Sasquatch Genetics and Dr. Todd Disotell

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

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.

 

Of course it's possible. So a follow up question might be, has it already been done? And if so, by who, and how would we know? Pretty hard for me to think that after all of these years and decades, coupled with 25 years of ever more precise DNA technology, that DNA has never once been extracted and verified by any one or any institution of agency, or even a branch of service. Never ever? Not once? That seems unfathomable for anything that has today's high tech and high skills. In fact, it makes no sense at all that these creatures have never been looked at, studied, or tested to discover the very things you mentioned. That may have been true in the sixties, but it would be an unbelievable dereliction of even minor scientific investigation in today's need to know and understand everything. And the capability for doing that is so far ahead of anything fifty years ago that it isn't even funny.

 

The best ever of equipment for investigation, research, surveillance- both from Earth and from orbit, and a veritable army of specialized scientists graduating into their fields of discipline every year, and with the knowledge of how to use all of that high tech equipment. And in all of it, not one shred of DNA? Not one viably good fragmented base pair sequence? And i don't think I'm blowing this out of perspective one bit either. Because to think otherwise one has to suspend, reason, logic, and common sense to a level that borders on a persons inability to step back and look hard at the Bigfoot discovery picture and see that something is very much not right with it. And part of that is that we don't know what science would be looking for that would establish a creature in North America as being a novel primate. Because I do t\seriously think that there is a set of criteria that a geneticist specializing in primate evolutionary genetics would be on the look out for.

 

Look at Patty. She is the product of a certain set of genes. Those genes give her her characteristics and general look. One could easily surmise that science would have a pretty good educated guess at which genes to look for? Or maybe even which genes might be missing? Science does hypothesize after all about all kinds of things. Why not a hypothetical blueprint for a novel primate?

[hiflier]

I would like to put things into a real-world perspective if I may. If a state or region that does not have a Grizzly population, say like i the Northeast, and a Grizzly somehow made it's way there? You can bet that the state's F&W, Game Wardens, and even, hunters would know it in a matters of days if not hours. So what does that say about a small resident population of 7' tall 600 lbs. Sasquatches that have had presence in an area, region, or state for a hundred years or more? And out of those hundred years or more, not one creature has ever become a nuisance issue that had to be dealt with in some quiet manner? When it's put like that, no one can tell me that no one knows about them.

Edited November 23, 2021 by hiflier

[wiiawiwb]

Lots of excellent points being made. DNA is a topic that I am admittedly ignorant about especially as it relates to nuances and what can and can't be done.

 

What I've always found puzzling is that DNA results that are determined to be close to human, but not 100%, should be catalogued and kept to measure against the next time such a finding is made. Then, if several results are fairly similar, can't a  further genetic/genomic analysis be undertaken on those similar samples to get into the real tiny differences to isolate those specfic markers that are not quite human?

[hiflier]

38 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

What I've always found puzzling is that DNA results that are determined to be close to human, but not 100%, should be catalogued and kept to measure against the next time such a finding is made. Then, if several results are fairly similar, can't a  further genetic/genomic analysis be undertaken on those similar samples to get into the real tiny differences to isolate those specfic markers that are not quite human?

 

An excellent line of thought, wiiawiwb! And this is the nut to crack because DNA results are basically digital in nature. So just about everything regarding DNA has a record of those results. One could pretty much rest assured that DNA anomalies are noted, and even if physical samples get tossed, a digital signature is usually kept. Genomes are still being amassed in the databanks, and sometimes that happens too quickly. So what happens is genomes get logged in from all over the world but many do not have a record or link to the organisms that the genomes represent, i.e., photos or common names. Nonetheless, because of the amazing cluster of new Homo fossil finds in recent years one could surmise that there are anomalous strings of sequences that are kept for future matching. DNA that isn't 100% Human (but very close to it) would always be an interesting find- mainly so a scientist could claim to have found an ancestor or descendant of some long lost ape  

 

As far as "modern" DNA goes, new discoveries are just as important to scientists as ancient ones so there is hope still. The issue for me is that I am positive that the Sasquatch's DNA in North America isn't "lost" nor undiscovered. To me, for science to NOT have its DNA by now would be a virtual impossibility. Because that fact simply wouldn't fit the whole picture of scientific advancements nor today's surveillance capabilities. It just wouldn't, so I am 100% convinced that at least the Sasquatch's mitochondrial genome is fully known, even if it only happened to be collected as a fragment during a blanket eDNA metabarcoding program that was set up to detect all living organisms in a region- either through water or soil sampling. One cannot be up on what that technology is capable of doing and showing and not be certain that Sasquatch DNA has ended up in caught in the net. If that creature is really out there (which it is!) then there is no doubt whatsoever that it has been detected.

 

In fact, looking for its DNA in the wild was probably an afterthought if the creature hasn't already been physically studied and its DNA taken directly. All if this is the only thing that makes any logical sense to me in this day and age. And I've thought so for a while now which is why I keep coming back and bringing the subject up.

Edited November 23, 2021 by hiflier

[hiflier]

As far as Dr. Disotell goes, the question remains as to what his opinion is, or what his knowledge would tell him,  about what what he he thought would constitute a novel primate's DNA. And if he says, "There would be certain markers in the DNA that aren't Human markers," then the follow up question would be "And what would you expect those non-Human markers to consist of, Dr. Disotell, considering the body style and, apparently, the more primitive brain function of the Sasquatch?"

 

These would NOT be off-base questions to ask an expert in evolutionary primate genetics at all  

Edited November 23, 2021 by hiflier

[hvhart]

A few points need to be made:

 

1. Obviously any new species will not have DNA sequences in the NCBI database, GenBank.  But new species, occasionally a primate,  are discovered, and their DNA is sequenced all the time.  Recognition by science is based on a number of factors:  photo and/or video evidence, a holotype specimen with carefully described morphology which differs significantly from all other species, behavior characteristics, range, AND a phylotree of related species, including the new one, that makes sense.  The relation to known species (through a DNA based phylotree) is important.

 

2.  One needs information on the specific technique Disotell used to be able to evaluate his comments such as "the DNA was too degraded."  The entire Neanderthal genome was sequenced from HIGHLY degraded DNA.  Also DNA is purposefully degraded (broken up) in some sequencing techniques (results are then reassembled later). 

 

3, As a donor to the Meldrum/Disotell Project I was promised access to the results.  I have seen nothing, and doubt anything formal was produced.  I will inquire about this.  Anybody here seen anything written?

 

4.  See  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044271  for a very good article on the discovery of a new species of monkey.  Note the phylotrees (also called phylograms) in the figures and that much more additional factors were involved in describing this monkey as a unique species.    

[hiflier]

I was wondering (and hoping) if you might be looking at this thread. Very good to hear from you, Dr. Hart.

 

1 hour ago, hvhart said:

1. Obviously any new species will not have DNA sequences in the NCBI database, GenBank.  But new species, occasionally a primate,  are discovered, and their DNA is sequenced all the time.  Recognition by science is based on a number of factors:  photo and/or video evidence, a holotype specimen with carefully described morphology which differs significantly from all other species, behavior characteristics, range, AND a phylotree of related species, including the new one, that makes sense.  The relation to known species (through a DNA based phylotree) is important.

 

Understood.

 

1 hour ago, hvhart said:

One needs information on the specific technique Disotell used to be able to evaluate his comments such as "the DNA was too degraded."  The entire Neanderthal genome was sequenced from HIGHLY degraded DNA.  Also DNA is purposefully degraded (broken up) in some sequencing techniques (results are then reassembled later).

 

More accurately, the "HUMAN" DNA was too degraded....to show a novel primate. The underpinnings of this thread were prompted by that conclusion. I mean, obviously, he couldn't really say that the Sasquatch DNA was too degraded to show a novel Human now could he. (Just kidding...I think)

 

1 hour ago, hvhart said:

As a donor to the Meldrum/Disotell Project I was promised access to the results.  I have seen nothing, and doubt anything formal was produced.  I will inquire about this.  Anybody here seen anything written?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly haven't. Sad to hear you were kinda left out on the data end. You would have been an excellent candidate to evaluate anything that was formally available. Hmmm....maybe a little TOO excellent? In a way I am sorry to have been so late formulating the points I've been trying to make. Should have happened a couple of years back I guess. You can call me slow but I do get there eventually. Because I agree, a quick announcement on the results and a podcast on general DNA hasn't really specifically addressed some key questions. I would like to think that might change, but I fear, if anything does, it will be because someone brought up their thoughts after some reasonably logical scrutiny regarding what we know....or don't know. 

 

 

[ShadowBorn]

14 hours ago, hvhart said:

As a donor to the Meldrum/Disotell Project I was promised access to the results.  I have seen nothing, and doubt anything formal was produced.  I will inquire about this.  Anybody here seen anything written?

@hvhart

So you were promised access to your results? Yet, they failed to give any info on the sample that you gave them.  Did you take part in the finding of this new species of monkey in the Congo? There is allot of info to digest in what you have posted. For a small creature it sure has a large radius of coverage of movement. We are talking 40 miles/64km of coverage. This is just a small monkey under observation doing this. So imagine a 7' - 15' creature movement. This alone should say something about what we are trying to observe and capture on camera.

 

So if you have sent them samples of something then what are hiding? If you are familiar with procedure then there is something wrong. There is something that they are tight lip about. I can see where one might not want to report something because of loss. By this I mean they could have been warned not to let loose of info. Who know what funding they might be getting that they might loose if the truth get's out. But again we are not talking about a new monkey out in the Congo. This is North America.

 

Could they Dr Meldrum/Dr Disotell both gone to the dark side due to career ending discovery. Sorry @hiflier did not mean to over rub your thread. Right now my brain is not functioning right. Due to illness.  

[hiflier]

ShadowBorn, you are ALWAYS welcome to comment and give your input and thoughts on such matters. As far as Dr. Hart saying he was a donor, he was a financial donor in that he helped fund the testing of the nest's soil samples. In exchange for his financial contribution he was evidently supposed to have access to the data from the test results.

 

I'm sorry to hear of your struggles and hope you will be doing better soon and we understand your situation. We also respect you and need you and your contributions to the Forum's many threads. Hope the holiday tomorrow goes well for you.

[ShadowBorn]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

ShadowBorn, you are ALWAYS welcome to comment and give your input and thoughts on such matters. As far as Dr. Hart saying he was a donor, he was a financial donor in that he helped fund the testing of the nest's soil samples. In exchange for his financial contribution he was evidently supposed to have access to the data from the test results.

See, I did not know that he was one who funded in the project. He should be entitled to the information set forth coming on the project. The only thing that comes to mind is that they have found nothing that would be worth sharing. Unless they are staying very tight lipped on what they have found and do not want it to come out like what happen to Dr Melba. To me this would make sense. Since a discovery this big could be worth millions. Not just that could also destroy, their peer review if someone was to come out with the discovery of the century.

 

Like finding another branch of the Human ancestry that is still living in North America. All these samples cannot all be contamination. But can be actual ancestral Human DNA. Living caveman in our National Forest. Every time I look at Patty I say to myself is " am I looking at an actual cave woman ". The things that I saw and heard were not chimps or apes. The audio that @GuyInIndianahas posted does not sound like any ape/chimp/gorilla we have heard. This goes with all the other sounds. How many times has Dr Meldrum changed his theory on what Bigfoot might be? The road to discovery is getting narrow and narrow. Fewer people are willing to accept this Ape thinking of this creature.

 

The problem is the acceptance. No one want to accept that they somehow might be Human. A living ancestor of us that fits somewhere on it's own branch. We who are believers cannot even accept what we have seen. When I had my sighting I felt like somehow they were a part of me. A connection of some sort. I do not feel this with other Humans. 

 

If Dr Hart did fund them then he believed in this project. Why else would he fund it in the first place.  I am sure that the truth is going to come out. We are all going to be in for a surprise. My illness is not a setback. I just enjoy reading the great thinking of great minds on a forum like this. Look forward to the discovery of this creature.  

[hiflier]

Everything you said is so on point, ShadowBorn. And yes, you called it. For a scientist and thinking person who is of the caliber of Dr. HV Hart, and who can read and understand and interpret the data of DNA results, to have invested in some funding of the project says a lot. And you're correct, the road to discovery is quite narrow indeed: Either a bullet, remains, or DNA.

 

As Dr. Hart stated: "The entire Neanderthal genome was sequenced from HIGHLY degraded DNA."

 

That tells me that degraded Human DNA from the soil under the nesting sites might not be an issue. For example: genus, bear....genus, deer....genus, elk....genus, racoon....genus, different varieties of birds....and genus, Homo. All of those organisms and more were detected from that soil.

 

So, on the flip side, what wasn't detected? Genus, Chimpanzee....genus Gorilla....genus, Orangutan....genus, monkey.

 

So, genus Homo was detected. DNA degraded Homo. That might seem to indicate that Sasquatch, if in fact the genus Homo DNA that was discovered actually belonged to it, could indeed be very close to Human. But being degraded "Human" DNA, what could have been the elements needed to distinguish "Homo Sapien" from "Homo Sasquatch" simply could not be sequenced to a resolution that would show the Sasquatch. Because if the creature IS only different by .6-.9 percent? If it's really that close? Then only very good DNA might be needed in order to prove its existence. Still in all, I think Dr. Hart would have liked to see the test result's data.

Edited November 24, 2021 by hiflier

[david75090]

I'm the type person who watches Ancient Aliens. There was this episode talking about the Anunnaki, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enkidu and all of that, They were giving that version of the creation of mankind. Enkidu was basically a wildman. The Anunnaki created man by mixing their DNA with an earth critter to create workers for their gold mines. Suppose there's some truth in there somewhere. Check the DNA of the wildman or the earth critter and it comes back "human" no matter what it looks like. Check modern man and it turns out to be human. Check pre-Anunnaki-mix critter and it turns out to be human. What if Sasquatch is just another flavor of human, no matter what it looks like? The Russian wild person showed "Sub-Saharan African" and she apparently looked like a wild person, but showed to be human. An archaic type, but still human. Perhaps Sasquatch is like that.   

[hiflier]

Perhaps. But other than Dr. Meldrum and the Olympic Project, and maybe Dr. Mireya Mayor and Expedition Bigfoot, who else is out here collecting samples? Dr. Ketchum and Dr. Sykes didn't really work out. And two tries from the WA nesting site didn't work out either, the first being too degraded and the second because of Covid. So what's left beyond speculating about the Sasquatch's usual discussed origins? Oh....not much. It really so much about whether or not there's Human DNA. It's about what little DNA there is that isn't. It takes special kinds and quality of the sampling to look for that difference. Funny how differences can be determined with Denisovan, and Neanderthal, and Naledi, and Flores.......but not a supposedly extant primate in North America? Something just ain't right about that. But how do you fix the apparent discrepancies that would make sense with out saying that the creature doesn't exist??

[McGlencoe]

3 hours ago, david75090 said:

snip....What if Sasquatch is just another flavor of human, no matter what it looks like? The Russian wild person showed "Sub-Saharan African" and she apparently looked like a wild person, but showed to be human. An archaic type, but still human. Perhaps Sasquatch is like that.   

 

That seems to make the most sense. 

They're physiology(?) is more similar to humans than any other ape and they appear to be much more intelligent than any other apes species (except us, maybe....).

Looking forward to the day when we can get some DNA sampling that doesn't come back as degraded or doesn't have the questions behind it like the sierra kills DNA.

 

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, McGlencoe said:

They're physiology(?) is more similar to humans than any other ape and they appear to be much more intelligent than any other apes species (except us, maybe....)

 

And yet, across the board, there does seem to be an apparent brain issue. An undeveloped/underdeveloped neocortex would explain a lot. Intelligent? Yes. But it hasn't translated into the forward thinking imagination of Humans which allows for accelerated inventiveness. IOW, a very primitive brain holding pattern. A genetic study of its brain genes could be accomplished if good DNA with whole cells that contain nuclei could be sampled. And that's not something that will be found in either degraded DNA or fragmented mtDNA, which is typically what is found in Nature.