Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
dmaker said:
Can't comment one way or the other at this time? Except for your earlier insinuation that skeptics will not admit when they are wrong? I guess you should retract that earlier statement until the study is finished, no?
Click to expand...

I think what I've said is we'll see WHO is wrong won't we.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If you're a scientist that has described new species then I'm sure you already know DNA will describe specific traits of the individual it came from.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's pretty much flagrantly false. DNA can show SOME traits, but we frankly don't know how to read it with the accuracy you're claiming. There are major issues, such as expression, hormonally-regulated ontological processes, epigenetic issues, and more that make reading morphology out of DNA to the degree you're suggesting impossible.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature demands a body, essentially. We need a live specimen, a dead one, a significant piece of one (a skull or jaw for preference), or something of that nature. A smear of DNA is hardly sufficient.

The only thing missing for science will be the type specimen.
Click to expand...
This is you admitting that you've got nothing.

MikeG said:
All fair points, The Shrike, but I just don't get this bit: How do you fake DNA?
Click to expand...
You can screw up the analysis. You can screw up the interpretation as well. The thing is, you need experts to be able to identify it--in order to say it's new, you need to rule out the old--and to do that, you need to KNOW the old. If you don't it's very, very easy to simply be mistaken. Happens a lot; no one is an expert on all things. But it's critical to science that you differentiate between "unkonwn species" and "species not known to me". Again, if some zoo had a rare ape go missing and you find some of its fir, you may mistakenly think you've discovered bigfoot DNA. THAT is why bigfoot believers annoy me: it takes a tremendous amount of effort to know if you have a new species or not, and they simply refuse to put forth the effort. They want to be treated as equal to scientists without having to go through the effort of engaging in science.

Several attempts to rectify this have been attempted by science, but none work thus far. The issue is, there's no single repository for taxonomic data (there are repositories for such data in individual fields, but nothing universal). If I didn't already have an impossible project to work on I'd love to tackle it; as it stands, one must spend years developing a deep understanding of the literature in order to properly classify new species. I've cited Linnaeus and an obscure German Ph.D. dissertation in the same paper, to show you the disparity of what scientists have to deal with.
 
Anyone read the latest Bigfoot news from Robert Lindsay? He claims to have sources that say Sykes will prove Bigfoot beyond a shadow of a doubt this fall. He also has sources that say Dyer shot a Bigfoot and that a team of scientists have inspected it :D
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Anyone read the latest Bigfoot news from Robert Lindsay? He claims to have sources that say Sykes will prove Bigfoot beyond a shadow of a doubt this fall. He also has sources that say Dyer shot a Bigfoot and that a team of scientists have inspected it :D
Click to expand...

He list any names?

Also, does he say when he'll have page proofs available? (If the answer is "I can't distribute this prior to publication", we can rule him out as a serious scientist--I have probably 20 papers from authors prior to their publications, including the page-proofs on a few that the researcher copied and let me read.)

MikeG said:
but ultimately DNA is a whole different ball game to any other form of science that has ever been done in bigfootery.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But certainly not different from what researchers do as a matter of course. And that means that standard concerns will apply.
 
Dinwar said:
Actually, that's pretty much flagrantly false. DNA can show SOME traits, but we frankly don't know how to read it with the accuracy you're claiming. There are major issues, such as expression, hormonally-regulated ontological processes, epigenetic issues, and more that make reading morphology out of DNA to the degree you're suggesting impossible.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature demands a body, essentially. We need a live specimen, a dead one, a significant piece of one (a skull or jaw for preference), or something of that nature. A smear of DNA is hardly sufficient.

This is you admitting that you've got nothing.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm confused, you say my statement is "flagrantly false" but then you say "DNA can show some traits." which makes my statement true. So which is it? Did I specify every trait that is readable? Of course not, I don't know that. Do you? Maybe you can go over a list of traits verfiable thru the same DNA tech as Dr Sykes is using now? I'm not a DNA expert and have never claimed to be but, never mind that because the evidence is in Dr Sykes' possession, he is "the" expert.

I would expect Dr. Sykes will be on top of what can be extracted from the DNA and what cannot. Wouldn't you agree?

Something to consider, if he has DNA, is it possible he may have a "chunk" of something already? Hmm. Think about that. That would be exciting wouldn't it?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Well, I'm confused, you say my statement is "flagrantly false" but then you say "DNA can show some traits." which makes my statement true.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. DNA can be used to demonstrate a very small number of traits. However, it's simply impossible to determine most traits of an organism from DNA alone. Mendel was extremely fortunate in his pea experiment (and de Vrise was extremely fortunate in his primrose experiments) in that the traits were coded on a single gene. The overwhelming majority of traits in an organism are not, however; they are coded in several genes, and most genes code for several traits. Thus, you are wrong: one simply cannot go from knowing the genetic code of an organism to knowing the organism's morphology.

This is basic genetics stuff, stuff that any competant biologists should know. They teach it in undergraduate courses, for crying out loud!

As for which traits you can determine via the DNA, that will depend on the organism. The only way to answer that is a careful comparison between the organism and the DNA. We can make hypotheses based upon taxonomy (for example, we can hypothesize that the parts of mammoth DNA homologus to the parts of elephant DNA associated with blood chemistry will relate to blood chemistry), but in order to do that we'd need to know the taxonomy of bigfoot. Your reasoning is therefore circular.

I'm not a DNA expert and have never claimed to be but, never mind that because the evidence is in Dr Sykes' possession, he is "the" expert.
Click to expand...
Yet more evidence that you have no idea how taxonomy works. Sykes may be running the tests, but that's no guarantee that he's an expert in DNA analysis.

I would expect Dr. Sykes will be on top of what can be extracted from the DNA and what cannot. Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
Nope. Seen too many screw-ups from too many Ph.D.s to trust them to do this sort of thing correctly. I've got something of a peculiar background: I've studied both statistical paleontology and traditional taxonomy. I understand the strengths and weaknesses of both. Most do not--the traditional taxonomists underestimate the utility of DNA evidence and the statistical paleontologists over-estimate it. Biologists are all over the map, but tend towards over-estimation.

Something to consider, if he has DNA, is it possible he may have a "chunk" of something already? Hmm. Think about that. That would be exciting wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
If you want to pretend to discuss biology, I suggest you LEARN BIOLOGY.

DNA can come from any number of sources. I've seen a LOT of genetic work done with dung, for example. Bigfoot dung would not be something that could be differentiated from, say, pig dung or human dung (yes, there is human dung in the woods). Fecal morphology is far more related to diet, health, and stress than it is to taxonomy. You can also get DNA from scraps of hair, which would be only slightly more identifiable via morphology. We can rule out blood; it's a horrible source for DNA, and if Sykes used it I'd feel comfortable dismissing it without further consideration (the issue is the paucity of nuclei in mammalian blood). The mere fact that the guy has DNA in no way ensures that he has some identifiable remains.
 
You could tell where on the primate tree the DNA should be placed in relation to Chimps. for example, we know how long ago we split from the Chimp common ancestor because of the amount of difference in our DNA. Difference in DNA/#Changes per year = number of years ago we split.

You may be able to say 'the gene for hair color is there , and it is similar to red hair gene found in humans'

You can not say, 'the animal was large', or 'the animal had blue hair', or 'it had big feet'

You can say 13% of the sequence matches a portion of Neandertal sequence, 45% matches Denisovans, and the rest is unknown.
 
Last edited:
Dinwar said:
No, it doesn't. DNA can be used to demonstrate a very small number of traits. However, it's simply impossible to determine most traits of an organism from DNA alone. Mendel was extremely fortunate in his pea experiment (and de Vrise was extremely fortunate in his primrose experiments) in that the traits were coded on a single gene. The overwhelming majority of traits in an organism are not, however; they are coded in several genes, and most genes code for several traits. Thus, you are wrong: one simply cannot go from knowing the genetic code of an organism to knowing the organism's morphology.

This is basic genetics stuff, stuff that any competant biologists should know. They teach it in undergraduate courses, for crying out loud!

As for which traits you can determine via the DNA, that will depend on the organism. The only way to answer that is a careful comparison between the organism and the DNA. We can make hypotheses based upon taxonomy (for example, we can hypothesize that the parts of mammoth DNA homologus to the parts of elephant DNA associated with blood chemistry will relate to blood chemistry), but in order to do that we'd need to know the taxonomy of bigfoot. Your reasoning is therefore circular.

Yet more evidence that you have no idea how taxonomy works. Sykes may be running the tests, but that's no guarantee that he's an expert in DNA analysis.

Nope. Seen too many screw-ups from too many Ph.D.s to trust them to do this sort of thing correctly. I've got something of a peculiar background: I've studied both statistical paleontology and traditional taxonomy. I understand the strengths and weaknesses of both. Most do not--the traditional taxonomists underestimate the utility of DNA evidence and the statistical paleontologists over-estimate it. Biologists are all over the map, but tend towards over-estimation.

If you want to pretend to discuss biology, I suggest you LEARN BIOLOGY.

DNA can come from any number of sources. I've seen a LOT of genetic work done with dung, for example. Bigfoot dung would not be something that could be differentiated from, say, pig dung or human dung (yes, there is human dung in the woods). Fecal morphology is far more related to diet, health, and stress than it is to taxonomy. You can also get DNA from scraps of hair, which would be only slightly more identifiable via morphology. We can rule out blood; it's a horrible source for DNA, and if Sykes used it I'd feel comfortable dismissing it without further consideration (the issue is the paucity of nuclei in mammalian blood). The mere fact that the guy has DNA in no way ensures that he has some identifiable remains.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think you know more about chicken farming than you do about describing species.

First, your observations about DNA from dung. The only things I've determined from dung is diet and parasitic identification or infection. From my understanding dung is a poor choice for DNA extraction as the degradation is accelerated.

Second, Blood contains TONS of DNA. Your suggestion otherwise is incompetent. There is no other excuse. There's not alot you're gonna tell me about blood or bloodborne diseases my friend. That's just the way it is. I think you stepped in that "Dung" on this one.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Anyone read the latest Bigfoot news from Robert Lindsay? He claims to have sources that say Sykes will prove Bigfoot beyond a shadow of a doubt this fall. He also has sources that say Dyer shot a Bigfoot and that a team of scientists have inspected it :D
Click to expand...

Robert Lindsay is also displaying a picture of an alleged skunkape which was originally in a video hoaxed by David Shealy ten years ago or so. It is being portrayed as legitimate and having been taken by a guy just riding by with his son. Lindsay's blog has gotton even worse since my last visit and seems to may have actually gone round the bend.
 
Drewbot said:
You could tell where on the primate tree the DNA should be placed.
Click to expand...
Depends. The math will give you a place to put it no matter whether it's primate or sea slug DNA; the real issue is how to properly interpret the results.

Of course, there almost certainly are key markers that could be identified; that said, this still requires adequate laboratory protocols and sufficient background knowledge to be able to properly interpret them.

You may be able to say 'the gene for hair color is there , and it is similar to red hair gene found in humans'
Click to expand...
Again, it depends on the species. It's more probable with apes, but not a certainty.

You can not say, 'the animal was large', or 'the animal had blue hair', or 'it had big feet'
Click to expand...
You can't say much at all about morphology; HOX genes simply don't work that way.

You can say 13% of the sequence matches a portion of Neandertal sequence, 45% matches Denisovans, and the rest is unknown.
Click to expand...
How much of our DNA matches with corn? ;)
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I'm starting to think you know more about chicken farming than you do about describing species.

First, your observations about DNA from dung. The only things I've determined from dung is diet and parasitic identification or infection. From my understanding dung is a poor choice for DNA extraction as the degradation is accelerated.

...snip...
Click to expand...

No. Please Google for DNA extracted from thousand-years old human coprolites.
 
LTC8K6 said:
It sure would.

It would be hilarious if the DNA fits in a spot where the primate couldn't possibly be like bigfoot.
Click to expand...

It would be funny. But that would mean we have 2 unknowns running around in that case. I think that'd be great news too. It's alot more entertaining to read about a new species being added to the books than it is to read about one that just left the planet forever.
 
Dinwar said:
Depends. The math will give you a place to put it no matter whether it's primate or sea slug DNA; the real issue is how to properly interpret the results.

Of course, there almost certainly are key markers that could be identified; that said, this still requires adequate laboratory protocols and sufficient background knowledge to be able to properly interpret them.
Click to expand...

I think we can assume Dr. Sykes has 'sufficient background knowledge' and 'adequate laboratory protocols' in place.

Dr. John Hawks when asked "If you had DNA from an unclassified animal,would you be able to use those results to place where it belongs in phylogenetic tree?"

Answered: 'Yes, that would be no problem at all.'
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
It would be funny. But that would mean we have 2 unknowns running around in that case. I think that'd be great news too. It's alot more entertaining to read about a new species being added to the books than it is to read about one that just left the planet forever.
Click to expand...

How would it mean 2?

It's only evidence for 1.

You'd still be sans evidence for bigfoot, even after Sykes' DNA project.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I'm starting to think you know more about chicken farming than you do about describing species.........
Click to expand...

O oh.......this is about to get ugly.

Keep your cool, Chris. On that score at least you are doing really well so far.

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom