Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
OntarioSquatch said:
Hmmm, this isn't true. With a successful DNA analysis, one could know exactly where it is on the tree of life and what it is. There's really no such thing as unknown DNA since everything will fit somewhere on the tree of life. From bacteria to 800lb monkeys.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect, imo.

You shouldn't be able to match sasquatch DNA to anything in any database.

You are assuming it's going to fit in the known primate maps as something similar, but you don't actually know that.

Come to think of it, how would you know it was actually a successful sasquatch DNA analysis?
 
It's not an assumption on my part, it's just one of the facts about DNA. If it's an organism, it can be determined what it is. If Bigfoot's a primate, then it will have DNA attributable to primates. But it can be much more specifc than that. It can be determined what species are the closest matches and what genus it falls under. Things like hair/eye color can be determined. A lot of valuable information can be derived from DNA analysis.
 
William Parcher said:
Will the DNA tell you that the thing weighs 800lbs, all shaggy, huge feet and with a dome head? Will the DNA tell you if the thing is 3 feet tall, nearly hairless and weighs 45lbs?

Or do you need the actual creature to allow you to know you have Bigfoot?
Click to expand...

I asked Dr. Hawks if he had DNA from an unknown primate if he could place it precisely on the tree of life.

If you had DNA from an unclassified animal,would you be able to use those results to place where it belongs in phylogenetic tree?
Click to expand...

Dr. Hawks said:
Yes, that would be no problem at all.
Click to expand...

if someone sent you DNA from an unrecognized Homo bone fragment, could you place it correctly in the Homo tree with confidence?
Click to expand...

Dr. Hawks said:
Relative to chimpanzees, yes. The catch is we have no australopithecine DNA yet so we might not exclude that.
Click to expand...
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It's not an assumption on my part, it's just one of the facts about DNA. If it's an organism, it can be determined what it is. If Bigfoot's a primate, then it will have DNA attributable to primates. But it can be much more specifc than that. It can be determined what species are the closest matches and what genus it falls under. Things like hair/eye color can be determined. A lot of valuable information can be derived from DNA analysis.
Click to expand...

So what's the problem then?

We have had lots of sasquatch DNA collected.

We've had hair, blood, feces, and tissue collected and submitted multiple times.

You can even leave out Ketchum if you want.

Should have classified sasquatch 10 times over by now.
 
So the DNA alone will allow you to place it on the tree of life. But it won't tell you what the animal looks like in great detail, is that correct?

If you determined that "unknown" DNA was of a great ape and rather near human - would you still be faced with a problem of scientific description? How would we know for sure that it is a Bigfoot and not a Leprechaun? You know, the little tiny guy that may not be human like us. Does the DNA tell you how tall your great ape is? The gibbons are shrimpy apes. Does their DNA tell you they only stand as tall as our waistline?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It's not an assumption on my part, it's just one of the facts about DNA. If it's an organism, it can be determined what it is. If Bigfoot's a primate, then it will have DNA attributable to primates. But it can be much more specifc than that. It can be determined what species are the closest matches and what genus it falls under. Things like hair/eye color can be determined. A lot of valuable information can be derived from DNA analysis.
Click to expand...

It isn't.
 
No. However they could say that the creature split from Chimps X million years before human split from Chimps, and X million years after Gorillas split from chimps.

The question would be: How did the sample get to N. America?
 
Last edited:
Good after noon.
I check this thread often.
Still no Bigfoot? Any mermaids or unicorns? Fairies in the garden?
Just asking. Perhaps we should ask Santa Clause or the Tooth fairy.
 
JPK said:
Good after noon.
I check this thread often.
Still no Bigfoot? Any mermaids or unicorns? Fairies in the garden?
Just asking. Perhaps we should ask Santa Clause or the Tooth fairy.
Click to expand...

Ixknay. The CIA is involved I've been told . . . ay.
 
Resume said:
Ixknay. The CIA is involved I've been told . . . ay.
Click to expand...

That's the same government that's been trying to persuade us that the Cottingley FairiesWP are a fake, right? Really, anyone who looks at the evidence knows that fairies must be real. There were thousands of eyewitness reports, and even Arthur Conan Doyle, who created Sherlock Holmes, and therefore clearly knows everything there is to know about evidence, was persuaded that they exist.

The only way to explain why fairies aren't accepted by science is a government coverup. Clearly.
 
HarryHenderson said:
^^Excellent post The Shrike. You highlight another big 'not talked about' where we (skeptics) are somehow requiring above standard 'proof' to accept Bigfoot's existence. Only a bunch of hallucinating Bigfoot maroons could transform 'show me a body' into being offended enough to quip 'unattainable standards of proof no reasonable person should ever be required to provide'.

Also, who's this Rhettman Mullis freak? And why is he desperately trying to get Dr. Sykes to adopt him despite being 43 years old? Taken (almost) randomly from his Bigfootology blog:
Click to expand...

Rhettman is some sort of fundie preacher, near as I can figure. On the other hand, he's also the one who leaked the Ketchum Facebook chats about bigfoot fining Jesus and being descendants of the nephilim, so he's not totally out there. I'm not quite sure what his game is.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom