Jump to content
hiflier

Poll: When Would An Announcement Of e-DNA Positive For Sasquatch Be Made?

When Would An Announcement Of e-DNA Positive For Sasquatch Be Made?  

49 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

hiflier
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, Twist said:

 

Fair enough but if the second picture is from the same group then we have some hair nets fully and partially on, some appear to only have hats, plenty of arm hair etc to contaminate.  How much of a "clean room" do you think that garage/barn is?  Do animals like dog or horse frequent the area?   Again, not a knock on ppl working towards a common goal, but don't be surprised if results come back contaminated in some way. 

 

Everyone needs to remember on important point before we get too far into this and build on something that could be misleading. The testing being done is e-DNA. This isn't the usual find-the-hair-and-test-it scenario. The e-DNA testing is being done on the SOIL SAMPLES from beneath the center of the nests. That an enormous difference from the type of DNA testing that has been done in the past on supposed hair or tissue. If a raccoon walked across a nest and dropped a few skin cells and then it rained those cells would more than likely end up in or on the soil  under the twigs. That is what is being tested. Not hair. The beauty of e-DNA is that it can test fragments of DNA as small as 50 pairs whereas before one needed hundreds of pairs or more to conduct a test.

 

Indiegogo had a goal of $7,500 and the donation window was closed at around $5,200. It is enough for five tests at $1,000 a whack. And so the soild under the center of a nest is what they will be running the tests on. But Here's the thing, people are testing the water in Loch Ness as well to see what DNA is there. Depending on which side of the dollar one is on (spending or pocketing) this could be good news or bad news. When I first heard of this kind of technology it was in a discussion about testing water outside of a cave to see what had been, or is, in a cave. Personally I cannot think of a better wy to discover a cryptid.

 

So back onto topic? How long before ANY news- pro or con- gets to the public? IMHO, on the con side of things the question would be who would be hurt by the discovery that there are no Sasquatches building nests? It would still open up a pretty interesting investigation on who or what DID build them wouldn't it? Remember too that I think it was two members of the Washington Department of Resources that went out to view the nests and they were discovered and reported by a logging company employee. It also should be noted that a 4 year window was granted by the logging company to investigate the nests after which the area is slated to be logged. I don't know when that clock had actually started ticking though. I think the nests were discovered two years ago and there was still greenery attached to the twigs at that time so the nests were fairly fresh when initially found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

I am more than happy to hang up the guide gun concerning Sasquatch forever more, if this test comes back positive.

 

And if its a good sample? They are going to be able to pin it down on the tree of life. What is its relation to great Apes? Denisovans? Neanderthals? Homo Sapiens? 

 

I just have little faith in DNA, but, I think this study is in good hands, not that Im tryng to start another fight. But DNA erodes, DNA is easily contaminated.  What if a Black Bear(s) used the nests after Bigfoot? Mick Dodge? Is this new technique going to capture everything or just something very recent?

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Did not know hiflier, thanks for clarifying.  In that case, I still won’t be surprised if it comes back human or contaminated.  If however it does, and I’d love it to, come back as something new, I hope it would be independently verified and then released in a manner it could not be suppressed.  Maybe multiple online publishing’s and widespread internet release, get it buzzing on social media etc.  make it so no one source can be controlled or influenced.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

 

EDNA.gif

 

Environmental DNA or eDNA is DNA that is collected from a variety of environmental samples such as soil, seawater, or even air [1] rather than directly sampled from an individual organism. As various organisms interact with the environment, DNA is expelled and accumulates in their surroundings. Example sources of eDNA include, but are not limited to, feces, mucus, gametes, shed skin, carcasses and hair.[2] Such samples can be analyzed by high-throughput DNA sequencing methods, known as metagenomics, for rapid measurement and monitoring of biodiversity. In order to better differentiate between organisms within a sample, DNA metabarcoding is used in which the sample is analyzed and uses previously studied DNA libraries to determine what organisms are present (e.g. BLAST).[3] The analysis of eDNA has great potential, not only for monitoring common species, but to genetically detect and identify other extant species that could influence conservation efforts.[4] This method allows for biomonitoring without requiring collection of the living organism, creating the ability to study organisms that are invasive, elusive, or endangered without introducing anthropogenic stress on the organism. Access to this genetic information makes a critical contribution to the understanding of population size, species distribution, and population dynamics for species not well documented. The integrity of eDNA samples is dependent upon its preservation within the environment. Soil, permafrost, freshwater and seawater are well-studied macro environments from which eDNA samples have been extracted, each of which include many more conditioned subenvironments.[5] Because of its versatility, eDNA is applied in many subenvironments such as freshwater sampling, seawater sampling, terrestrial soil sampling (tundra permafrost), aquatic soil sampling (river, lake, pond, and ocean sediment),[6] or other environments where normal sampling procedures can become problematic.[5]

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

So how about a small list of things that the e-DNA might find in the nest soils? Ants, Beetles Earthworms Birds Rodents Bears Raccoons Opossums Mountain Lions, Bobcats, Skunks, Humans, Ungulates............Unknown Primate.

 

8 hours ago, norseman said:

I am more than happy to hang up the guide gun concerning Sasquatch forever more, if this test comes back positive.

 

And if its a good sample? They are going to be able to pin it down on the tree of life. What is its relation to great Apes? Denisovans? Neanderthals? Homo Sapiens? 

 

I just have little faith in DNA, but, I think this study is in good hands, not that Im tryng to start another fight. But DNA erodes, DNA is easily contaminated.  What if a Black Bear(s) used the nests after Bigfoot? Mick Dodge? Is this new technique going to capture everything or just something very recent?

 

 

 

I am not all that up on the degradation of DNA in wild habitat. Gigantor's post showed a timeline for fish DNA in the water but as long as the fish are in the water then there should be a constant active source for fish DNA. The nests apparently were built a while back but when they were actually used or for how long is an unknown. Were they abandoned once the logging employee showed up on the scene followed by other Humans? Are the nests built for  specific purpose? I would say yes and I suspect that it is a birthing place. If that is the case then there should be lots of DNA there.

 

People say the populations are low, including myself. If that is the case then why so many nests (21?). Does it mean in my way of thinking that there have been 21 births? Now you know why I am so interested in this find. It isn't just because I think Sasquatch built them and slept there. If it's true, that it is a birthing site, then it is really great news IMHO. If there is a LOT of novel primate DNA as a result then an announcement would be forthcoming fairly quickly.

 

I also think that the soils in and amongst the broken off huckleberry bushes that the twigs for the nests were harvested from would be a good thing as well?

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
9 hours ago, hiflier said:

.........The testing being done is e-DNA. This isn't the usual find-the-hair-and-test-it scenario. The e-DNA testing is being done on the SOIL SAMPLES from beneath the center of the nests. ........

 

This is yet more scientific sorcery and essentially a publicity gimmick. Any result will be automatically rejected by the science world, and any expectation otherwise is ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

IDK, Hunster, if that is true then why would Dr. Disotell involve himself? Publicity only? I mean sure he is in the limelight for his TV show and all but I also think he is a scientist first- and a good one. And regardless of his media notoriety and public connections to Bigfoot do you think he would still be putting his reputation on the line with a Positive-For-Sasquatch-DNA result? And if the results ARE positive for an unknown North American primate would he be allowed to say so? Kind of part of the topic of the Poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

The easiest question to ask I guess is that is there any precedent?

 

Has eDNA discovered any new species?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
23 minutes ago, norseman said:

The easiest question to ask I guess is that is there any precedent?

 

Has eDNA discovered any new species?

 

Two really good questions. The answer to second one would certainly lead to a deeper looking into of anything that would point to a new species. Goes to the heart of matter concerning a novel primate DNA discovery. This fairly recent article presents the scope of what e-DNA can be expected to accomplish? I suggest everyone read it in full and not stop when running across something that favors one's viewpoint. It takes reading the entire article to understand the potential for discovery which includes e-DNA's limitations as well. There is a lot that yet needs studying when it comes to what happens and doesn't happen in different kinds of soil makeups. It is a very interesting article in that regard: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196430

 

This kind of research is why I truly like being on this Forum. I have learned, and continue to learn, sooo much!

Edited by hiflier
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis

If meaningful conclusions can be drawn from such an eDNA study and explained as well as supported through their data, then it could be a step in the right direction. If it is sketchy or theoretical then they need to frame it in the right way. 

 

The big deal is credibility. So you pay for DNA lab testing but will they be able to communicate anything people will accept?

Edited by Arvedis
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
3 hours ago, hiflier said:

...........do you think he would still be putting his reputation on the line with a Positive-For-Sasquatch-DNA result?.........

 

Scientists put their reputations on the line all the time supporting or rejecting theories. Global warming/climate change, on both sides of the anthropological question, is a case in point.

 

Politicians and lawyers gain fame and notoriety all the time aligning themselves with negative situations. Science is aligning itself with politics and ideology more and more, so why not them, too?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Yeah, you raise some good points there, H. Hard to fathom the deep dark hearts of people in the public eye. Sometimes motives are apparent and sometimes not. We probably can only know as a retrospective in most situations. An announcement of yes, there is novel primate DNA, or no, there isn't is something I see as a win either way for Dr. Disotell. Although the 'yes, there is novel primate DNA' certainly carries an enormous risk to one's career and reputation? And if the result is 'yes' who will know it ? How far will the knowledge go? Will it get outside only a small circle of scientists and into the media and, if so, will the media treat it seriously? Would those that control the media TELL IT to treat it seriously?

 

I don't think that the representatives from the Department of Natural Resources that went out and viewed the nest sites were laughing. I don't think the logging employee that found them or the company he works for is laughing either. But there is a certain amount of critical time pressure on this and so no one can waste one moment in getting the e-DNA results finished. And they all know it. According to Cliff Barackman's website they had been looking at the nests for two years. But he wrote that a year and a half ago. It could be that now there are only a matter of months left before the logging company gets to work? Could someone help me verify this before I comment any further regarding this potentially short time frame?

 

Personally I really hope everyone, including the resource harvester give this nesting area a wide berth along with allowing it an unlimited time frame regarding future access and study- along with further funding for e-DNA testing of other nests in the region.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

As we were discussing over in a related thread, I don't believe the timing of any release of information matters much at all. It is the content of the release that matters and even a "home run" result will be dismissed for the lack of any prototype specimen for comparison and substantiation. For us enthusiasts, any DNA sample will be welcomed information to have. For the rest of the world, and the scientific community, the menu of the expected responses will be:

 

1. Unknown primate? Response:  Contamination or sequencing error.

2. Primate/Hominoid hybrid? Response: Contamination, sequencing error or hoax

3. Human? Response: Yawn!

 

We know this. Been here, done that. Only unless and until you have a body to point to and the ability to say with certainty, "THIS came from THAT over there" will DNA be of any real value as something tending to prove existence to anyone not already convinced.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I think when speaking of a subject like this, a potential nesting site that at best will provide a clue towards a N. American ape, what you hope to gain is interest in the subject.  DNA coming back as unknown hominid or whatever will do nothing to move the needle on proof, but hopefully it moves the needle on awareness and thus leads to further research.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×