hiflier Posted December 21, 2019 Author Share Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) It does make me wonder how many other states have such programs. I know there's a 20 million dollar grant here in Maine. Even though it's geared more toward coastal marine environments it does extend the program to citizen scientists. I would bet that there is one for the forests or inland waters, too, but I haven't found it yet. If I do I may see about getting involved. The only thing these programs don't seem to provide a citizen scientist with is some kind of GPS unit. But everything else for taking samples seems to be handed out for free including a pump with a battery back up for taking the water samples.....plus training in how to take the samples without contaminating them. Uh....but we know that....uh....Sasquatch will default to Human contamination, right? So how does one beat that outcome? Maybe insist on taking someone in the program to the sample site and do the sampling themselves? If results come back Human after that then maybe....... Edited December 21, 2019 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 If these samples are being taken in areas occupied occasionally by humans do we not have just as good of a chance of getting Human DNA in the samples regardless of it being from contamination? If i understand it correctly you are pulling DNA samples from organisms that inhabited or passed thru an area depositing a bit of DNA. This is kind of a broad net of DNA then, if so I think a lot of cases are going to come back human. I'm probably missing something here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, Twist said: If these samples are being taken in areas occupied occasionally by humans do we not have just as good of a chance of getting Human DNA in the samples regardless of it being from contamination? If i understand it correctly you are pulling DNA samples from organisms that inhabited or passed thru an area depositing a bit of DNA. This is kind of a broad net of DNA then, if so I think a lot of cases are going to come back human. I'm probably missing something here. Even if you find human, wouldn't the premise be that you could also find something that came back as not on record? Or ..they're human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, NatFoot said: Even if you find human, wouldn't the premise be that you could also find something that came back as not on record? Or ..they're human? I'm very ignorant on DNA and how it works. I would like to think that you could start compiling these "unknowns" and if they match a pattern you start putting that in one pile and see what you can find? IDK, I'm confident its more complicated than that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted December 21, 2019 Author Share Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) It probably is. Most of this sampling is designed to be taken from water in brooks and streams. The technique involves taking sample from the middle of a of a flowing water source coming from upstream. One can stand in the water but samples shouldn't be taken from pools or eddies where one's own DNA could get mixed in. So standing in water while facing upstream is supposed to insure that the water flows toward you from the uncontaminated source. Makes total sense. My guess is that unless someone steps into the water upstream then the samples should reflect accurately for anything but Human? But you're correct, a high traffic area could be a contaminating source. It may be that the program selects bodies of water and streams that are away from those areas that Humans are more likely to be concentrated? I would like the CALeDNA program to go to Bluff Creek Who knows, maybe someone has already gone there! At least now you can see how I'm thinking about this. Edited December 21, 2019 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 8 hours ago, Twist said: I'm very ignorant on DNA and how it works. I would like to think that you could start compiling these "unknowns" and if they match a pattern you start putting that in one pile and see what you can find?....... Well, according to what I've read, that's how Homo Denisovan was "discovered". A 40,000 year old sliver of fingerbone was uncovered in Denisova Cave in Siberia. A dna analysis produced markers different than homo sapien, but the rest of the markers were "human". A jawbone discovered in China in the 1980's had those same markers. Voila! A new human cousin! So why can't the unique African dna that Sykes discovered in Zana's progeny be compared to what Ketchum discovered in her tests of various samples taken throughout North America and which she described as a "hybrid"? The answer to that has already been answered loudly, repeatedly, and undeniably: Ketchum broke unwritten rules. That's right, those rules were unwritten. There's no freaking rule book. One must be clairvoyant, strategic, and clever. You must be a scientist, lawyer, fundraiser, politician, and military strategist all molded into one. It's really bullspit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted December 22, 2019 Author Share Posted December 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Huntster said: Well, according to what I've read, that's how Homo Denisovan was "discovered". A 40,000 year old sliver of fingerbone was uncovered in Denisova Cave in Siberia. A dna analysis produced markers different than homo sapien, but the rest of the markers were "human". A jawbone discovered in China in the 1980's had those same markers. Voila! A new human cousin! And this has been my thinking ever since Denisovan, Homo Naledi, and the Mastodon find in San Diego. And you can bet your bottom dollar that people are watching very closely these days at what gets dredged up from the La Brea Tar Pits since that discovery, too. Begs the question of whether or not at least SOME kind of primate wouldn't be in there. Scary to think one may have already been found but misidentified? Maybe misidentified on purpose where tens of thousands of years got shaved off? So, back on topic. If a person doing a sample has a DNA sample taken from themselves in order to filter themselves out, like they do in other DNA testing, then I don't see contamination being as an issue. Unless the contamination comes from someone OTHER THAN the one taking the sample. All species have DNA markers. So one doesn't need a whole genome. They only need enough that contains any specific markers. e-DNA is amazing in that ALL the DNA collected in the sample can be looked at no matter what organism it's from. So a water sample could have 10, 20, 30, 50, or a hundred different species DNA in it and ALL would be in the test results. This is what blows me away about this technology. So I agree with all of you, and you can now see my thinking when I ask: How does one deal with Human DNA in a sample that was collected perfectly and by the book? Maybe it depends on where the sample was taken. But here's what I need to ask the people at CALeDNA: Why isn't it a problem if bear DNA is in the sample? I have to ask because NO ONE seems to ever say, "Sorry, the sample was contaminated with bear DNA". Why is it that HUMAN contamination is the DNA that always presents the problem? Elk DNA? No problem. Skunk? Yeah, they're OK, too. Birds? Nope. So then why is it always Human contamination that is the issue? I mean, even if no one is thinking about, or looking for Sasquatch, Human DNA in a sample is a problem? This is a question I would really like an answer to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 48 minutes ago, hiflier said: .........But here's what I need to ask the people at CALeDNA: Why isn't it a problem if bear DNA is in the sample? I have to ask because NO ONE seems to ever say, "Sorry, the sample was contaminated with bear DNA". Why is it that HUMAN contamination is the DNA that always presents the problem? Elk DNA? No problem. Skunk? Yeah, they're OK, too. Birds? Nope. So then why is it always Human contamination that is the issue? I mean, even if no one is thinking about, or looking for Sasquatch, Human DNA in a sample is a problem? This is a question I would really like an answer to. Because it really isn't a problem. It's an excuse. A diversion. A detour. "Oh, it wasn't monster dna. It was human." Yeah, but what species of human? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted December 22, 2019 Author Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Huntster said: Because it really isn't a problem. Heh, well then it IS a problem Which, of course, is really what you're saying. It's just not a problem in the scientific sense. Only in the politico-economic sense. 28 minutes ago, Huntster said: Yeah, but what species of human? Great question. But unless I ask CALeDNA my questions then I won't be able to determine if a "Sasquatch protocol" has infiltrated the team. As you know I'm a real stickler when it comes to how things are worded. So how I phrase my questions and configure my dialogue will be important. Like: "Why is Human DNA the only contaminant anyone seems to worry about?" Yeah, that's the ticket, That should do nicely. I should probably explain a bit why I think all of this is important. I mean, sure, it's about Bigfoot, but it goes a lot farther than that. It's about this Forum. We have this new DNA method being employed by scientists and other in the field. And I think gigantor is getting his wish which is that the BFF move more toward science, research, and investigation. i.e. "Solve For Bigfoot" which is a phrase I coined a while back. So this all isn't just about today, this week, or this month. Or even this year or next. It's about new members showing up who are going to have the same questions and I think it would be much better if the BFF had the answers. So yes, there are things I want to know but what we all learn will become part and parcel of our knowledge that can get passed on, built on, and get everyone closer to not only HOW to get the truth about existence but maybe even arrive the actual truth itself. It may happen after I'm pushing up daisies but I do think it will happen. I think it will happen because we are learning the methodologies that science is using. In doing that we are learning the dialogue in how to talk to science and form our arguments. And taking advantage of all that is what I'm trying to do in real time. Edited December 22, 2019 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 2 hours ago, hiflier said: "Why is Human DNA the only contaminant anyone seems to worry about?" They are the ones conducting the experiment. If a dog ran it and dog DNA showed up it would be labeled as contaminated. IMO of course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted December 22, 2019 Author Share Posted December 22, 2019 LOL, you'd probably be right. Especially if the dog scientists were refusing to look into the 800 lbs. four-legged "Bigpaw" that other dogs were reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 A dog wouldn’t be that oblivious! They are rather observant! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted December 22, 2019 Author Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) Yes but if Bigpaw (BP) jumps through portals then all bets are off. And I would bet one of the reported characteristics of BP would be NO eyeshine, LOL. Edited December 22, 2019 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted December 23, 2019 Author Share Posted December 23, 2019 Thought I would post this link so folks can understand better the complexities involved in wading through data. It's no wonder I have been in the weeds on the DNA subject. *Note*: This is only a .pdf explaining how to use the program, not the program itself: ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pub/factsheets/Factsheet_1000genomes_browser.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 20, 2020 Author Share Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) I will be meeting with a PhD this week to see if I can get some answers. Area of expertise? Animal behavior so I will be bringing up the nesting site, OF COURSE. I also hope to open the dialogue regarding e-DNA. Been doing some reading and came across some things that indicate that scientists do retain odd DNA sometimes waiting for a match so I will hopefully be able to delve into that some as well. They are called MOTUs—Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units, and are used as placeholders. I initially requested that they set aside about two hours for the meeting but I don't think that will happen, but maybe, if things go well, another meeting could be scheduled. I'll make sure the most important items get presented just to make sure they get heard. I'm really looking forward to this opportunity because, as you know, having this kind of a dialogue has been a goal that I've been trying to work on for the last year two and a half years. It's one of the chief reasons I've been educating myself as much as I can so as to be able to hold a reasonably not-too-ignorant discussion. And also to hopefully be better equipped to follow whatever dialogue comes back at me and be able to ask good questions. Can't wait In the mean time great article here and a pretty recent one, too (Nov. 2018): https://blog.csiro.au/loose-genes-and-haunted-ecosystems-meet-edna-environmental-saviour/ Edited January 20, 2020 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts