, diet, behavior, habitat, family structure, maturation processes such as tooth eruption, how long they stay juvenile, and nurture process, brain studies may shed some light and develop the field of knowledge and awareness. If they are cleverer than us, what does that say about brain development in the absence of a human frontal cortex (what makes us smarter) or a brain language center similar to humans? Just making an attempt to define my hazy argument, at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Here's a link that may better explain what researchers are capable of when dealing with an unknown DNA sample. I linked the transcript but it's also available as a podcast. Another good source of DNA info and what's possible can be found right here on the BFF in posts made by hvhart. He will literally walk you step by step through making a BLAST query using Dr. Ketchum's DNA results and what it all means. http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/09/07/02/transcript/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts