Thoughts on the Types of Information we Use

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

I am curious who is already doing e-DNA testing in the field.    If they are, and if they are using primers that should identify everything in an area, we might have our DNA evidence for bigfoot without realizing it.   

 

That was my initial focus as well when I started out. Mainly because that apparently is the type of testing (metabarcoding) that was done on the OP nests. It's why they were able to detect the number and types of animals that were in the area- including finding degraded Human DNA.

 

2 hours ago, MIB said:

It apparently takes filtering a vast amount of water to collect enough DNA to test for, it's not just a matter of dipping your water bottle in the lake "as shown on TV."   

 

One only needs to filter one liter of water per sample.

 

2 hours ago, MIB said:

There doesn't seem to be a lot of scientific interest in approaches focused on "show me everything in the environment", rather, funding, etc are based on determining if "X" is in the environment, and traditional methods are a lot more cost-effective.   

 

True. This is why I determined what to specifically look for.

 

2 hours ago, MIB said:

Unless we find some situation where someone is specifically testing for primates, and in North America, that's us, and we already know we are everywhere, I don't see a way to piggyback on other ongoing research, it's going to have to be done specifically to look for bigfoot.    ... at least, that's the way it appears right now from the scientists I've talked to.

 

That's the goal in the questions that I've been asking. Nice that you're able to talk to scientists.

 

1 hour ago, Twist said:

Also what makes me nervous with E-DNA testing is if like other tests may show, BF possibly being a close relative all results could be thrown out as human and overlooked.  

 

This is the conundrum I've been presenting which is why my questions have revolved around the NOTCH2NL gene protocol concept. It can zero in on either ape-specific or Human specific genes. Specifically because those genes relate to brain development or non-development depending on the target primate such as Gorilla/Chimpanzee or Human. So far, one scientist has said it would be a good program  for discovery. The thing is, I knew it would be but I wanted the concept to be assessed and verified by someone who would be knowledgeable on the subject. And I have to admit, finding someone outside our normal BF scientist go-to's that we're all more familiar with hasn't been easy.

[ShadowBorn]

Quote

I might be wrong on this Hiflier for lack of understanding.  But the problem might be the acceptance of E-DNA. First you must find a match to what you are looking for in the E-DNA.  If there is no match within the data then the sample is at a loss. I can see how E-DNA can work at finding a new species. But how are they going to compare the sample. When there is nothing to compare too which should be the question. They need something to compare this E-DNA with. If this E-DNA comes back as Human, then we are still stuck with from where we started in the first place. With nothing novel.  We would need this DNA to be totally new from all Humans in order to declare it to be from a Sasquatch. It would have to be also from a new species of ape to declare it to be a new species. So far none of this has been able to be proven. That is why advocating a body on a slab is the only way to prove what these creatures might truly be. I do not agree in the killing of one nor do I agree in the finding of one and tearing or cutting a limb, head or any part of the body. I say this since they look so human that it would be shocking in the act of doing so. E-DNA might work if two or three samples from different parts of the country were taken and were to match. That if this E-DNA matches up exactly to a T. How could these labs explain this match up then? There would be no way to prove them wrong and the samples could then be novel. No contamination and would have to be accepted by science. Now this is just my opinion. I am not trying to be critical of the idea. But just that maybe there might be flaws.  There would have to be taken a fresh sample in order for E-DNA to be effective. Not just one sample but more then just a few to properly document this creature. Just my opinion

Now this is what I have said in the past thread MIB. In order for E-DNA to work and have an outcome they have to look for a specific creature in the data base to compare with. If there is nothing there then how will they know what they are looking for. Even if it turns out to be a novel human it will still be thrown out. Since it will match up as human. If it matches up as ape then there would be a problem. But as it stand nothing has matched up as ape, chimp or anything primate. If it did we would be hearing about it by now. If it was of a novel human it would be big news and we would be hearing it as well by now too. Nothing so far. The one way to figure out the contamination problem would be to have everyone's DNA in the data base. This would solve the contamination problem and we all know that this is not going to happen. Body on the slab is the only solution. But how far will some one get when that happens. Will that group that makes it happen be stopped by the Higher ups. I am assuming that this has already taken placed. FOIA is not going to help get this information.  Science is being held back from disclosing . Maybe due to a human factor involve. Now this is just my opinion but it does make you wonder why scientist do not want to get involve. These creatures have been around a long time.  Science should have been involved with these creatures way back then. Maybe they have.

[hiflier]

3 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

Now this is what I have said in the past thread MIB. In order for E-DNA to work and have an outcome they have to look for a specific creature in the data base to compare with. If there is nothing there then how will they know what they are looking for.

 

Human genomes as well as Great Ape genomes ARE in the database. We don't need Sasquatch DNA in the databases to determine a novel primate.

 

5 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

If it matches up as ape then there would be a problem. But as it stand nothing has matched up as ape, chimp or anything primate. If it did we would be hearing about it by now.

 

True, ShadowBorn, but hearing about it could be the problem.

 

6 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

The one way to figure out the contamination problem would be to have everyone's DNA in the data base. This would solve the contamination problem and we all know that this is not going to happen.

 

You are correct regarding filtering out anyone's DNA that has come in contact with sample. But labs know to do that and do that already.

 

10 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

Body on the slab is the only solution.

 

No, it's not the only solution. But I guarantee, if BF DNA is discovered then science will eventually put one on a slab.

 

12 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

But how far will some one get when that happens. Will that group that makes it happen be stopped by the Higher ups.

 

My guess is not far.

 

13 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

Science should have been involved with these creatures way back then. Maybe they have.

 

Yes, maybe they have.

[MIB]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

5 hours ago, MIB said:

It apparently takes filtering a vast amount of water to collect enough DNA to test for, it's not just a matter of dipping your water bottle in the lake "as shown on TV."   

 

One only needs to filter one liter of water per sample.

 

Not correct according to the scientists I talked to.    That is the "TV" version of science.    It takes more than just one cell's DNA to test, but because of the stream flows involved, the DNA is so dilute within the water source that a single liter will not have cells, thus DNA, for more than a small fraction of the critters that have been in contact with the water source.   The real world scientists ... different than those TV actors ... filter thousands to tens of thousands of gallons of water to get enough DNA to test.    Look, I made the same assumption you did.   Probably watched the same TV shows.   I had to change my view based on what real scientists said about real science in the real world.   

 

MIB

[norseman]

37 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Not correct according to the scientists I talked to.    That is the "TV" version of science.    It takes more than just one cell's DNA to test, but because of the stream flows involved, the DNA is so dilute within the water source that a single liter will not have cells, thus DNA, for more than a small fraction of the critters that have been in contact with the water source.   The real world scientists ... different than those TV actors ... filter thousands to tens of thousands of gallons of water to get enough DNA to test.    Look, I made the same assumption you did.   Probably watched the same TV shows.   I had to change my view based on what real scientists said about real science in the real world.   

 

MIB

Remember Todd Disotell’s Mosquito study approach? Same concept. Study the blood sample of thousands to millions of Mosquitoes in a given research area and hope to get lucky. It’s tedious, time consuming and expensive. BUT. If enough time and effort are put into it long enough? It will produce results.

[Twist]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Not correct according to the scientists I talked to.    That is the "TV" version of science.    It takes more than just one cell's DNA to test, but because of the stream flows involved, the DNA is so dilute within the water source that a single liter will not have cells, thus DNA, for more than a small fraction of the critters that have been in contact with the water source.   The real world scientists ... different than those TV actors ... filter thousands to tens of thousands of gallons of water to get enough DNA to test.    Look, I made the same assumption you did.   Probably watched the same TV shows.   I had to change my view based on what real scientists said about real science in the real world.   

 

MIB

Makes sense as MIB describes.   Let’s say you are doing E-DNA test of trout, if the river is full of trout then maybe less water is needed to confirm because they are constantly shedding DNA in the water.  BF passing through a stream or taking a drink is putting a very finite amount of DNA into said stream and most likely just a short distance down the stream it’s extremely dispersed.

 

Id be curious of a test.  In theory if you could have a controlled stream, say 20 yards wide and say 3’ deep.  If a normal man waded across that, how quickly would DNA disperse to undetectable levels. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Twist

[ShadowBorn]

5 minutes ago, Twist said:

Id be curious of a test.  In theory if you could have a controlled stream, say 20 yards wide and say 3’ deep.  If a normal man waded across that, how quickly would DNA disperse to undetectable levels

Now that's some thing that can be tested and confirmed. Either by walking in a man made creek and being able to take a drink out of that man made drink. . I am sure that scientist must have already tested this theory.

[Twist]

So we just need to rent a “lazy river” in some water park!  

[hiflier]

3 hours ago, MIB said:

Look, I made the same assumption you did.   Probably watched the same TV shows.  

 

Haven't watched TV in about a dozen years now. I read science articles, go to the websites of F&W and the websites of the companies that manufacture and sell the materials for sampling. One filter per one liter of water, but no scientist worth their salt is going to go to all the trouble and only take one sample. That makes no sense:

 

E-DNA USGS Field Sampling Protocols.pdf

 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by hiflier

[norseman]

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Haven't watched TV in about a dozen years now. I read science articles, go to the websites of F&W and the websites of the companies that manufacture and sell the materials for sampling. One filter per one liter of water, but no scientist worth their salt is going to go to all the trouble and only take one sample. That makes no sense:

 

E-DNA USGS Field Sampling Protocols.pdf 1.35 MB · 1 download

 

 

 

Sasquatch is a terrestrial animal. So your not going to be testing water samples to look for it’s DNA, are you?

 

Your gonna be taking dirt samples in areas you think it’s living in? How many dirt samples do you think will be upon millions and millions of acres of national forest? Or specific cases like the skookum cast, trackways, etc?

[hiflier]

8 hours ago, norseman said:

Sasquatch is a terrestrial animal. So your not going to be testing water samples to look for it’s DNA, are you?

 

Your gonna be taking dirt samples in areas you think it’s living in? How many dirt samples do you think will be upon millions and millions of acres of national forest? Or specific cases like the skookum cast, trackways, etc?

 

This isn't just for you, my friend, but for everyone. I really need you to start thinking more positively and less negatively. What I'm saying is maybe to think more about how this e-DNA technology can benefit our Sasquatch research. Most of what I hear as discouragement for the methodology comes from your own lack of research. Now, you all know I DO MY RESEARCH. So when I say or suggest something it's because there is scientific precedent to back it up. Kindly allow me to firm up my case by reading this recent article: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/researchers-detect-land-animals-using-dna-in-nearby-water-bodies-67481

 

When Dr. Gemmell surveyed Loch Ness he used a metabarcoding DNA technology to detect ALL the species living in the Loch. He mentioned that what also got detected were the terrestrial animals that live AROUND the Loch. My concept for sample water e-DNA for land animals started with that. Plus, when the technology was getting going some years ago, scientists were looking at what animals live in caves by sampling water OUTSIDE of the cave. For me, that was amazing to know about. And now, years later things have only gotten better. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been pestering everyone about it. It's why I've persevered in the face of so much resistance to the water sampling method for discovery.

[hiflier]

I posted the article to, not only support my position, but to also say that I'm pretty sure it isn't misinformation, disinformation or hoaxing  There was one line that I really liked in the text: “When we started working on this project, I was like, ‘this is ridiculous, there’s no way this is going to work.’ Thankfully, I had a few optimistic PhD students with me at the time,” says McDevitt who led the two latest surveys.

[MikeZimmer]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

I posted the article to, not only support my position, but to also say that I'm pretty sure it isn't misinformation, disinformation or hoaxing  There was one line that I really liked in the text: “When we started working on this project, I was like, ‘this is ridiculous, there’s no way this is going to work.’ Thankfully, I had a few optimistic PhD students with me at the time,” says McDevitt who led the two latest surveys.

 

It seems like an an avenue for investigation that is worth going down, and I guess that you will continue trying to get specialists to follow that path with you. I do think that the observation made by one of our fellows above, that the DNA might be dismissed because it is too human is a consideration. You think that there are markers which would allow a distinction to be made. This certainly goes beyond my limited understanding, so I will leave the discussion to those who have studied the issue.

 

 

Coming back to the topic of the thread, correctness of information:

 

I wish science worked better, in any number of ways. It is not nearly as effective at figuring things out as many believe, as I used to believe. Many groups, doing studies,  looking at the underpinnings of the scientific enterprise have revealed its inadequacies. It is worth looking at some of this literature, just to become aware of some of the issues, if you have not done so.

 

It is probably the best method we have regardless, for examining many types of issues, despite its flaws which are numerous. Enthusiasm for it need to be tempered.

 

These flaws are in the areas of: bias, careerism, dishonesty, incompetence, inadequate methodology, statistical inadequacy and misunderstanding, flawed peer review, poor research design, dogmatism, fashion, corporate vested interest, failure to replicate, triviality of research, lack of relevance of studies to the issue, .... . Dang, I wish it were a lot better. The criticisms by John P. Ioannidis on the problems with tests of significance are really troubling, since it seems to show that what many of us were taught and have believed about statistics was quite a bit off the mark.

 

See for instance:

 

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/11/the-myth-of-scientific-objectivity

https://slate.com/technology/2017/08/science-is-not-self-correcting-science-is-broken.html

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8591837/how-science-is-broken

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q="failure+to+replicate"&ia=web

 

 

 

[norseman]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

This isn't just for you, my friend, but for everyone. I really need you to start thinking more positively and less negatively. What I'm saying is maybe to think more about how this e-DNA technology can benefit our Sasquatch research. Most of what I hear as discouragement for the methodology comes from your own lack of research. Now, you all know I DO MY RESEARCH. So when I say or suggest something it's because there is scientific precedent to back it up. Kindly allow me to firm up my case by reading this recent article: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/researchers-detect-land-animals-using-dna-in-nearby-water-bodies-67481

 

When Dr. Gemmell surveyed Loch Ness he used a metabarcoding DNA technology to detect ALL the species living in the Loch. He mentioned that what also got detected were the terrestrial animals that live AROUND the Loch. My concept for sample water e-DNA for land animals started with that. Plus, when the technology was getting going some years ago, scientists were looking at what animals live in caves by sampling water OUTSIDE of the cave. For me, that was amazing to know about. And now, years later things have only gotten better. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been pestering everyone about it. It's why I've persevered in the face of so much resistance to the water sampling method for discovery.

No, that’s awesome! Thanks for sharing. That’s why I asked the question, I truly did not know.
 

My next question.... the article talks about Scotland and the Amazon. Are these samples being takin in fast flowing water like rivers and cricks? Or is it being takin in lakes and ponds or still water? The article is from April, 2020 and talks about this new technique. So maybe they don’t know yet?

[hiflier]

25 minutes ago, norseman said:

No, that’s awesome! Thanks for sharing. That’s why I asked the question, I truly did not know.
 

My next question.... the article talks about Scotland and the Amazon. Are these samples being takin in fast flowing water like rivers and cricks? Or is it being takin in lakes and ponds or still water? The article is from April, 2020 and talks about this new technique. So maybe they don’t know yet?

 

"Scientists have recently sampled eDNA from streams and rivers in the UK and in the Amazon and the Atlantic Forest in Brazil to assess local mammal communities, and their results surprised them."

 

They mentioned other water bodies as well  Thanks for asking Norseman!