Will Dna Species Documentation Be Like The 4 Min. Mile?

[Guest wudewasa]

Is it because the results are a comparative statistical analysis of the DNA?

gigantor,

Comparing the DNA of an unknown species to a known one?

To describe a species, you need to have some sort of physical remains to work from. How much physical remains is the point of contention. With sasquatch, some people think a hair or a lump of flesh that contains DNA is all that is necessary to describe this species to the scientific community. The more physical remains, the greater the acceptance by scientists and skeptics that such a species would exist. DNA alone just wont convince many people.

Yes, we have the DNA from Neanderthals and Denisovans, yet when we compare the two species, less is known from Denisova because a tooth and DNA are currently the only physical remains from this species. Neanderthal remains are much more extensive, so we have more to work with. Still, disagreement amongst researchers as to whether humans and Neanderthals mated with one another remains, even though both species (or to some researchers, subspecies) share similar sections of DNA. With Densiovans, there is DNA evidence that this species mated with certain human populations.

The hobbit, or Homo florensis has been accepted as a species, yet there are still scientists that believe that the remains are that of a microcephalic human child.

Regarding current recognition of bigfoot by scientists, Dr. Meldrum has used a field of clasification called ichnotaxonomy or ichnology. This is the study of tracks made by extinct animals. More here: http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/paleontology/ichnology.html

This field is not without controversy. From http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/tracks/report3/ichnology.html :

"It is "generally regarded that modern traces should not be named" (Simon Braddy, pers.comm.). Ichnites include vertebrate footprints, invertebrate burrows, fossil eggs and various other traces resulting from biological activity.

Ichnotaxonomy should not be confused with normal Linnean taxonomy which is used in reconstructing evolutionary family trees, or phylogenies. Evidence from trace fossils can be used to influence the reconstruction of phylogenetic trees, or to suggest a more likely tree from a choice of several. This is because tracks and traces "may extend stratigraphic ranges of groups to fit the fossil record better" (Simon Braddy, pers.comm.).

Ichnotaxonomy is not useful for making phylogenetic reconstructions; it is useful for describing and categorising types of trace. Edward Hitchcock, an emminent ichnologist (trace fossil scientist) from the last century was the the first to use a the Linnean system of classification for trace fossils. Ichnites are given an ichnogenus (e.g. Eubrontes) and an ichnospecies name (e.g. glenrosensis), just as whole organisms are given a genus name (e.g. Homo) and a species name (e.g. sapiens). (Thulborn, 1990).

Ultimately, the distinctions between ichnospecies and ichnogenera are arbitrary. However, an ichnospecies is usually considered to be a "discrete morphological trace" and an ichnogenus "a grouping of similar ichnospecies" (Simon Braddy, pers.comm.).

Unfortunately, "one person's ichnogenus is another person's ichnospecies. One organism can create many ichnotaxa and conversely, many organisms can create one ichnotaxa" (Simon Braddy, pers.comm.). Therefore, ichnotaxonomy is only really useful in that it provides a formal way of classifying trace fossils."

So, Meldrum has used a method of identifying footprints of extinct species to describe the footprints of a living species (the sasquatch). To most academics, this is not enough evidence to prove the existence of bigfoot. DNA alone is better, but still controversial. Body parts, or an entire specimen is really what the scientific community needs.

[southernyahoo]

DNA alone just wont convince many people.

Sure it will, there is no hoaxing it in blind testing, it either belongs to known animal or it is a new species or subspecies.

[Guest]

To describe a species, you need to have some sort of physical remains to work from.

Which DNA absolutely IS. Physical DNA comes from a physical creature. That is an absolute.

With sasquatch, some people think a hair or a lump of flesh that contains DNA is all that is necessary to describe this species to the scientific community.

Because it IS all that is necessary. It is 100% dispositive proof of the species the DNA describes.

The more physical remains, the greater the acceptance by scientists and skeptics that such a species would exist. DNA alone just wont convince many people.

Then they are not being scientists.

The hobbit, or Homo florensis has been accepted as a species, yet there are still scientists that believe that the remains are that of a microcephalic human child.

There are still people who argue for a flat earth...we don't let their delusions prevent us from moving forward in the real world.

Regarding current recognition of bigfoot by scientists, Dr. Meldrum has used a field of clasification called ichnotaxonomy or ichnology.

*snip for space*

So, Meldrum has used a method of identifying footprints of extinct species to describe the footprints of a living species (the sasquatch).

Sound like a long-winded special pleading to me. "Modern" trace evidence is somehow INvalid while non-"modern" trace evidence is somehow valid.

To most academics,

Argument from authority and majority.

this is not enough evidence to prove the existence of bigfoot.

Then, as I said, they are not being scientists. Science is science. What it tells us is what it tells us.

DNA alone is better, but still controversial.

Only to those not being truly scientific.

Body parts, or an entire specimen is really what the scientific community needs.

No, it's what the community WANTS. By it's own rules, it's not what it NEEDS.

It's the old "coffee" argument. The "community" continues to demand to see the cup of coffee when objectively where you have the coffee stains, the coffee grounds, the coffee pot, cup, saucer, etc you have more than established the coffee already.

[Guest wudewasa]

Sure it will, there is no hoaxing it in blind testing, it either belongs to known animal or it is a new species or subspecies.

So, what body of animal species will you be able to compare it to? All that you know is that it is DNA that does not match known species. A body of the type specimen is what is necessary to describe a species.

[Guest]

So, what body of animal species will you be able to compare it to? All that you know is that it is DNA that does not match known species. A body of the type specimen is what is necessary to describe a species.

That is SO splitting semantical hairs it isn't even funny. DNA is 100% diagnostic as to the position of a species relative to other species. No more "well, it's kind'a looks like A with parts of B in place C" vagueness.

Instead you have "The genotype is X% Species A and Y% Species B with the following sequence and base pair matches

• and the following differences
  • .

That is far more diagnostic and precise.

[southernyahoo]

So, what body of animal species will you be able to compare it to? All that you know is that it is DNA that does not match known species. A body of the type specimen is what is necessary to describe a species.

You compare DNA to DNA and apples to apples. The DNA shows you what family / genus it belongs to and that describes the creature. It doesn't show you exactly what it looks like. The fact that it is quite hairy can be established from the hair in which the DNA comes from. Unique results across the samples tells you this is a group with uncataloged mutations and establishes the new species.

It's not as "Hail Mary" as flopping a body down on the table but will be effective in bringing in the scientists.

[Guest]

It's not as "Hail Mary" as flopping a body down on the table but will be effective in bringing in the scientists.

If they are at all intellectually honest, yes...I wouldn't count on it though...

[Guest wudewasa]

It's not as "Hail Mary" as flopping a body down on the table but will be effective in bringing in the scientists.

I'm not sure if I agree with scientists being interested in DNA alone. Then again, each academic is an individual that may or may not be open to molecular evidence of a bigfoot without a body to examine. Just like all breakthrough discoveries, there will be disagreement in the scientific community, should this situation occur.

So sit back, be patient, and let peer review do its job then read the forthcoming paper if it is accepted in a journal.

Edited July 22, 2011 by wudewasa

[Guest]

To all BBF members- I agree with a lot of what is being said here. However one point that wasn't covered is the fact that since the NFL bac is wrapping up that maybe by this time next year you may see BF in a jersey after being drafted #1- wouldn't that be something ptangier

[Guest nona]

I believe DNA can go a long way in identifying a new species. How far though I'm not exactly sure. I have a feeling that just like everything else Bigfoot related these DNA results are going to come out "blurry" as well and insertions of personal assumptions will be needed to make anything out of it.

In any case when this study does come out. Will there be enough "sasquatch steak" to go around for others to test?

Also, wudewasa makes a good point. Say the DNA does somehow prove without a doubt that it comes from an unknown primate but all you have is small tissue samples or strands of hair from which the DNA comes from. How are we going to be able to exactly tell that from a +7 foot giant biped? What if it came from a 7 foot creature that still has to walk on it's knuckles? That doesn't seem to me to exactly fit the prevailing description of Bigfoot. Or on an opposite scale what if the DNA came from a biped creature that is only 4'2"? All this study might have done was verify the DNA of an Ewok. Without a body or an actual set of bones the best the DNA can do is show the existence of some unknown creature.

[southernyahoo]

I believe DNA can go a long way in identifying a new species. How far though I'm not exactly sure.

I think DNA is used everyday to do phyologenetic placement, determine relatedness of two similar or distant organisms, and discover new species we wouldn't expect from their appearance alone. People can now find out about their ancestry from their DNA.

I have a feeling that just like everything else Bigfoot related these DNA results are going to come out "blurry" as well and insertions of personal assumptions will be needed to make anything out of it.

The interpretations will be coming from multiple experts in a blind study.

In any case when this study does come out. Will there be enough "sasquatch steak" to go around for others to test?

I would make sure of that if it was mine.

Also, wudewasa makes a good point. Say the DNA does somehow prove without a doubt that it comes from an unknown primate but all you have is small tissue samples or strands of hair from which the DNA comes from. How are we going to be able to exactly tell that from a +7 foot giant biped?

I think the DNA will place it on the phylogentic tree better than "unknown Primate". Size or maturity of the donor won't matter. You can take DNA from an infant human and it is still human.

What if it came from a 7 foot creature that still has to walk on it's knuckles?

How would it matter? Apes and humans do both. Squatches are reported to do both as well.

That doesn't seem to me to exactly fit the prevailing description of Bigfoot.

See above

Or on an opposite scale what if the DNA came from a biped creature that is only 4'2"?

Same deal, the DNA is either different from the closest known (which places it between two knowns on the tree of life) or it is a known.

All this study might have done was verify the DNA of an Ewok.

A discovery is a discovery, do you think the sasquatch or bigfoot will retain their names upon recognition? And how would you explain this discovery coming from bigfoot hunters.

Without a body or an actual set of bones the best the DNA can do is show the existence of some unknown creature.

Doesn't this contradict your first statement? My reply to it still stands. Denisova was identified without a body or set of bones, it's closest to us and neanderthal based on it's, you guessed it, DNA.

[Guest nona]

Doesn't this contradict your first statement? My reply to it still stands. Denisova was identified without a body or set of bones, it's closest to us and neanderthal based on it's, you guessed it, DNA.

So based off it's DNA what can you tell me about the Denisova hominin? Average height? Skin color? Does it's anatomy match exactly that of modern humans? How hairy was it? Can it see at night better than your average modern day human?

How would it matter? Apes and humans do both. Squatches are reported to do both as well.

Ok. Sorry I'm not an expert on the habits of the Sasquatch. Many things have been said about the creature however I was under the impression an adult Sasquatch would be hairy, walks bipedally and is tall. If we didn't have to meet those characteristics then I say we have been wasting our time. Bigfoot does exist and we already have all the proof we need. There are these creatures in the mountains of Africa that are large, hairy, and stand occasionally on two feet but travel the majority of time with their knuckles on the ground. DNA has also shown them to be a close relative to man.

If someone told me they saw an iguana that was 15 feet long, with sharp visible teeth, and was chomping down on a gazelle I would think something is off.

A discovery is a discovery, do you think the sasquatch or bigfoot will retain their names upon recognition? And how would you explain this discovery coming from bigfoot hunters.

Personally I don't care if bigfoot enthusiast or UFO enthusiast made the discovery. Who made the discovery will only be important for record books. To me what will be the most important thing about a discovery is what was discovered.

[Doc Holliday]

the best the DNA can do is show the existence of some unknown creature.

which might be just enough( along with whatever else they may have, if anything) to persuade a few more in the scientific community to take notice & look into this a little more seriously .

that might get them closer to determining what it really is so it isnt unknown anymore.

but i wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that one.........

[southernyahoo]

So based off it's DNA what can you tell me about the Denisova hominin? Average height? Skin color? Does it's anatomy match exactly that of modern humans? How hairy was it? Can it see at night better than your average modern day human?

Ask those who would call it a new human based on it's DNA.

http://nell-rose.hub...red-with-Humans

Ok. Sorry I'm not an expert on the habits of the Sasquatch. Many things have been said about the creature however I was under the impression an adult Sasquatch would be hairy, walks bipedally and is tall. If we didn't have to meet those characteristics then I say we have been wasting our time. Bigfoot does exist and we already have all the proof we need. There are these creatures in the mountains of Africa that are large, hairy, and stand occasionally on two feet but travel the majority of time with their knuckles on the ground. DNA has also shown them to be a close relative to man.

Interesting that you say "we". If we find a new homind, what sightings of cryptic hominids other than bigfoot do we have? The implication will be unavoidable.

Personally I don't care if bigfoot enthusiast or UFO enthusiast made the discovery. Who made the discovery will only be important for record books. To me what will be the most important thing about a discovery is what was discovered.

If bigfoot hunters find a new hominid in north america, it won't matter what you call it, we will have an explanation for the bigfoot sightings, the tracks, the sounds and even confusing results from archaeological sights. IMO

Edited July 23, 2011 by southernyahoo

[Guest nona]

Ask those who would call it a new human based on it's DNA.

http://nell-rose.hub...red-with-Humans

Well, from that link I see no answers to any of my questions. I do see a few artistic representations of what the hominin may look like. And I think with no body or bones to accompany the DNA of Dr. Ketchum that's all the public will be able to do as well. Speculate on what it may actually look like. Pending of course if the study is able to truly prove the existence of some creature.

Interesting that you say "we". If we find a new homind, what sightings of cryptic hominids other than bigfoot do we have? The implication will be unavoidable.

Sorry, that was merely an unconscious slip of the tongue? Or would that be keyboard? When I came to this board I did have a slight belief that such a creature as Bigfoot could possible exist. Yet, with every passing illogical statement I've read concerning this creature my belief in the possibility that it does exist dwindled down to zero. Maybe I'm still waiting for a good argument to be made.

As for other cryptids there is always the "Wildman", and the New Jersey Devil and Mothman to name a few, that are supposedly something of a half-human hybrid. There is also the possibility of an eccentric millionaire who smuggled a rare exotic primate from the Amazon forest that hasn't been genetically classified as of yet.

If bigfoot hunters find a new hominid in north america, it won't matter what you call it, we will have an explanation for the bigfoot sightings, the tracks, the sounds and even confusing results from archaeological sights. IMO

What's the point of that comment (in bold)? Does it rebut anything I've been saying in my previous post? It just seems like an odd statement to make. Personally I don't care what it's called.

As for the explanations of these sightings, I believe we already have many to pick from; over active imaginations, mis-identifications of bears, hoaxes, humans in gorilla suits...