Jump to content
Guest

10 Reasons Why Bigfoot's A Bust

Recommended Posts

Guest RedRatSnake

Key is they had bones to use, some thing that was very real and familiar that pointed to a human like being, so far there has only been hair and a few other samples brought in to identify it as a BF, i think it will have to be a body or parts of before BF can be identified as a real creature, in that case i am sure the DNA will just be a second confirmation.

Tim :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

But there really is no standard to compare too when it comes to BF, don't ya got to have one to know what one is first.

Not necessarily RRS. The truth is we haven't sequenced the entire human genome yet, just the most "interesting parts". Even when we do, we don't know what each and every gene does. We know about a few, but by no means all, not even close.

So, if you suspect BF is human, as some claim, you can do a statistical analysis of the unknown DNA sample vs the "known" human genome and get an idea of "how close it is".

If you suspect BF is an orangutan cousin, you would do a statistical analysis vs the known orang sample, and so on. Through repeated testing and a process of elimination, you can arrive at a very educated guess.

This is why you hear rumors like "it's 97% human" or some such nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest slimwitless

i think it will have to be a body or parts of before BF can be identified as a real creature

Paulides claims they have tissue, hair, blood and bone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

But there really is no standard to compare too when it comes to BF, don't ya got to have one to know what one is first.

Tim :)

That is only true if bigfoot is some creature from outer space. We have DNA for any any conceivable animal that it might be related to. As far as the body, you can't have DNA without part of the body. He said DNA is only useful if you have a bigfoot to compare it to which isn't true. Obviously if it comes back as 100 percent human, that isn't going to prove anything. Other that that seemingly dubious possibility, the DNA should certainly establish approximate genetic relationship to other animals. It isn't likely going to be ambiguous either if it is verified assuming it isn't complete. It would be pretty much impossible to fake nuclear DNA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 127

Paulides claims they have tissue, hair, blood and bone.

So did biscardi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest slimwitless

This is why you hear rumors like "it's 97% human" or some such nonsense.

I can't recall any rumors assigning a percentage to bigfoot's humanness. I know Stubstad is 97% sure they exist and Lindsay has a source claiming claiming sasquatch is 37% from human to chimp (arrived at by counting the number polymorphisms from human). Neanderthal would be 5% and Denisova would be 10% using the same yardstick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

Key is they had bones to use, some thing that was very real and familiar that pointed to a human like being, so far there has only been hair and a few other samples brought in to identify it as a BF, i think it will have to be a body or parts of before BF can be identified as a real creature, in that case i am sure the DNA will just be a second confirmation.

Tim :)

Yes they knew the tooth and bone was homind, but it wasn't a new one without the DNA. Unless we can say that all humanoid bones automaticly get a full DNA workup, the potential to miss this discovery is high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

Gigantor, we have machines now that sequence the entire genome in a few months at least. They have done it several times on humans and on several animals unless I am seriously missing something. I might be behind the times because there is talk of personal genomes being done soon. It is hard to keep up with that stuff because it changes so fast. I haven't really been following it for a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RedRatSnake

Thanks for the awesome replies guys ~ :thumbsup:

I guess if it can be proven with DNA that something different is out there i will go along with it and jump back up on the fence :)

Now as for Paulides having BF parts, well i think i will just stay out of that one.

Tim :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

It is debatable... completion status in my book, it hasn't.

Edited by gigantor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest slimwitless

So did biscardi.

Biscardi is a Las Vegas promoter, right?

To the point though, you can't have a DNA study without parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

It is debatable... completion status in my book, it hasn't.

I never heard that before but it doesn't sound particularly relevant. They aren't coding regions but repeats of small segments to serve a function on the chromosome. The telomeres are just segments on the end. They were making a big fuss about them several years ago because they get striped off as the cell gets older. Some people used to think they were responsible for some of the aging effect. Some probably still do. I could see how they would have problems with small repeats the way the system breaks the DNA up and a computer rebuilds them from the various fragments. It would be pretty hard if they are all repeats. They seem to know what they are even if they haven't sequenced them exactly. That almost sounds pointless to bother with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

#1 argument

First on his list: the fossil record. Why, he asked, would a legacy of large mammals reported to exist throughout North America (and beyond) simply disappear from the same soil that has preserved everything from the dinosaur bones pictured here, to woolly mammoths, to tiny marine crustaceans?

There are no known bones of the Folsom culture and they were apparently spread over most of North America. I think the Folsom points were largely absent from Canada because it was so close to the ice age. There are only a few human fossils that old in North America. Modern humans would logically be much more abundant than bigfoot ancestors. Why no human bones along side the mammoths? Chimp fossils are practically non existent. They found a few teeth a few years ago. Who is to say they haven't found any. All you have to say is that is just a very large human fossil to dismiss it. There is a huge difference between an animal living in the forest and something living on the floor of the entire ocean as far as fossil formation goes. One is likely in a fossil forming region and the other is in a place where fossils are rare. That is really lame about the tiny marine crustaceans as if it is even remotely relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wild eyed willy

Apparently this guy has never talked with Para Ape :D

he does make some very good points, but how the heck could so many people be completely wrong about what they saw or heard. Thats the question that haunts me to this day.

It would be so easy to dismiss good ole Squatch to the over active imagination or dilusional rantings of questionable characters, save for the fact that I have come to know some of said characters and believe them to be honest intelligent people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

Like I said, it is debatable. But you're right, it is irrelevant to this subject and we shouldn't focus on it, I just mentioned it in passing.

What matters is that the analysis is a comparison... and they can come to a very educated guess based on the DNA even if we don't have a type specimen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...