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

[Guest nona]

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.........

I can agree with almost everything said here.

[southernyahoo]

I think the evidence profered to be in hand would satisfy standards that are currently being used to establish new species even if it can't fully describe it. we only need to show that it is distinguishable with the evidence and that it is a hairy hominid. that fits the description of bigfoot perfectly.

[southernyahoo]

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.

Why do you think the artistic representations did not depict a knuckle walker? Tooth morphology? The morphology of a pinky bone? Thats far from a body isn't it!

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.

There is no better argument than the one proposing to meet scientific standards, but then you aren't looking for an argument if you want the grand slam body on the table.... are you?

If you move the goal post I will call you on it. it's wiggling around right now, maybe high winds are to blame.

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.

I think both wildman and bigfoot carry the description that fits within the hairy hominid class of primates that we are looking to prove. You were the one that gave the name Ewok to potentially explain the evidence, what is it's description based on sightings?

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.

The names and physical descriptions go together.

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...

You can suit yourself where there is no objective evidence to substantiate them.

[Guest nona]

Why do you think the artistic representations did not depict a knuckle walker? Tooth morphology? The morphology of a pinky bone? Thats far from a body isn't it!

And why do you think it does not depict a knuckle walker? DNA? I'll admit DNA may have a small part in it simply because it is similar to neanderthals and modern humans. However the main reason why it is not represented as a knuckle walker is because we know the morphology of modern humans and neanderthals.

What do you think another newly discovered homonin is going to to look like?

A ) a human with broad shoulders, that stands 7 feet tall, and is covered in fur

or

B ) a human of average build, with less than average height, and with an amount of hair in about the same places similar to that of modern humans

Any guess you make without a body or skeleton would be merely speculation. Though 'B' in my opinion would be the more logical choice.

You still didn't answer any of my previous questions about the Denisova hominin. I'm thinking it is because you can't. Actually it is because I know you can't. So, I'll save you another Google search. Our current understanding of genetics is not going to be able to determine with certainty most of the questions I've ask.

Take for example height. A geneticist may be able to give you some sort of range where it may fall however there is also a good probability that it would fall well short or grow above that range. It is because height depends on several factors such as how long adolescence last, production of growth hormones, diet, ability to stay free of parasites and other diseases, etc. Not all of those factors depends solely on genetics.

There is no better argument than the one proposing to meet scientific standards, but then you aren't looking for an argument if you want the grand slam body on the table.... are you?

If you move the goal post I will call you on it. it's wiggling around right now, maybe high winds are to blame.

I think both wildman and bigfoot carry the description that fits within the hairy hominid class of primates that we are looking to prove. You were the one that gave the name Ewok to potentially explain the evidence, what is it's description based on sightings?

The names and physical descriptions go together.

It's true a name usually illicits a physical description, but it's not the name that is of concern but the the physical description. I've gave several examples already as to what I was talking about and I do not know how to explain it any simpler. As I've stated above you are not going to be able to determine with certainty the physical description without a body and I'm sorry but I've always thought that bigfooters were out to prove the existence of "gigantic and hairy". Not possibly "short and hairy" or "average and hairless".

I'll admit that discovery of either "short and hairy" or "average and hairless" may still go a long way to explain some of the sightings being reported of "gigantic and hairy" however, but it is because of reasons that have been stated several times misinterpretations and over active imaginations.

No goal post have been moved. You might be getting closer but you are still well short of the goal.

You can suit yourself where there is no objective evidence to substantiate them.

Seriously? Just take a look at the media section if you are indeed looking for "objective evidence".

Edited July 23, 2011 by nona

[Guest]

The DNA would be a strong piece to the puzzle, But I doubt it would be the be all end all of Sasquatch research. If DNA results show difinitively that an unknown animal is lurking in the forests of North America wouldn't it be used more so as evidence to help establish serious studies with large financial backing to clearly define what exactly this animal is? I think DNA results combined with further studies of these animals in the wild is what is needed before they are completly added to the "wildlife of North America" handbooks you find in gas stations.

[southernyahoo]

And why do you think it does not depict a knuckle walker? DNA? I'll admit DNA may have a small part in it simply because it is similar to neanderthals and modern humans. However the main reason why it is not represented as a knuckle walker is because we know the morphology of modern humans and neanderthals.

And it would be the same in the case of the sasquatch, if the DNA showed something as close or closer.

What do you think another newly discovered homonin is going to to look like?

A ) a human with broad shoulders, that stands 7 feet tall, and is covered in fur

or

B ) a human of average build, with less than average height, and with an amount of hair in about the same places similar to that of modern humans

Any guess you make without a body or skeleton would be merely speculation. Though 'B' in my opinion would be the more logical choice.

Not exactly, you admit that the Scientists that discovered Denisova are not speculating right? They have far less than a body and can infer what it is from that evidence. It would look like Patty or a guy in an ape suit if the DNA is as I said above.

You still didn't answer any of my previous questions about the Denisova hominin. I'm thinking it is because you can't. Actually it is because I know you can't. So, I'll save you another Google search. Our current understanding of genetics is not going to be able to determine with certainty most of the questions I've ask.

Take for example height. A geneticist may be able to give you some sort of range where it may fall however there is also a good probability that it would fall well short or grow above that range. It is because height depends on several factors such as how long adolescence last, production of growth hormones, diet, ability to stay free of parasites and other diseases, etc. Not all of those factors depends solely on genetics.

It won't matter how large it is, a new hairy hominid species found extant in north america today will be what is accepted as Wildman / Bigfoot / Sasquatch until someone can prove some other thing is out there with DNA.

It's true a name usually illicits a physical description, but it's not the name that is of concern but the the physical description. I've gave several examples already as to what I was talking about and I do not know how to explain it any simpler. As I've stated above you are not going to be able to determine with certainty the physical description without a body and I'm sorry but I've always thought that bigfooters were out to prove the existence of "gigantic and hairy". Not possibly "short and hairy" or "average and hairless".

See above, they could be quite variable in appearance and size and still have the same basic genetics.

I'll admit that discovery of either "short and hairy" or "average and hairless" may still go a long way to explain some of the sightings being reported of "gigantic and hairy" however, but it is because of reasons that have been stated several times misinterpretations and over active imaginations.

Sorry but I'm not imagining or misinterpreting anything.

No goal post have been moved. You might be getting closer but you are still well short of the goal.

Good.

Seriously? Just take a look at the media section if you are indeed looking for "objective evidence".

What about it?

Edited July 23, 2011 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

Our current understanding of genetics is not going to be able to determine with certainty most of the questions I've ask.

And therefore DNA is meaningless in establishing a species?

Try again.

It's true a name usually illicits a physical description, but it's not the name that is of concern but the the physical description. I've gave several examples already as to what I was talking about and I do not know how to explain it any simpler. As I've stated above you are not going to be able to determine with certainty the physical description without a body and I'm sorry but I've always thought that bigfooters were out to prove the existence of "gigantic and hairy". Not possibly "short and hairy" or "average and hairless".

I'll admit that discovery of either "short and hairy" or "average and hairless" may still go a long way to explain some of the sightings being reported of "gigantic and hairy" however, but it is because of reasons that have been stated several times misinterpretations and over active imaginations.

I await your proof of that claim.

No goal post have been moved. You might be getting closer but you are still well short of the goal.

The demand was for objective, scientifically testable evidence. DNA is the ultimate in such. Now that it is looking very possible we have it, the demand is now for evidence sufficient for a "complete description" of the species.

The distance to the goal just doubled (again).

Typical Skeptic dirty debate tactic 101.

Seriously? Just take a look at the media section if you are indeed looking for "objective evidence".

And your proof that all that information is "misidentification, imagination, or people in gorrilla suits"?

Then there' this little chestnut:

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.

1) Typical Skeptic Ad Hoc Hypothesis. We now have demonstrable DNA to test, so the Skeptics have to come up with a way to explain the reality of the DNA without admitting proof of bigfoot.

2) For your information, it would have to be a whole BUNCH of millionaires all importing the same species of uncatalogued primate, because the Ketcham Study is not one sample, but a multitude of samples taken from a wide variety of locations.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Mulder

[Guest nona]

And it would be the same in the case of the sasquatch, if the DNA showed something as close or closer.

So what scientifically documented species of hominin that stands 7+ feet tall, weighting roughly 800lbs, that walks on 2 feet, and whose DNA we have already analyzed do you know of so we can make the comparison to Dr. Ketchum's so called sample of bigfoot DNA?

Not exactly, you admit that the Scientists that discovered Denisova are not speculating right? They have far less than a body and can infer what it is from that evidence. It would look like Patty or a guy in an ape suit if the DNA is as I said above.

Please follow the conversion. Where do I say they are not speculating? They may be making an educated guess on what it looks based off what we know humans and neanderthals look like but it is still a guess. Look again at the same article you posted. They say based on the size of the tooth it may have been larger than modern humans. Yet, another statement on that same article argues that teeth size is not a good indicator of body size. Based on that it seems that they are hardly sure of the size.

It won't matter how large it is, a new hairy hominid species found extant in north america today will be what is accepted as Wildman / Bigfoot / Sasquatch until someone can prove some other thing is out there with DNA.

See above, they could be quite variable in appearance and size and still have the same basic genetics.

Are you implying that people will simply accept the discovery of a hairy creature that only grows to 4 feet tall will fit the descriptions of what people have made on this board?

Or are you implying that discovery of any new homonin based of DNA alone must mean it came from a 7 feet tall creature such as one described as Bigfoot?

The first statement seems rather bold. The second statement is not "science".

Sorry but I'm not imagining or misinterpreting anything.

So you say.

[Guest nona]

And therefore DNA is meaningless in establishing a species?

Try again.

Where do I say DNA is meaningless in establishing a species? Are you reading only selective portions of the argument? It helps to read the whole thing.

I await your proof of that claim.

And I await the DNA study.

The demand was for objective, scientifically testable evidence. DNA is the ultimate in such. Now that it is looking very possible we have it, the demand is now for evidence sufficient for a "complete description" of the species.

The distance to the goal just doubled (again).

Typical Skeptic dirty debate tactic 101.

The demand for objective, scientifically testable evidence has always been the same. Are we supposed to simply accept every bit of ambiguous evidence as "proof"? Typical hoaxers and cons would love that.

And your proof that all that information is "misidentification, imagination, or people in gorrilla suits"?

Please read the conversation again and show me where do I say "all"? Though I admit it could be the case but those are your words.

Then there' this little chestnut:

1) Typical Skeptic Ad Hoc Hypothesis. We now have demonstrable DNA to test, so the Skeptics have to come up with a way to explain the reality of the DNA without admitting proof of bigfoot.

I am sorry to tell you but the reality of DNA hasn't changed.

2) For your information, it would have to be a whole BUNCH of millionaires all importing the same species of uncatalogued primate, because the Ketcham Study is not one sample, but a multitude of samples taken from a wide variety of locations.

The comment of an undocumented primate from the Amazon was simply speculation on my part with no basis on any facts that I know of. I'll admit that. However, without a report stating how many samples actually support the existence of a new undiscovered primate your comments are nothing but speculations as well.

Edited July 24, 2011 by nona

[southernyahoo]

So what scientifically documented species of hominin that stands 7+ feet tall, weighting roughly 800lbs, that walks on 2 feet, and whose DNA we have already analyzed do you know of so we can make the comparison to Dr. Ketchum's so called sample of bigfoot DNA?

We won't know how big the donor is and we don't know that all bigfoot get that big. All the DNA will say is what genus the DNA is closest to. if it was'nt significantly different in some way form all knowns within the closest genus there would be no point in publishing it.

Please follow the conversion. Where do I say they are not speculating? They may be making an educated guess on what it looks based off what we know humans and neanderthals look like but it is still a guess. Look again at the same article you posted. They say based on the size of the tooth it may have been larger than modern humans. Yet, another statement on that same article argues that teeth size is not a good indicator of body size. Based on that it seems that they are hardly sure of the size.

Very good, an educated guess based on knowlege of knowns. Do you call that science?

Are you implying that people will simply accept the discovery of a hairy creature that only grows to 4 feet tall will fit the descriptions of what people have made on this board?

I don't think there is any assumption of size. How many bodies or crystal clear videos would it take to establish the average? Is it needed to establish a new species?

Or are you implying that discovery of any new homonin based of DNA alone must mean it came from a 7 feet tall creature such as one described as Bigfoot?

There is no claimed size. The infant bigfoot would have the same DNA as it would as an adult.

It isn't science so I didn't claim it.

[Guest nona]

We won't know how big the donor is and we don't know that all bigfoot get that big. All the DNA will say is what genus the DNA is closest to. if it was'nt significantly different in some way form all knowns within the closest genus there would be no point in publishing it.

Very good, an educated guess based on knowlege of knowns. Do you call that science?

And what genus is that? What genus is the closest to Bigfoot? If it has proven to be different from all other known genus it simply means it is from an unknown genus. The scientific community knows no "Bigfoot". There is nothing to compare it to. It seems like you are trying to claim that the "Bigfoot genus" will prove itself. This is circular logic. This is not science.

I don't think there is any assumption of size. How many bodies or crystal clear videos would it take to establish the average? Is it needed to establish a new species?

I would argue that there is no assumption of size. However, how tall exactly is this creature supposed to be no one really knows. Would you agree though that it is quite tall? And on average an adult would be well over 6 feet?

There is no claimed size. The infant bigfoot would have the same DNA as it would as an adult.

We are no longer even talking about the same thing here. I am not talking about infants.

It isn't science so I didn't claim it.

This sums up everything quite nicely.

Edited July 24, 2011 by nona

[southernyahoo]

And what genus is that? What genus is the closest to Bigfoot?

I can't tell you that yet, I'm under an nda.

If it has proven to be different from all other known genus it simply means it is from an unknown genus. The scientific community knows no "Bigfoot". There is nothing to compare it to. It seems like you are trying to claim that the "Bigfoot genus" will prove itself. This is circular logic. This is not science.

Now you are misquoting me.

The method is to compare it to knowns, just like the denisova example. The DNA shows you the closest genus and species, If the DNA is still unique across the numerous samples then you can call it a new member of that genus or a subspecies of the one it's closest to. That phylogenetic placement. That is science.

I would argue that there is no assumption of size. However, how tall exactly is this creature supposed to be no one really knows. Would you agree though that it is quite tall? And on average an adult would be well over 6 feet?

On average , I think 7-8 feet is the reported average among bigfoot reports.

We are no longer even talking about the same thing here. I am not talking about infants.

Thats because you want to say a new hominid can't be some particular size and be a bigfoot. And I'm calling BS. becusae there is no way to say there are more than one type of bf at this point or that their size determines their species type by itself.

If we had what we percieved to be a 8 ft. tall bigfoot body, sequenced it's DNA and it was 100% human across the entire genome then we'd have to conclude we had a big hairy human that lives in the wild. It wouldn't be a new species without the unique mutations found in dozens of subsequent samples from a population of said beings.

[Guest nona]

I can't tell you that yet, I'm under an nda.

Ok.

Now you are misquoting me.

The method is to compare it to knowns, just like the denisova example. The DNA shows you the closest genus and species, If the DNA is still unique across the numerous samples then you can call it a new member of that genus or a subspecies of the one it's closest to. That phylogenetic placement. That is science.

The Denisova project for example compared 1 unknown (DNA of the Denisova hominin) to 2 knowns (DNA of neanderthals and modern humans) and concluded the DNA was similar though not exactly a match and hence it's unique placement.

What you are trying to do is compare 2 unknowns, an unknown (Bigfoot) which has already been associated with a unique description and an unknown DNA sequence and tie them together. This is something completely different than what was done in the Denisova project. You claim to have DNA from the unknown (Bigfoot) and claim it will be similar to others but not quite a match. The problem is there is no other known creatures with a "description" that fits the (unknown) Bigfoot. So we have nothing to compare this unknown DNA to and hence, logically deduce it's morphology will be like the unknown (Bigfoot).

I'll admit I once thought proving the existence of Bigfoot would be as simple as what was done in the Denosiva project. However, wudewasa made a very valid point and I can see no getting around it. You can not describe how a creature will exactly look morphologically based off DNA alone. So, if you are going to say this "unique DNA sequence" does belong to Bigfoot you are first going to have to prove Bigfoot exists and show that this DNA was indeed extracted from it. Or at least produce a creature similar to Bigfoot with DNA that is also similar to the one you claim to have.

Thats because you want to say a new hominid can't be some particular size and be a bigfoot. And I'm calling BS. becusae there is no way to say there are more than one type of bf at this point or that their size determines their species type by itself.

You remember this quote?

The names and physical descriptions go together.

You are the one that made it.

If we had what we percieved to be a 8 ft. tall bigfoot body, sequenced it's DNA and it was 100% human across the entire genome then we'd have to conclude we had a big hairy human that lives in the wild. It wouldn't be a new species without the unique mutations found in dozens of subsequent samples from a population of said beings.

Hey, a statement I can agree with.

Edited July 24, 2011 by nona

[southernyahoo]

The Denisova project for example compared 1 unknown (DNA of the Denisova hominin)

Which had no prior distiction or type specimen.

to 2 knowns (DNA of neanderthals and modern humans) and concluded the DNA was similar though not exactly a match and hence it's unique placement.

Yes , 56 human genomes and 4 Neandethal genomes if memory serves.

What you are trying to do is compare 2 unknowns, an unknown (Bigfoot) which has already been associated with a unique description and an unknown DNA sequence and tie them together.

Nope, we are just trying to see if bigfooters can discover a new hominid in our midst, using the same methods and DNA evidence same as the denisova scientists. We have the sightings suggesting such, so all we need is a pinky bone and a tooth.

This is something completely different than what was done in the Denisova project.

No it's the same method.

You claim to have DNA from the unknown (Bigfoot) and claim it will be similar to others but not quite a match.

I say I have a hair sample in a scientific study that is investigating the question of bigfoots existence. Thats what I claim. I'll say that in my opinion the hair and the DNA can absolutely establish they came from a hairy hominid.

The problem is there is no other known creatures with a "description" that fits the (unknown) Bigfoot.

Humans are hairy hominids, but not as hairy or large as bigfoots are reported.

So we have nothing to compare this unknown DNA to and hence, logically deduce it's morphology will be like the unknown (Bigfoot).

Bigfoot might be totally different from other known hominids, you bet. But we do have hominid DNA to compare it to, humans , Neanderthal ,Denisovan plus the pongid apes.

I'll admit I once thought proving the existence of Bigfoot would be as simple as what was done in the Denosiva project.

You'll believe it again, next time you want to make the argument that field biologists all across the country should have discovered their sign.

However, wudewasa made a very valid point and I can see no getting around it. You can not describe how a creature will exactly look morphologically based off DNA alone. So, if you are going to say this "unique DNA sequence" does belong to Bigfoot you are first going to have to prove Bigfoot exists and show that this DNA was indeed extracted from it. Or at least produce a creature similar to Bigfoot with DNA that is also similar to the one you claim to have.

I think you should investigate the requirements to establish a new species, it takes more than one sample to do it, and one type specimen could be dismissed as a freak. You have to show a breeding population.

It would be great to have pics and vids of the donors, but you would be sunk without the DNA in this day among scientists.

Edited July 24, 2011 by southernyahoo

[Guest nona]

Which had no prior distiction or type specimen.

Yes , 56 human genomes and 4 Neandethal genomes if memory serves.

Nope, we are just trying to see if bigfooters can discover a new hominid in our midst, using the same methods and DNA evidence same as the denisova scientists. We have the sightings suggesting such, so all we need is a pinky bone and a tooth.

No it's the same method.

I say I have a hair sample in a scientific study that is investigating the question of bigfoots existence. Thats what I claim. I'll say that in my opinion the hair and the DNA can absolutely establish they came from a hairy hominid.

Humans are hairy hominids, but not as hairy or large as bigfoots are reported.

Bigfoot might be totally different from other known hominids, you bet. But we do have hominid DNA to compare it to, humans , Neanderthal ,Denisovan plus the pongid apes.

You'll believe it again, next time you want to make the argument that field biologists all across the country should have discovered their sign.

I think you should investigate the requirements to establish a new species, it takes more than one sample to do it, and one type specimen could be dismissed as a freak. You have to show a breeding population.

It would be great to have pics and vids of the donors, but you would be sunk without the DNA in this day among scientists.

So Denisova team found a unique DNA sequence and discovered a new homonin.

You are claiming to to have found a unique DNA and therefore also discovered a new hominin.

If this is true, congratulations you found a new homoinin (or an entire new species as you claim)! Up until this point what your team has done will be similar to what the Denisova team has accomplished. This is a possible scenario I have been agreeing with all along. However, that is where the line is drawn.

If you notice the Denisova team made no attempt to tie this new found hominin to any mythological creature. For example they didn't say this is the 4 foot hobbit of middle earth or the yellowed hair, blue eyed yeti of Siberia. In fact as we went over this before, they made no claim to say how it will exactly look. Why? Because that would require additional evidence.

To tie the your so called new species of hominin you found through DNA to Bigfoot, the 7 foot primate of the North, you will need additional evidence. So what if you have a hairy tissue sample? I know a number of people with a full set of hair and hairy thighs. It doesn't mean they are hairy from head to toe or that they are necessarily tall. Your hairy tissue sample better be attached to a 3 foot long femur if you want people to believe it came from a giant.

I understand that many Bigfooters would take this as "proof" that Bigfoot exists, as in their minds Bigfoot has been proven to exist to them long ago. However, the scientific community will have to ponder if "your new found hominin" will match the description of a giant hairy biped and hence could actually be the creature known as "Bigfoot" or will it look and be from a creature that is entirely different leaving Bigfooters in same position they have always been in. You are going to need a body to prove the existence of Bigfoot.

Edited July 24, 2011 by nona