Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dont understand how DNA testing works, so I may have judged harshly. However...
If you take a length of DNA from a sample, could that length exist in more than one animal? I know that >90% of our DNA matches a chimpanzee and only a small amount makes us human, so if only a part from our DNA which matched chimp DNA was extracted from a human hair sample, would it come back as possibly coming from a chimp?
If you have a good sample, then science says it can match against other known animals to find out what animal the sample came from.
However, if no definitive Bigfoot sample exists, then Bigfoot CANNOT be in their database so science can NEVER confirm it until they get a body and a definitive sample DNA. They know this, so can only, at best, say it is an unknown species BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATCH ANYTHING in their database.
Looking at it another way, and which is often the result of these investigations(such as the fairly recent Loch Ness one), they can say they found no anomalous DNA or it was an eel, bear, or dog etc because maybe the DNA lengths contained some matches for these other creatures too.
Sometimes it is what you dont say which is significant or the way you present the results.
I dont understand how DNA testing works, so I may have judged harshly. However...
If you take a length of DNA from a sample, could that length exist in more than one animal? I know that >90% of our DNA matches a chimpanzee and only a small amount makes us human, so if only a part from our DNA which matched chimp DNA was extracted from a human hair sample, would it come back as possibly coming from a chimp?
If you have a good sample, then science says it can match against other known animals to find out what animal the sample came from.
However, if no definitive Bigfoot sample exists, then Bigfoot CANNOT be in their database so science can NEVER confirm it until they get a body and a definitive sample DNA. They know this, so can only, at best, say it is an unknown species BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATCH ANYTHING in their database.
Looking at it another way, and which is often the result of these investigations(such as the fairly recent Loch Ness one), they can say they found no anomalous DNA or it was an eel, bear, or dog etc because maybe the DNA lengths contained some matches for these other creatures too.
Sometimes it is what you dont say which is significant or the way you present the results.
If you take a DNA sample from a human, and compare it to a chimpanzee, 99% of the DNA will be shared. That 1% will tell us that it’s a chimpanzee and that one is human. If you take the human DNA and compare it to a banana about 60% of it will be shared.
If we find DNA from a bigfoot, we will be able to tell how much of a percentage of shares with a human, if it in fact is a primate, and not something that is related to say a bear. I use a bear because that’s a big hairy critter, but it isn’t a primate. We can narrow down what a bigfoot is. Even though we don’t have DNA from a bigfoot.
See, because of evolution, everything comes from something and supposedly we all come from the primordial ooze. So yes we all share the some of the same DNA. So if Bigfoot is from earth, so will he. Then we can see if he is a primate, and we will see if he shares markers with gorillas or chimpanzees or bonobos, and they can narrow it down. It is confusing to a non-science person, I am one of them.
But if you look at the Latin names of things you understand there is a system at work. There is a kingdom, then an order, then a phylum, and I probably have those in the wrong order but there is a set of things and then there is a subset and then is there is a further subset and it just keeps narrowing and narrowing until you get to the name of the creature. DNA kind of works that way.
So frankly, a scientist being completely flummoxed by Bigfoot DNA just wouldn’t happen. It wouldn’t be so different they couldn’t identify it at all. It would give us more answers. It would also give us clues on where to look and how to find them.
So frankly, a scientist being completely flummoxed by Bigfoot DNA just wouldn’t happen. It wouldn’t be so different they couldn’t identify it at all. It would give us more answers. It would also give us clues on where to look and how to find them.
So...why are they denying they exist then?
I can see how they can say "it is unknown", because it may go some way towards human DNA but not all the way. However from what you have said, depending on what length and pieces of DNA they have extracted from the sample, they can also say "it is human" because they have a restricted length to test.
The current situation is that it appears as if labs do not want the controversy associated with these samples. The Professor Sykes from Oxford I feel is a MI5 disinfo agent because he has repeatedly said these samples are from bear and not humanoid at all. Now...we know Bigfoot looks like a large ape and nothing like a bear in stature or in gait, plus large human feet impressions in the forest floor do not look like bear or humans. (all this we have gone over so many time before!). There must be many samples out there of hair almost certainly from Bigfoot - from 'nests', high broken trees, etc. Why have we not got this evidence tied down already?
We know from Professor Jeff Meldrum the medulla of a Bigfoot hair is different from a human hair. That in itself should be enough to tell us something, without even getting to the DNA aspect of the situation. As I understand it, bears and deer do not have this large medulla within the hair shaft.
I think I am correct in saying that they have to have a Bigfoot definitive DNA 'standard' in their DNA database for them to to be able to correctly identify Bigfoot. Until that happens what chance has anyone of scientifically identifying Bigfoot DNA?
I think there must be some difficulty with the testing of the data from these samples because we have a number of researchers and organisations out in the woods looking for Bigfoot, probably every weekend. For me, it can only be either that the scientists cannot be absolutely sure (which they cannot be) or else 'someone' is prompting them to be dishonest about the results.
I can see how they can say "it is unknown", because it may go some way towards human DNA but not all the way. However from what you have said, depending on what length and pieces of DNA they have extracted from the sample, they can also say "it is human" because they have a restricted length to test.
The current situation is that it appears as if labs do not want the controversy associated with these samples. The Professor Sykes from Oxford I feel is a MI5 disinfo agent because he has repeatedly said these samples are from bear and not humanoid at all. Now...we know Bigfoot looks like a large ape and nothing like a bear in stature or in gait, plus large human feet impressions in the forest floor do not look like bear or humans. (all this we have gone over so many time before!). There must be many samples out there of hair almost certainly from Bigfoot - from 'nests', high broken trees, etc. Why have we not got this evidence tied down already?
We know from Professor Jeff Meldrum the medulla of a Bigfoot hair is different from a human hair. That in itself should be enough to tell us something, without even getting to the DNA aspect of the situation. As I understand it, bears and deer do not have this large medulla within the hair shaft.
I think I am correct in saying that they have to have a Bigfoot definitive DNA 'standard' in their DNA database for them to to be able to correctly identify Bigfoot. Until that happens what chance has anyone of scientifically identifying Bigfoot DNA?
I think there must be some difficulty with the testing of the data from these samples because we have a number of researchers and organisations out in the woods looking for Bigfoot, probably every weekend. For me, it can only be either that the scientists cannot be absolutely sure (which they cannot be) or else 'someone' is prompting them to be dishonest about the results.
As far as Jeff Meldrum and his hair sample, show us the pier reviews of his work. Melba Ketchum never got past the pier reviews because her work was very questionable to say the least.
I can see how they can say "it is unknown", because it may go some way towards human DNA but not all the way. However from what you have said, depending on what length and pieces of DNA they have extracted from the sample, they can also say "it is human" because they have a restricted length to test.
The extracted the DNA from 30 different purported Bigfoot samples. They had enough of each sample to properly test them. They all came back from organisms known to exist. There was nothing that was unknown or they were not sure about.
Interesting read! Thanks. We should point out that it is NOT a thorough review of the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) of Bigfoot. It is focused on only one bit of purported evidence: DNA.
A comment on one bit from the article:
Quote:
Bigfoot advocates have repeatedly claimed that professional scientists are willfully ignoring compelling evidence.
To which I would say: What evidence??? Let's see it!
Scientists have analyzed all the hair samples. They aren't Bigfoot. They are from other animals.
Shall we analyze the corpses and bones we have found? No. Why? Because there aren't any.
Shall we analyze the nesting sites we have found in the woods? No. Why? Because there aren't any.
How about all those great photos and videos? They are either blurry and inconclusive or pretty obvious hoaxes.
So Bigfoot True Believers, what evidence are we willfully ignoring? Let's see it.
All that said: I don't know if Bigfoot exists or not. But if it does, I am 99.9999999999999999% certain it isn't an animal that is part of the natural ecosystem. The supernatural is the only explanation left.
So frankly, a scientist being completely flummoxed by Bigfoot DNA just wouldn’t happen. It wouldn’t be so different they couldn’t identify it at all. It would give us more answers. It would also give us clues on where to look and how to find them.
I saw a scientist being flummoxed by DNA on a TV show I saw over the weekend on an expedition to find the Yeti. They were in Bhutan, high in the Himalayas, having trekked for days to find an area where supposed Yeti tracks had been seen.
One of the scientists with the group could isolate DNA from game footprints and they wanted to see of they could isolate Yeti DNA from supposed Yeti footprints. They found prints in the snow they thought could be from a large, bipedal hominid. They took samples from those footprints. The scientist also took water samples from a small lake in the area.
The scientist isolated bighorn sheep DNA from the "footprints." So, meh. But she isolated something she identified as DNA that was 99% human from the water. Not 100%. DNA from humans will come back as 100% human, right? As Tallysmom said, humans and chimps share 99% of DNA. And chimps and humans are quite different. The scientist had no explanation for what the 99% human DNA could have come from. It was not a known species.
It's not proof of anything, but it raises some interesting questions. DNA tech isn't a 100% slam dunk all the time. Not yet. Despite what the crime shows will tell you.
I saw a scientist being flummoxed by DNA on a TV show I saw over the weekend on an expedition to find the Yeti. They were in Bhutan, high in the Himalayas, having trekked for days to find an area where supposed Yeti tracks had been seen.
One of the scientists with the group could isolate DNA from game footprints and they wanted to see of they could isolate Yeti DNA from supposed Yeti footprints. They found prints in the snow they thought could be from a large, bipedal hominid. They took samples from those footprints. The scientist also took water samples from a small lake in the area.
The scientist isolated bighorn sheep DNA from the "footprints." So, meh. But she isolated something she identified as DNA that was 99% human from the water. Not 100%. DNA from humans will come back as 100% human, right? As Tallysmom said, humans and chimps share 99% of DNA. And chimps and humans are quite different. The scientist had no explanation for what the 99% human DNA could have come from. It was not a known species.
It's not proof of anything, but it raises some interesting questions. DNA tech isn't a 100% slam dunk all the time. Not yet. Despite what the crime shows will tell you.
--
Maybe I am wrong, but I believe that 99% sample was later identified as bear: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...ncing/546806/? Some of the speculation was later removed as more review and testing was performed.
All that said: I don't know if Bigfoot exists or not. But if it does, I am 99.9999999999999999% certain it isn't an animal that is part of the natural ecosystem. The supernatural is the only explanation left.
And there is no proof that anything supernatural actually exists, Bigfoot or otherwise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Solly says — Be nice!
