Sasquatch Genetics and Dr. Todd Disotell

[hiflier]

Hi, everyone, I have brought up the DNA subject several times over the past two or three years but you know how things go, it's difficult to think of everything from all angles right away. A thought occurred to me this morning that pushed my logic buttons and I could use some input to see if anyone else might have some thoughts about it. Of course, just about everyone knows about the nest discoveries that have been going on in Washington State by the Olympic Project. When they were first discovered, Dr. Meldrum took soil samples from under the centers of some of the structures and a year and a half later Dr. Todd Disotell finally tested them for possible Sasquatch DNA.

 

But here's where things get a little muddy for me. His findings showed that all of the usual animals that frequent that area had their DNA show up in the samples. But there was some Human DNA that was also present. Dr. Disotell concluded, however, that the Human DNA was too degraded to show a novel primate. Now here's where it gets interesting, so many people (and science) has said that one needs DNA sequences in the Genbank in order to have anything to compare DNA samples to in order to identify whatever organisms are in a sample- including Humans. That fine, and I get that, although, I do not necessarily agree with it for my own reason.

 

But this is what occurred to me: Dr. Disotell, an expert primate evolutionary geneticist, would KNOW that a novel primate couldn't be discovered without having that particular genome in the Genbank. But if that genome WAS in the Genbank then: 1) A novel primate discovered at the nesting site wouldn't actually BE a NOVEL one after all.  And, 2) If the genome ISN'T in the Genbank then what was it that caused Dr. Disotell to even look at the samples for the possibility of discovering a new primate in the first place? I know I'm bringing this up as a fine point, but if there is no Sasquatch genome in the Genbank (because of the novel primate classification) for comparison, and people say that that's what's needed, then, according to Dr. Meldrum's and Dr. Disotell's efforts, it would appear that a novel primate in North CAN be discovered through DNA even if there's no genome available for comparison? If two scientists do the work thinking that a discovery can happen (apparently without a genome), then why do other people say that it can't happen (without a genome)? This makes no sense to me.

[MIB]

It's a good question.   I think you're seeing circular reasoning.    We can't positively ID something if it isn't in GenBank but we have DNA, there are two possibilities 1) degradation, 2) something new.   I'm not certain how you could tell which you've got particularly if the novel species is so closely related to a known species that they match on the gene loci used for identification of the known species.    Without the ability to absolutely say the thing is not human ... because it is matching on the segments used to identify humans ... you can't say you've got something novel.  

 

Basically what I'm saying is I don't think Disotell's work on the environmental DNA proves or disproves anything so far. 

 

MIB

 

[hiflier]

Thank you, and I agree. And you are correct, without a known genome, positive ID would be elusive as all get out. As far as degradation, it may come down to sequences that are too short for definite species or genus identification, however the degraded DNA WAS termed to be Human, because there is, after all, a Human genome available for comparison of the expected position of relevant markers (loci). And you right, overlapping (homologous) markers shared by other species, or even genus wouldn't make a distinction. And of course, the DNA results probably not defined enough down to species level anyway. In other words, a sample may show genus Ursus (bear) but not which species of bear.

 

It comes down to that fact that one cannot specifically (genetically) identify the Sasquatch without an available genome. But while the Sasquatch cannot be ID'd on that basis, it can in fact still be genetically discovered. And this is the point. I think the mantra that one can't determine the Sasquatch exists, because there's no genome in the Genbank to compare any DNA to, gets a lot of people on the wrong side of the possibilities for discovery. I think most hear the "no genome, no monkey" aspect of things and, for the most part, don't get the message that it doesn't matter, which has been my position all along. And it really DOESN'T matter. But it would be good if we knew what Dr. Disotell would be actually looking for that would say "novel primate." When he said there was Human DNA in the samples that was too degraded to show a novel primate, then what is it that he's looking for? It makes me wonder if he has his own hypothesis regarding the Sasquatch and its position on the evolutionary primate line.

 

This would be something I would be very interested to know. His understanding of primate body shape, especially where the Sasquatch is concerned, scientifically accepted genetic mutation rates and the time frame between us and Chimpanzees, one would think that a geneticist of his caliber would have a pretty good idea of generally where to place the Sasquatch in the primate line. But more importantly, his understanding of the evolutionary genetics of the Great Apes vs. Humans may have given him special insights on what to look for that would tell him "novel primate." He just might have some theoretical expectations, and I'll wager he has discussed those with Dr. Meldrum- and others as well.  

Edited November 22, 2021 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

If it cannot be found in the gen bank then it does not exist in the natural world . It only exist in that moment of time that it has been researched.  So if it keep on coming back as human yet does not match with any human involve in the research of the nest. Then the research is null. The only explanation left is that the nest were made by humans.

 

So what sense does it make to look into the gen bank unless you are looking for something that is already been found. The Gen bank is only used to match to what is discovered. If they find something that is not in the gen bank then they might call it novel. The question should be if " what if one does kill one of these creatures and it comes back Human? " what will they do next? 

[MIB]

Yes .. agree.

 

Going a little farther ... given the location and the great difficulty the groups who went to the site experienced getting there, y' kinda have to wonder just who that "human" DNA might have belonged to and how long it'd been there.   I saw some vid of the trip in .. that brush was truly awful.   Looked much like the brush patch the trackline I found in '74 went into, maybe not as thick as when I did go into it in '89 but maybe like it was in '74, and both evergreen huckleberry.   "Hmmm."    With conditions that truly miserably awful, who did this DNA they found come from?   Private land.    Would have to either be the survey crew or trespassers and in that mess trespassers seems unlikely which leaves me with that one eyebrow still raised ...

 

MIB

[hiflier]

3 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

The question should be if " what if one does kill one of these creatures and it comes back Human? " what will they do next?

 

Good question, SB. And you're correct, if it's DNA isn't in the Genbank, it doesn't exist.....but it DOES exist

 

So the bottom line, and purpose, here, is to is to put the circular reasoning finally to rest once and for all. One doesn't need Sasquatch DNA in the Genbank or any other genome repository to discover a novel non-primate in North America. And if and when that discovery is made, it WILL be the Sasquatch- it is the only candidate on this continent. That's why I would like to know what Dr. Disotell knows, or even suspects, about the specifics of a novel primate's DNA. Mainly because, regardless of the Sasquatch's body shape, there is obviously something in the brain that would be genetically quite remarkable when compared to a Human brain. It may be the only difinitive area worth looking at if the Sasquatch/Human body itself has DNA that is close enough to be nearly identical....NEARLY, but not exactly.

[hiflier]

20 minutes ago, MIB said:

"Hmmm."    With conditions that truly miserably awful, who did this DNA they found come from?   Private land.    Would have to either be the survey crew or trespassers and in that mess trespassers seems unlikely which leaves me with that one eyebrow still raised ...

 

Yeah, that's a good raised eyebrow indeed. The initial find was by the timber cruiser. When the OP showed up there was still greenery on the material used in the nest construction. So, unless the timber cruiser peed in several of the nests, how DID the DNA get there- in the soil under the nests. And how long had it been there in order to degrade? The nests with the greenery were thought to be fairly fresh, possibly only a coupla months old. The DNA was probably from skin cells that were shed as the structures were being built? Could have been from urine or other activities (birthing??) but in any case, Dr. Meldrum and Dr. Disotell obviousyy didn't care what was, or was not, in the Genbank and continued with the process of sample gathering and testing. My thing is, what would Dr. Disotell be looking to find, either present or missing. in those DNA samples. He must have some kind of an idea given his background, education, and experience handling primate DNA.

 

Tongue in cheek question: would there be a difference between degraded Human DNA and degraded Great Ape DNA? Or would the level of degradation cause the two to look more and more identical?

Edited November 22, 2021 by hiflier

[MIB]

8 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Tongue in cheek question: would there be a difference between degraded Human DNA and degraded Great Ape DNA? Or would the level of degradation cause the two to look more and more identical?

 

Hmmm ... that's a pretty durn insightful question for tongue in cheek.     

 

Disotell could be making the same mistake made by earlier researchers who did DNA analysis.    Seemed like they were looking for something no more related to us than a chimp, 1-2% or more difference in DNA and threw out samples that were closer .. where I think we should be looking .. because they assumed contamination from human.   If bigfoot is something in genus Homo, they're going to be a lot closer making it even harder to tell novell from degraded.   Put a different way, the closer they are to us, the easier their DNA can be mistaken for ours.

[BobbyO]

A lot of things are muddy where Dr Disotell is concerned. 

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

Seemed like they were looking for something no more related to us than a chimp, 1-2% or more difference in DNA and threw out samples that were closer ..

 

51 minutes ago, BobbyO said:

A lot of things are muddy where Dr Disotell is concerned. 

 

Apparently so because I don't think finding a novel primate's genetic signature is that much of a needle in the haystack as folks make it out to be.

 

@MIB My opinion only of course here, but I truly think it goes something like this in the way of genetic differences in the primate evolutionary order: genus Orangutan+>Last Common Ancestor(3%), genus Gorilla gorilla+>LCA (1.9%), genus Pan troglodyte+>LCA (1.1%), genus XXXXX xxxx (.5-.7%), genus Homo to itself (.1%).....

 

Again, my opinion, using the scientifically known 3-4 million year cadence for primate evolutionary splits. So I think there's a lot more genetic room for a novel primate discovery than I'm being told that there is. And I have to say, IF that's the case, then what gives in light of the technological advances in research, field work, and monitoring that just doesn't seem to fit the rather backward Sasquatch discovery picture that I'm being shown?

Edited November 22, 2021 by hiflier

[MIB]

34 minutes ago, hiflier said:

then what gives

 

Very good question.   None of the potential answers seem very satisfactory.    It kinda suggests real bigfoot is something unacceptable to science so they're ignoring what it is and trying to dictate what it is allowed to be .. and that square peg won't stay in their nice round (pigeon) hole.   ... but that's just me guessing.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

.. and that square peg won't stay in their nice round (pigeon) hole.   ... but that's just me guessing.

 

No, I don't think you are entirely guessing there, MIB. You have been an intelligent facet is such discussions and I do think you see discrepancies in the landscape at times, too. In order to have an accurate portrayal of any current situation regarding discovery (or the lack thereof) ALL of the various pieces of what we know, deduce, reason out, or whatever have to fit nicely within the puzzle. Sometimes it takes a track record of sorts over time of what has been done or said by principal players to see when things develop inconsistencies between what is and what we think is, or what we are led to believe is. You and others have seen this creature. So everything from back then to our current time needs to have a level of logic that fits that encounter's truth.

 

What I've seen and understand falls way short of where I think things should be right now, especially considering that you and others her had your encounters 2-3 decades ago? And that's what I've been having difficulty reconciling over the past few years. What you saw, and what others have seen and are experiencing to this day, in no way meshes with the technological level that science CLAIMS it is at right now. The process of discovery is way behind where it should be for all of advancements that science has made. If we knew more, if those who know would tell us more, then the disconnect between that scientific progress as it relates to our rather archaic stagnant picture regarding Sasquatch discovery and methods of discovery. just might make ore logical sense. Because right now it definitely does not because, for all of the people and science that are involved, we should not be stuck in the 1960's as far as this subject is concerned. But we seemingly are, and I have had some real concerns about that.

 

And that brings me back to my original point, what is it about the DNA of a novel primate that says it's a novel primate? Beyond being a Human, or just a plain ol' ordinary run-of-the-mill primate of any genus? Science today can't answer that question given what it knows about Homo primate genetics? Whatever it is MUST allow a novel primate to remain within the primate animal kingdom, so nothing genetically needs to be all that far out in left field. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by hiflier

[BobbyO]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

Very good question.   None of the potential answers seem very satisfactory.    It kinda suggests real bigfoot is something unacceptable to science so they're ignoring what it is and trying to dictate what it is allowed to be .. and that square peg won't stay in their nice round (pigeon) hole.   ... but that's just me guessing.

 

Ding ding ding.

 

I'm with you 100% on this MIB.

[hiflier]

Well, it does beg the question (the real elephant in the room) WHY?

 

I come here to air out such thoughts....not to make trouble, but to keep active the thought processes going on behind the status quo- in fact, IN SPITE of the status quo. Seems a shame that there doesn't seem to be anyone but a Bigfoot community to actually have such a conversation with. Glad you folks are here or I don't know what else I'd be doing in order to find an outlet that, lately, has me buried in ever more questions without solutions.  And for that I sincerely thank you.

Edited November 22, 2021 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

Dr Disotell, is really going out on a limb with his method of testing DNA. Here is what I have read up on him. " he uses DNA evidence to test hypotheses on everything from the intricacies of our evolution to the existence of “Bigfoot.” ( The Leakey Foundation | Science Speakeasy: Fake or Fact? ). So if we go by this statement then we understand how he is thinking. Hypotheses : A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. ... A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

 

I am not sure if this is the right way to go. If there is a Gen bank full of DNA of every living creature that has been entered into. But he is already set on that these creatures could either be from the Human pool or the primate pool that us Humans are also from. Then this all that he will be looking for.  As it stand we have no idea where these creatures stand. We are all assuming that they could be from the primate tree or that they could be from the human tree. The prominent seems to be human.

 

So my question, is it possible to break down the DNA to find out how far or where on the tree these creatures may stand. Also is it possible that they may have more then two strands in their DNA that makes it difficult to identify? I am talking about a triple helix or even a quad or maybe more that we do not understand yet? This would make it novel. Might even make it scary to science.