Jump to content

e-DNA Sampling For Sasquatch


Recommended Posts

hiflier
Posted (edited)

Here is another VERY good article that came out back in 2006: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-2-difference Please give it a read. Mind you, it came out 12 years before the now known effects of the NOTCH2NLA, B and C on Human brain size and cognitive function. But it's a fine piece of writing that gives some clarity on why I've zeroed in on those gene variations after reading those two papers that came out in May of 2018. Hopefully it might give you a better stroll through my "neighborhood". And maybe even see a bit more clearly  why I zeroed in on those gene variations after reading those paper this past February.

 

I've had no responses from any labs yet, and still no word from the second PhD on the NOTCH2NL hypothesis as a way forward to Sasquatch discovery. Trust me when I say this has been more tedious and complex than I would have ever thought. I'll say it again, having a dialogue with our better known, "in-house" BF scientists would be a great help. All three may already know about such a hypothesis, or at least Dr. Disotell might. If not, he definitely would have if he had opened my email at some point.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
NCBFr

I have never understood how DNA testing can identify an unknown species.  So lets see you actually get BF DNA along with a dozen other things that left DNA in that eDNA sample (the last creature the BF ate, the rat that wondered by, etc.).  How does a lab positively identify the random DNA sample in which it has no known matches as BF.  Wouldn't it simply say it a corrupted human DNA sample?

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)

It's something I struggled with as well for quite some time, N.

 

2 hours ago, NCBFr said:

How does a lab positively identify the random DNA sample in which it has no known matches as BF.  Wouldn't it simply say it a corrupted human DNA sample?

 

 That's the question I had asked myself a thousand times, and you're not alone in wondering that I can assure you. It wasn't until I read those papers on the Human NOTCH2NL genes that I finally saw a way out of the conundrum. And even then I had to ASSUME that, from all indications, Sasquatch has a backward, undeveloped thinking ability that simply made it not as good as we Humans. It seemed to function more as a thinking Great Ape but with a better, more advanced physical body than a Great Ape. That body allows it to do things more like us, like walking bipedal. But, throwing rocks, sticks and pine cones, building nests and generally acting like a Gorilla told me that maybe...just maybe....we could use the NOTCH2NL genetic differences as a more positive way to tell Sasquatch DNA from Human DNA.

 

The whole e-DNA thing has had a long road with me, but it got real short real quick once the NOTCH2NL light went off. But NOTCH2NL genes are on the "q" and "p" arms of chromosome #1. That means one needs a cell nucleus in order to test for them. And even then it would end up being a process of elimination. In other words, if someone detects what is thought to be Human DNA from an actual whole cell's nucleus but, when when looking for Human NOTCH2NL genes on chromosome#1, doesn't find any? And then gets the same outcome after a second test, or a third? Then it's absolutely indicative of a new primate. And it WON'T be in the GenBank.

 

On the other hand, if one finds Great Ape NOTCH2NL genes (which are also in the GenBank) then it will STILL be a new primate. WHY? Because outside of Humans, THERE ARE NO OTHER PRIMATES IN ANY NORTH AMERICAN WILDERNESSES! And since that is a fact, then the test results will HAVE to be interpreted as showing there must be a Sasquatch in the wilds of North America. So getting back to this:

 

2 hours ago, NCBFr said:

How does a lab positively identify the random DNA sample in which it has no known matches as BF. 

 

IMO, that's how they should do it. My goal has been trying to finding someone who would. Or at least tell me yes, the methodology of finding whole cells with nucleuses and testing them for NOTCH2NL genes would work. And that's where I'm at right now. I have one scientist so far that has given me that "yes". But I want a second or third opinion to support that "yes"

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
3 hours ago, NCBFr said:

I have never understood how DNA testing can identify an unknown species.  So lets see you actually get BF DNA along with a dozen other things that left DNA in that eDNA sample (the last creature the BF ate, the rat that wondered by, etc.).  How does a lab positively identify the random DNA sample in which it has no known matches as BF.  Wouldn't it simply say it a corrupted human DNA sample?


Denisovans?
 

Completely new species discovered by finding a pinky finger bone smaller than a dime. 

 

They have the technology to parse out different subspecies of the genus Homo.
 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, norseman said:

They have the technology to parse out different subspecies of the genus Homo

 

Indeed they do. So it comes down to us needing samples, and a lab who will take them. Surely there must be one out there whose proprietor would want to verify a Sasquatch and would love to have people out there taking samples for that very reason. That proprietor would probably run the tests for nothing depending on how badly they wanted the truth. Only way to find out would be a blanket mailer to ALL labs laying out the effort. out of a couple of thousand labs there must be at least one or two whosw owners would fit that criteria?

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
MODERATOR
19 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Indeed they do. So it comes down to us needing samples, and a lab who will take them. Surely there must be one out there whose proprietor would want to verify a Sasquatch and would love to have people out there taking samples for that very reason. That proprietor would probably run the tests for nothing depending on how badly they wanted the truth. Only way to find out would be a blanket mailer to ALL labs laying out the effort. out of a couple of thousand labs there must be at least one or two whosw owners would fit that criteria?

 

Now you're describing Melba Ketchum with her financial backers.   I don't know of her charging any of the people who submitted samples to her study.

 

... that gets into something that doesn't smell right regarding the Olympic Project.   With Wally Hersom as an OP member, why would they need to solicit funds to perform the e-DNA tests?   

 

MIB

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)

I thought the word was that he had bowed out and was no longer funding the Olympic Project even before the first nest find. I have no idea if is involved in any current Bigfoot projects. Wouldn't blame him if he wasn't. Guy's probably down a mil with nothing to show for it.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfjewel
On 6/23/2020 at 3:21 PM, hiflier said:

 

Isn't there kind of a famous name for your area? A "something" Triangle? Seems to me a saw a book somewhere about the strangeness that goes on around there.

It’s the Bridgewater Triangle, a 200 square-mile area containing the Hockomock Swamp and Freetown-Fall River State Forest in southeast Massachusetts — including the town of Bridgewater. Not only Bigfoot, but other anomalies have been reported from the swamp and other parts of the triangle: poltergeists, UFOs, orbs, giant snakes and birds, and — from Algonquin tradition, a “place where the spirits dwell,” i.e. ghosts. I haven’t heard anything recently from there about BF, but would like to research the history and see what the sightings were like.
 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)

Thank you :) And I do think there's a book on the subject but can't remember if it came from Loren Coleman or someone else. Wait a sec......I'll look it up ;) 

 

Okay, Loren Coleman mentioned The Bridgewater Triangle in his book "Mysterious America" (1983) and then a documentary type movie, "the Bridgewater Triangle" came out in 2013: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3315344/ and then a more recent TV series came out 2019 based on a short story by Brian Miller. GOOD! I'm not going crazy (or, crazy-ER, LOL):

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfjewel

I’m hoping to get in touch with the producers of the  2013 documentary. I was fortunate enough to go to special showing at Bridgewater State, which they attended.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NCBFr
11 hours ago, hiflier said:

It's something I struggled with as well for quite some time, N.

 

 

 That's the question I had asked myself a thousand times, and you're not alone in wondering that I can assure you. It wasn't until I read those papers on the Human NOTCH2NL genes that I finally saw a way out of the conundrum. And even then I had to ASSUME that, from all indications, Sasquatch has a backward, undeveloped thinking ability that simply made it not as good as we Humans. It seemed to function more as a thinking Great Ape but with a better, more advanced physical body than a Great Ape. That body allows it to do things more like us, like walking bipedal. But, throwing rocks, sticks and pine cones, building nests and generally acting like a Gorilla told me that maybe...just maybe....we could use the NOTCH2NL genetic differences as a more positive way to tell Sasquatch DNA from Human DNA.

 

The whole e-DNA thing has had a long road with me, but it got real short real quick once the NOTCH2NL light went off. But NOTCH2NL genes are on the "q" and "p" arms of chromosome #1. That means one needs a cell nucleus in order to test for them. And even then it would end up being a process of elimination. In other words, if someone detects what is thought to be Human DNA from an actual whole cell's nucleus but, when when looking for Human NOTCH2NL genes on chromosome#1, doesn't find any? And then gets the same outcome after a second test, or a third? Then it's absolutely indicative of a new primate. And it WON'T be in the GenBank.

 

On the other hand, if one finds Great Ape NOTCH2NL genes (which are also in the GenBank) then it will STILL be a new primate. WHY? Because outside of Humans, THERE ARE NO OTHER PRIMATES IN ANY NORTH AMERICAN WILDERNESSES! And since that is a fact, then the test results will HAVE to be interpreted as showing there must be a Sasquatch in the wilds of North America. So getting back to this:

 

 

IMO, that's how they should do it. My goal has been trying to finding someone who would. Or at least tell me yes, the methodology of finding whole cells with nucleuses and testing them for NOTCH2NL genes would work. And that's where I'm at right now. I have one scientist so far that has given me that "yes". But I want a second or third opinion to support that "yes"

I knew I could count on you to provide a well thought out and thorough answer to my question.  It seems I have some homework to do before I provide an equally thoughtful response.  Thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

 

I actually know a college junior in a related field that is taking genetics next quarter (hopefully in person) that has actually see n a BF.  Le me see what she has to say on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NCBFr
11 hours ago, norseman said:


Denisovans?
 

Completely new species discovered by finding a pinky finger bone smaller than a dime. 

 

They have the technology to parse out different subspecies of the genus Homo.

 

 

You really are the anti-hiflier, short and to the point. However, you are sadly mistaken in the analogy as it is not nearly this simple.  The archeologist that found the pinky (and jawbone from a different site as well as a few teeth BTW) did not simply tease out the DNA, run it through a computer and had Denisovan pop out.  The pinky told them hominin and the molars led them to it being a close relative of Nanderthal.  With these clue and the DNA they had mutilple labs (inluding MIT) with scientist of many different backgrounds work together for an extensive period of time to figure out that the creature was a close relative of Naderthal.  What y'all are looking to do here is much more complicated and has never been done before.  Unless you got a few million to spend and multiple labs willing to invest in the effort, this path is a completely dead end.  Thus my question.

 

With that said Hiflier may be on to something. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

And if I, or someone else gets lucky enough to find a lab, then Norseman has said, since he would be in the field anyway, that he would be open to perhaps taking some samples himself :) And I thank you for the vote of confidence, NCBFr. I'm already starting to save up for equipment and testing costs. And we all know, KNOWN active areas are good targets. The more recent the better. Although, according to the UK study, DNA in the environment is fairly tough stuff.    The number of creatures in an area and how often they are there plays an important roll as well. And let's not forget timing.

 

On that note, How about timing? I mentioned after a good rain following a dry spell. A dry spell actually be good for preserving DNA in the field since moisture can be an important factor in DNA degradation. So my thinking is DNA collects better in dry conditions and then rains wash the terrain, especially if it's somewhat steep, and the DNA into the drainage systems. Once those drainage systems get into areas that are a not as steep and therefore more accessible then setting up for sampling would be easier.

 

It may be a balance of between steep terrain and not so steep terrain to lessen the chances of higher Human activity? Would a stream along a road be a better candidate than, say, a stream below a hiking trail? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 hour ago, NCBFr said:

 

You really are the anti-hiflier, short and to the point. However, you are sadly mistaken in the analogy as it is not nearly this simple.  The archeologist that found the pinky (and jawbone from a different site as well as a few teeth BTW) did not simply tease out the DNA, run it through a computer and had Denisovan pop out.  The pinky told them hominin and the molars led them to it being a close relative of Nanderthal.  With these clue and the DNA they had mutilple labs (inluding MIT) with scientist of many different backgrounds work together for an extensive period of time to figure out that the creature was a close relative of Naderthal.  What y'all are looking to do here is much more complicated and has never been done before.  Unless you got a few million to spend and multiple labs willing to invest in the effort, this path is a completely dead end.  Thus my question.

 

With that said Hiflier may be on to something. 


I will openly admit that I’m not an authority on DNA or E DNA. I have listened to Svante Paabo talk on Ted talk and other podcasts. As well as Todd Disotell and others. So I’m aware it’s not as easy as pouring a water sample into a computer and DNA code pops out the other end.

 

With that said? Why is it that what Hiflier is trying to do more complicated? I would think fossils with degraded DNA would be tougher than a fresh water sample taken a week ago? Extinct vs extant? Dunno. 
 

As you say, I’m direct, so for me a bullet smashing vertebrae is a sure fire way of solving the mystery. But you cannot hunt what you cannot find. So I must be a poor hunter. Never seen one. Never found a trackway I could follow as an adult. And I have been to some remote places. And plan to continue going to remote places. 
 

Boiled down to brass tacks? Everything is a dead end concerning this subject. It’s up to us to either continue trudging on or quit and take up surfing or golf or some other hobby. Cost? Well..... they get grants to study the mating rituals of dung beetles. Finding a non human primate DNA strand in a Pacific NW river sample may peak somebodies interest to pick up the torch and run with it. Maybe?

 

I say we throw as many fishing poles into the water as we can? (DNA, Rifles, Shovels, Rubber Gloves, water bottles, etc) And worry about landing the fish AFTER we have something on the hook. We will fail often. It’s that promise of getting the big one on the beach that should be the driving force behind doing what we do. The cavalry isn’t coming. It’s just us.

 

How is that for long winded? Stop being a nay sayer NCBFr and start collecting water samples! 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)

Oh, I'm definitely going for extant there, bud. And since living creatures drop DNA everywhere? then that's the obvious target- their DNA. Fresh DNA will provide cells. Not so fresh will provide DNA, too, but it will be more fragmented. We get what we get. If lucky enough to get DNA only a week old? Then great. Science has ways to differentiate species in either case, old DNA or new. But Human contamination is the point. And we can avoid that with good technique.

 

But what happens if, after all our careful technique has been applied, we still get samples- fresh or not- with Human contamination? THAT'S where the rubber meets the road. Where do the samples go from there? Do they get tossed? or do they get looked at on a deeper level to see if there is something that indicates a different primate? Denisovans and Homo Sapiens sapiens differ by just under 700 base pairs. Neanderthals? Differ by just over 200. Chimpanzees? 1,600 plus. If Sasquatch is further up the primate lineage due to its advanced physical body, then it ill be closer to us that chimps but not as close as Denisovans. I think 800-1,000 base pairs of difference ought to show up in any DNA we collect.

 

The samples from the OP nest sites had degraded Human DNA in the soil from UNDER the centers of the nests, interpreted to say they were "too degraded to show a novel primate" (Disotell). So that tells me, again, that a novel primate COULD be detected from supposed Human DNA that is NOT degraded. Now, I don't know if that means whole cells would be necessary to make that determination or not but, since that aspect wasn't mentioned, it would appear that whole cells are not needed. But, IMO, that still leaves the door open to enough wiggle room to dismiss a novel primate. One can only hope that a good lab will see enough a definite difference to rule in our favor.

 

The whole midea behind getting fresh DNA that contains whole cells is the idea that the results will be absolute when checking for NOTCH2NL variations. This doesn't mean that what DNA we collect, no matter how fragmented, is useless. I just happen to thing fresh is better and so does science even though they have been able to do species differentiation very well from fragmented DNA in water...like from monkeys in the Amazon. So there certainly is reason to have hope for our efforts.  Hope for an EXTANT novel primate.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...