southernyahoo Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Melba has co-authored published articles on human DNA , and has worked forensic cases along with the World Trade Center attack victum identifications. She is use to working with human DNA. DNA is DNA............ http://pubget.com/paper/19646946?institution=yale I don't think the statistics are going to nail it SY, based on what I was reading in that article. If she starts off with a bias for the wrong end of the phylogenetic tree in the primate family from the beginning would that not skew things? Not all primers are biased, Some target a gene that is preserved in all mammals, as with the use of barcode methods for quick ID of knowns. It just doesn't matter what your hypothesis is here, It will sequence out to be what it is or closest to. http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/7591/1/Hickey_Genome2006.pdf The results of that alone will tell you if you have one of the many different primates including humans. Getting this far is a sinch for most labs barring any obstacles like degradation, contamination or inhibitors. If you use a human specific primer on something thats not, then like I said earlier you'll probably be without a complete sequence and will have to use a different one or a blend of two or three. Once you have primate established, then it's time to dig further if skepticism doesn't get in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 More hype build up over on the Facebook page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 30, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 30, 2012 ....There is probably no difference in sequencing animal versus human DNA but how can you know for sure that you have something unique if you aren't used to looking at human, great ape, or extinct hominid DNA? For all we know, she may not have a definitive conclusion of what it is beyond it being a primate, if that. Well back to the touchstone... we were lead to believe some time back, that the scientific makeup of the team doing the analytic work was going to be independently confirming material if it was somehow out of "their" range of clinical expertise to sequence or analyze. Now don't ask me to go back through these threads and figure out where that notion came from..... but it is one that I know I did not dream up. Has this been done or not?.... I thought this was part of the dotting the i's and crossing the t's.... unless somehow I misinterpreted comments, phraseology and semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 We all get there, then we keep reading.... Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The "bear hunter's" story is complete b.s., and this guy will never prove that he's killed 1, let alone 2 bigfoots. He also hasn't killed anywhere near 1000 bears...Saskeptic There is no Bigfoot, no shootings, no bodies and no Bigfoot "slice-of-thigh" or any other body part forthcoming. My sources are irrefutable. There IS no DNA. There is no (to say the least) convincing Erickson video. Isn't there....... WTB1 People have been crying about real scientists looking at the proof. Now they are, and you want Nestle's instant answers all hot and steaming with marshmellows in it...... HairyGreek I like your signature post Southernyahoo, well said ! Just curious, if his story is complete BS, and his submissions were accepted and packaged in the same study as your submissions, does that make your story complete BS? The head of the study apparently finds them as acceptable as yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Arizonabigfoot, I think AaronD quoted my sig line, which contains sentiments that aren't mine or his. He may agree with them, but thats not why they are preserved there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Arizonabigfoot, I think AaronD quoted my sig line, which contains sentiments that aren't mine or his. He may agree with them, but thats not why they are preserved there. That's my bad. I wasn't sure if since you tagged them that you endorsed those views. Thanks for clearing that up. We're cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Bipedalist, I believe those were assumptions made regarding her comments on facebook and the leaks we heard last fall/winter. SY, I can google and find just as many research articles citing that the barcoding method is not reliable when looking at intraspecies identification. About the most you get to is the species. It depends on what species she identified as to how controversial the results will be. She has even said that she is not sure how main stream science will receive her results. That doesn't sound like incontrovertible truth to me, but one more step in the right direction. A wide gap exist between intra- and interspecific divergences for both cox1 and cob genes whereas this gap is less apparent for 16S, indicating that rRNA genes are less suitable for species delimitation in DNA barcoding. For those species where multiple sequences are available there are significant differences in the intraspecific genetic distances between different mitochondrial markers, without, however, showing a consistent pattern. We conclude that cox1 allows accurate differentiation of species and as such DNA barcoding may have an important role to play in comparative primatology. http://www.mendeley.com/research/performance-distancebased-dna-barcoding-molecular-identification-primates/ However, this quality control process is complicated by taxon specific patterns of 'universal primer' failure, as well as the amplification or co-amplification of nuclear pseudogenes of mitochondrial origins. To overcome these difficulties, taxon specific primers have been developed, and reverse transcriptase PCR is utilized to exclude these extraneous sequences from amplification. DNA barcoding of primates has applications to conservation and law enforcement. Depositing barcode sequences in a public database, along with primer sequences, trace files and associated quality scores, makes this species identification technique widely accessible. Reference DNA barcode sequences should be derived from, and linked to, specimens of known provenance in web-accessible collections in order to validate this system of molecular diagnostics. http://www.mendeley.com/research/the-problems-and-promise-of-dna-barcodes-for-species-diagnosis-of-primate-biomaterials/ Conclusions The problems with taxonomic reliability and insufficient annotations in public DNA repositories form a tangible obstacle to sequence-based species identification, and it is manifest that the greatest challenges to biological barcoding will be of taxonomical, rather than technical, nature. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000059 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 30, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 30, 2012 Funny, and what isn't an assumption re: the topic to date, lol...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 DUH and HUH!!!!! I am taking up Greek as a foreign language cause I don't have a clue Jodie. I am now going to read a WHOLE lot more about DNA and sequencing etc etc etc. Let's just hope this report materializes so I can be completely confused but happy the darn thing is published. I'll just read your post and ask for an English translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Jodie, I'm not suggesting that a barcode analysis would do. In fact I think it uses sequences that are way too short. It is just one way to get you in the ballpark, You could definately pre-screen with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Yes, that's exactly right Bipedalist. Gotcha SY Doglover- Think of DNA as a LEGO project without the instructions, all you have is two views of the building you are supposed to piece together from the cover of the box, the rest is guess work. That's what I get out of trying to identify an unknown species from their DNA alone. I think JDL compared it to trying to piece together a jigsaw puzzle with all the pieces turned over to the gray side, with no picture on the box to go by....that's about right too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I think that if you had DNA that fit within the Human range, but showed a specific mutation, or set of mutations, then you found another, and another, and so on and so on, eventually you would get to a place statistically where you where facing the statistical probability that you where looking at a sub species. Now if you where collecting samples from different area's, and continued to see the same mutations, (involving the same genes of course),and these genes where say, related to hair growth,skeletal structure, muscle and strength development, etc, you would eventually get to a place where you could statistically prove a sub species. Especially if you had some area's where you could even get samples from members of the same family. What would it take, if they did exist? Samples, and time. How would you overkill the science? Take the time​ to run enough samples, to take your statistical proof beyond any possibility of doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Sorry arizonabigfoot, I just liked the way southernyahoo's signature line was worded. It was a compliment to him, nothing more...Your avatar is pretty cool too. But I do wish things could be cleared up a bit, I mean this "shooting" took place how long ago? And we have nothing but conflicting opinions and educated guesses as to why there's nothing concrete for the public to feast on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts