The Genetic Markers Of A Sasquatch

[hiflier]

Just now, MIB said:

 

I think it is well within Disotell's ability to separate sasquatch DNA from our DNA, but whether it is within the budget of whoever is paying him to test to take the testing to that degree is likely a separate question.

 

MIB

 

Indeed it is, MIB, but according to Dr. Disotell the samples were too degraded to show a novel primate's DNA so it probably wouldn't have mattered at that point even if the samples did go on for further testing.

[hiflier]

I'm going to add this into the thread https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/09/19/mysterious-human-ancestor-gets-face-body/

 

"Research like this could help identify more Denisovan samples. Ancient skull parts found in eastern China, which scientists have struggled to assign to a species, could belong to the Denisovans, Carmel said. It’s not proof, but the skulls’ shapes match the predicted Denisovan anatomy. Bailey agreed these skulls possibly were Denisovan.

In May, while Carmel’s anatomical study was in review, Bailey and her colleagues published a report describing half of a lower Densiovan jawbone. “We were just, you know, in a frenzy to try to see how it matches our predictions,” Carmel said. “It matches very nicely.”"

 

So as everyone can see, science DOES predict anatomical features and doing so it isn't at all uncommon but instead is more and more accepted. This is evidence that the subject of this thread is right on point. Basically because without the genetic information they find then being able to reconstruct an ancient hominid's appearance would simply be guess work. Evidently, that is not the case any more  So science should be able to take what is know in current genomes about physical characteristic predictions and "predict" what a Sasquatch's genetic markers and genes should be in order to come out with the creature that so many witnesses have described. And I think science is closer to being able to do that now than ever before since it has so much primate DNA and genome information at its disposal.

Edited September 27, 2019 by hiflier

[norseman]

9 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I think it is well within Disotell's ability to separate sasquatch DNA from our DNA, but whether it is within the budget of whoever is paying him to test to take the testing to that degree is likely a separate question.

 

MIB

 

So no skullduggery. Just lack of funds to do a complete work up? I see.

9 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

I will say that I have always thought their handling of the Olympic Peninsula nest samples didn't seem proper. I thought the year and a half delay between the samples' collection and the actually testing made no sense considering what was riding on results that IMHO should only have come from fresh samples. Dr. Disotell claimed that the five samples were too degraded from moisture and freezing. The samples did show DNA from most of the normal animals in the region though. And they showed Human DNA however it was, again, too degraded to show a novel primate. I have really never felt between the potential magnitude of the nest discovery itself and the power of environmental testing that holding onto the samples over a year and a half while waiting for donations amounting to $5000 to cover the costs of testing seemed scientifically rational.

 

Was it because neither Dr. Disotell's New York University nor Dr. Meldrum's Idaho State University would fund the tests? Even as a phenomenon of nature in North America the nests were pretty amazing. Wouldn't either university's departments of zoology want to be a part of an investigation into what made the nests simply out of curiosity over something like that in the North America's natural world? $2,500 from each university? With Dr. Disotell being NYU's own expert geneticist? What about other universities? Was Washing State University even asked or invited? Oregon? British Columbia?

 

There are more and more things about this whole picture that need explaining. But who if anyone would have the pull to do so? It has never been an option for me to accept the way things have gone and walk away saying, "Hey, good job guys...too bad....maybe next time, huh?"   

 

I don’t know enough about the nests to make a educated guess. But you do seem to think skullduggery is present. Interesting.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

So no skullduggery. Just lack of funds to do a complete work up? I see.

 

I don’t know enough about the nests to make a educated guess. But you do seem to think skullduggery is present. Interesting.

 

Only because with all of the promises made in the beginning of the discovery about being careful to not repeat mistakes made in past opportunities, i.e., contamination and other mistakes. Yet there were those that criticized the lack of sterile technique seen in that photo of the piece of a nest being searched by that group of people. In other words it looked like there was going to be no chance of NOT contaminating the evidence. And at the nesting site itself we saw photos of people lying in the nests (Cliff Barackman, Shane Corson, Derekl Randles' daughter etc.) and again thought about contamination. I gave the Olympic Project the benefit of the doubt though because of their assurances in podcasts that things were being conducted properly. And I think they ultimately did things right.

 

 It still went off the rails for what I consider frivolous reasons however. Namely claiming to have ended up with degraded samples. We all here on this Forum have discussed over the past recent years the ramifications should proof of this creature ever come to light. It has now been nearly 4 1/2 years since the nests were first found. The samples are useless and the evidence at the nesting site was reported (a year and a half ago) to be overgrowing and disappearing back into nature. The evidence will be gone soon and may have been the best chance we've ever had for a highly precise scientific chance at discovery. It was held up for a year and a half because of $5000. The samples degraded resulting the whole  e-DNA opportunity being lost.

 

Again I gave the opportunity the benefit of the doubt by saying that maybe there were good samples taken that were tested and that the results are just waiting to go through the proper scientific peer review process before being made public. Believe it or not I'm sill holding out hope for that. But if that isn't the case then a ridiculously small amount of money held back and ruined any chances anyone may have had for discovery of anything by having fresh samples to work with. It seemed so outlandish to me that I became suspicious of the methodology that ended up in such senseless failure when the PhD's should KNOW from their training and education what would happen to the DNA samples under such circumstances. They would know that the samples were degrading and yet there seemed to be no urgency beyond waiting for the right amount of money? That's why I keep saying something about this picture is way wrong and makes no scientific sense whatsoever.

 

Are we just being jerked around because people think we're stupid or something?

 

I'll wrap up my arguments, which I think have been sound and logical. With on more point. When the nests were first found there was still greenery on the twigs as mentioned before. It was also thought that the nests had been constructed only a few months prior to being discovered. There was also hair samples taken from those nests. A LOT of hair samples. You know what that means? It means that whatever constructed those nests from all of the broken huckleberry bushes had laid in them and laid in them more than once! How long would it take DNA to find its way into the soil under those nests in those few months and, after doing so, how long would it take that DNA to degrade before the nests were discovered and e-DNA samples taken? I've thought often about that. And I think that the short timespan between the nests being used and being discovered wouldn't be enough time for DNA to degrade hardly at all. Think about that and then think about what we have been told about the poor condition of the DNA in the samples. It just doesn't add up.   

Edited September 28, 2019 by hiflier

[norseman]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

Only because with all of the promises made in the beginning of the discovery about being careful to not repeat mistakes made in past opportunities, i.e., contamination and other mistakes. Yet there were those that criticized the lack of sterile technique seen in that photo of the piece of a nest being searched by that group of people. In other words it looked like there was going to be no chance of NOT contaminating the evidence. And at the nesting site itself we saw photos of people lying in the nests (Cliff Barackman, Shane Corson, Derekl Randles' daughter etc.) and again thought about contamination. I gave the Olympic Project the benefit of the doubt though because of their assurances in podcasts that things were being conducted properly. And I think they ultimately did things right.

 

 It still went off the rails for what I consider frivolous reasons however. Namely claiming to have ended up with degraded samples. We all here on this Forum have discussed over the past recent years the ramifications should proof of this creature ever come to light. It has now been nearly 4 1/2 years since the nests were first found. The samples are useless and the evidence at the nesting site was reported (a year and a half ago) to be overgrowing and disappearing back into nature. The evidence will be gone soon and may have been the best chance we've ever had for a highly precise scientific chance at discovery. It was held up for a year and a half because of $5000. The samples degraded resulting the whole  e-DNA opportunity being lost.

 

Again I gave the opportunity the benefit of the doubt by saying that maybe there were good samples taken that were tested and that the results are just waiting to go through the proper scientific peer review process before being made public. Believe it or not I'm sill holding out hope for that. But if that isn't the case then a ridiculously small amount of money held back and ruined any chances anyone may have had for discovery of anything by having fresh samples to work with. It seemed so outlandish to me that I became suspicious of the methodology that ended up in such senseless failure when the PhD's should KNOW from their training and education what would happen to the DNA samples under such circumstances. They would know that the samples were degrading and yet there seemed to be no urgency beyond waiting for the right amount of money? That's why I keep saying something about this picture is way wrong and makes no scientific sense whatsoever.

 

Are we just being jerked around because people think we're stupid or something?

 

I'll wrap up my arguments, which I think have been sound and logical. With on more point. When the nests were first found there was still greenery on the twigs as mentioned before. It was also thought that the nests had been constructed only a few months prior to being discovered. There was also hair samples taken from those nests. A LOT of hair samples. You know what that means? It means that whatever constructed those nests from all of the broken huckleberry bushes had laid in them and laid in them more than once! How long would it take DNA to find its way into the soil under those nests in those few months and, after doing so, how long would it take that DNA to degrade before the nests were discovered and e-DNA samples taken? I've thought often about that. And I think that the short timespan between the nests being used and being discovered wouldn't be enough time for DNA to degrade hardly at all. Think about that and then think about what we have been told about the poor condition of the DNA in the samples. It just doesn't add up.   

 

I have heard that Squatch hair lacks a medulla? That hair may be worthless for DNA testing?

[bipedalist]

Squatch hair would have a hair bulb/follicle/root and at least a few of those "shed" which could be expected anywhere there are broken twigs for them to become embedded in and thus pulled out.  Another strange reason for no results or claims of contamination.  A medulla is not the whole game with hair.  Nuclear dna from the root; mtDNA from digesting the shafts https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16225218   Apparently it has become much easier to digest hair shafts to gain results. 

Edited September 28, 2019 by bipedalist

[hiflier]

There was a hair expert who looked at the hair samples and compared their morphology to other supposed Sasquatch hair. Said there was a perfect match. Also the case is stronger if the hair ends are not cut and there is a piece of skin attached to the follicle. Don't know if that was the case in any of the samples collected. If so then there would be a much better chance for DNA. There was even photos of hair wrapped tightly around some of the remaining stand of huckleberry bushes.

 

But the hair isn't where my concern lies. The strange journey of the e-DNA samples from being collected to being tested and then how the test results were reported is.   

Edited September 28, 2019 by hiflier

[NatFoot]

@hiflier

 

I do believe people think we are stupid. You cannot tell me they could not get $5000...for over a year...for someone to test that.

 

$5000 is not a lot of money given some of the folks who are interested in this subject. It's ridiculous.

[bipedalist]

Five grand would cover five of the best trail cams prolly.....   Wally Hersom supported the Oly Project and prolly still does....   I agree. 

45 minutes ago, hiflier said:

There was a hair expert who looked at the hair samples and compared their morphology to other supposed Sasquatch hair. Said there was a perfect match. Also the case is stronger if the hair ends are not cut and there is a piece of skin attached to the follicle. Don't know if that was the case in any of the samples collected. If so then there would be a much better chance for DNA. There was even photos of hair wrapped tightly around some of the remaining stand of huckleberry bushes.

 

But the hair isn't where my concern lies. The strange journey of the e-DNA samples from being collected to being tested and then how the test results were reported is.   

 

I understand it is your thread, I was replying to Norseman's post re: hair above mine. 

 

I do not see skullduggery as much as people have a life beyond Sasquatch and to my knowledge they have no Sasquatch Foundation supporting their efforts other than an occasional millionaire.  

Edited September 28, 2019 by bipedalist

[hiflier]

I don't know if he still does or not but yes, he underwrote the Olympic Project for equipment including thermal imagers which, if I were to take a WAG, were not low end FLIR TK Scouts because at the time that TK entry line of imagers wasn't available. Tell you the truth? If I was the leader of the Olympic Peninsula and found those nests and wanted e-DNA testing done? I would've sold every piece of hardware I had to pay for the testing.

[hiflier]

8 minutes ago, bipedalist said:

Five grand would cover five of the best trail cams prolly.....   Wally Hersom supported the Oly Project and prolly still does....   I agree. 

 

I understand it is your thread, I was replying to Norseman's post re: hair above mine. 

 

I do not see skullduggery as much as people have a life beyond Sasquatch and to my knowledge they have no Sasquatch Foundation supporting their efforts other than an occasional millionaire.  

 

 Yes people have lives. And when the best find of a lifetime presented itself I will say they stepped up. This is about the handling of the e-DNA samples. It has been my bone of contention all along. That's where what I thought was an incredible opportunity for discovery got irretrievably ruined.

 

Look, even it wasn't Sasquatches that built the nests, scientifically it was still undocumented behavior by......ANYTHING- including bears AND/OR Humans. That's probably the biggest point to make here out of the whole thing. SOMETHING constructed those nests. If I was a zoologist of any standing in whatever department at whatever university I would be all over this discovery. Simply on the basis of it being an incredibly unusual find. Never mind that the whole thing landed in the laps of Squatchers. And even if it DID initially land in the laps of the Squatchers it seemed they knew enough not to screw up the opportunity. And I don't think they did screw it up. They seemed to have done all the right things by bringing in experts to see the nests. It wasn't until the e-DNA samples got taken that things went south. THAT'S what doesn't sit well, especially since the excuse for the failure of the entire discovery of who or what the nest builders were rested on getting only $5,000 together for testing.    

[hiflier]

I have a question (oh no, not again, LOL) that I've not seen anyone ask. I didn't think of it myself until now. There were five samples tested. So the question is: Did ALL FIVE come back with Human DNA? Or only one, or two? Also the original goal was to raise $7,200 so at $1000 a piece does that mean there are still two samples left that are untested?

 

It would seem that I have nothing better to do in my life but pursue this but that's not the case. I am constantly juggling a lot of different things simultaneously but this subject is right up there as an important research/investigation item. It's real world, science, and intrigue all wrapped up in one package within a field of endeavor that interests me greatly....so naturally, I make time for it.

Edited September 28, 2019 by hiflier

[bipedalist]

My understanding is that it would be difficult to mess up a true eDNA sampling procedure.  So does that mean the lab processes were to blame? What am I missing here?

[MIB]

56 minutes ago, bipedalist said:

What am I missing here?

 

I don't think anyone truly knows.   There are people with opinions who will say they "know" ... but they don't.  

 

My suspicion is that e-DNA works like any other DNA in the sense it is mitochonrial DNA that is used for species identification.   The testing is more broad-spectrum but what they look for is essentially the same with the same gene loci used to determine species.   In other words, though it picks up "everything", it still is no more capable of separating sasquatch from human if they are close enough to fall within the norms of degraded human DNA.    My interpretation of the results (so far as we know them to be) is that while they did not confirm sasquatch, neither are they damning, all they do is repeat what I .. and I think many others .. already suspect.  

 

What we're doing is essentially insanity: we doing the same thing (relative to identifying sasquatch DNA) expecting to repeat it until the results change.   I believe it is going to take not a new method of doing essentially the same testing, but instead doing deeper testing.   The e-DNA is not deeper testing, it is broader testing.    We need to look beyond the accepted markers for human vs chimp, etc, we need full genome comparison.   That's a lot more than $1000 / sample.

 

IMHO, best guess, ... and any other qualifications you can think of! 

 

MIB

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, bipedalist said:

So does that mean the lab processes were to blame? What am I missing here?

Two good questions but if you think you may be missing something then apparently I am missing it too. I'm also looking to see if I've been incorrect about where the samples were stored and how and how. I need to go back through some interviews and podcasts and refresh myself on any mentioned timelines. As in samples were taken and then sent......when? And then tested.......when? I am studying a bit more about the reasons and conditions for degraded samples however and am learning a lot from this article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714004443 such as this section which indirectly relates to the topic of this thread:

 

"4.5. Single species detection vs. DNA metabarcoding

Broadly, two different approaches of species detection from eDNA have been deployed: single species detection by PCR or quantitative PCR (qPCR) and multi-species detection (eDNA metabarcoding) by NGS. The former is advantageous where the target is one or a few known species, for which species-specific primers and probes can be developed (Dejean et al., 2012, Takahara et al., 2013, Thomsen et al., 2012b). The approach has high specificity, sensitivity and quantification ability, but is hampered by the limit to detect only one target organism at a time. For more diverse systems, this approach quickly becomes cost-inefficient and even impossible due to lack of DNA extract for multiple reactions."

 

 "5. Perspectives of Edna

"......(iii)Sensitivity: In situations where species of conservation importance have cryptic life styles or require the study of juvenile life stages that are difficult to identify from closely related species, even high-quality taxonomic expertise are often inadequate. Here eDNA methods can prove superior to traditional methods in detection of species (e.g. Dejean et al., 2012; Biggs et al., 2015)."

 

One of the things I have realized? Two reasons were given for the degradation of the samples from the Olympic Peninsula: Moisture and freezing. But in the article it was stated that e-DNA samples were taken from permafrost in order to pursue things like Mastodons so I'm now wondering if freezing affects DNA samples from soild taken from regions of permafrost which is pretty much frozen all the time?  

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

I believe it is going to take not a new method of doing essentially the same testing, but instead doing deeper testing.   The e-DNA is not deeper testing, it is broader testing.    We need to look beyond the accepted markers for human vs chimp, etc, we need full genome comparison.   That's a lot more than $1000 / sample.

 

You may be right except we haven't needed full genomes for either Denisovans or Neanderthals so I'm not certain we need a full genome for Sasquatch.  

Edited September 30, 2019 by hiflier