Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 22, 2012 14:41:36 GMT -5
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 22, 2012 16:26:03 GMT -5
so, there have been significant advancements in dna testing in the last few months?? they talk like the only testing done happened back in the 70's. this will lead to nothing. again, at best they will announce it as being some unkown species. there's absolutely nothing they can do with any technology out there that would make them able to come up with an answer that that is bf. it's as simple as that. their claim has been heard numerous times by many others over the years. all this is is a group getting in the media.
|
|
|
Post by Jason C. on May 22, 2012 17:18:25 GMT -5
While I get what Duallie is saying (and agree with him) I am happy that a prestigious university is willing to look into the mystery.
Aloha,
Jason
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 22, 2012 23:27:58 GMT -5
I for one am looking forward to this research. Some of the samples being tested were collected 50 years ago, many haven't been tested in decades. This type of testing recently showed the "yeti finger" that was smuggled out of Tibet decades ago was in fact a human finger. Each piece conclusively shown to be human or any other known animal is important in moving this research forward. A negative result is still a result.
I hope this study is done openly and results are forth-coming as they happen unlike some other DNA research being done on the subject.
As much as I try I cannot see into the future, so I will let this study take its course before I critique its results
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 23, 2012 1:13:02 GMT -5
I for one am looking forward to this research. Some of the samples being tested were collected 50 years ago, many haven't been tested in decades. This type of testing recently showed the "yeti finger" that was smuggled out of Tibet decades ago was in fact a human finger. Each piece conclusively shown to be human or any other known animal is important in moving this research forward. A negative result is still a result. I hope this study is done openly and results are forth-coming as they happen unlike some other DNA research being done on the subject. As much as I try I cannot see into the future, so I will let this study take its course before I critique its results but you are aware that it cannot in any way be deemed "sasquatch" right?
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 23, 2012 12:59:12 GMT -5
but you are aware that it cannot in any way be deemed "sasquatch" right? True, but it can be deemed as a yet unclassified primate that shares X% DNA with human and Y% with great apes. That would be one helluva start. Richard.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 23, 2012 14:34:14 GMT -5
how much of the old fossils and things from the past have even been dna tested? do they routinely dna test all things ever found? i'm unsure of this. but if they don't, then anything that's tested and deemed "unknown" could be something that we've known of for a long time, but just have never tested before.
|
|
|
Post by mariner on May 23, 2012 17:18:29 GMT -5
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 23, 2012 20:23:33 GMT -5
I for one am looking forward to this research. Some of the samples being tested were collected 50 years ago, many haven't been tested in decades. This type of testing recently showed the "yeti finger" that was smuggled out of Tibet decades ago was in fact a human finger. Each piece conclusively shown to be human or any other known animal is important in moving this research forward. A negative result is still a result. I hope this study is done openly and results are forth-coming as they happen unlike some other DNA research being done on the subject. As much as I try I cannot see into the future, so I will let this study take its course before I critique its results but you are aware that it cannot in any way be deemed "sasquatch" right? Even the team doing the research has stated on at least one interview that they cannot prove that sasquatch exits by doing dna tests. Not sure what in my post would make you ask me this question.
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 24, 2012 14:33:36 GMT -5
how much of the old fossils and things from the past have even been dna tested? do they routinely dna test all things ever found? i'm unsure of this. but if they don't, then anything that's tested and deemed "unknown" could be something that we've known of for a long time, but just have never tested before. Sadly one cannot perform DNA testing on fossils - there isn't any organic matter left to test. Given current methods, anything "testable" that would provide a result would have to be something that lives (or lived) within the last few centuries - unless artificially preserved. Richard.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 24, 2012 14:38:27 GMT -5
but you are aware that it cannot in any way be deemed "sasquatch" right? Even the team doing the research has stated on at least one interview that they cannot prove that sasquatch exits by doing dna tests. Not sure what in my post would make you ask me this question. well, you stated that you are looking forward to this research. i assumed it's because they are hoping to conclude that it is bf.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 24, 2012 14:40:14 GMT -5
how much of the old fossils and things from the past have even been dna tested? do they routinely dna test all things ever found? i'm unsure of this. but if they don't, then anything that's tested and deemed "unknown" could be something that we've known of for a long time, but just have never tested before. Sadly one cannot perform DNA testing on fossils - there isn't any organic matter left to test. Given current methods, anything "testable" that would provide a result would have to be something that lives (or lived) within the last few centuries - unless artificially preserved. Richard. thanks for the info richard. i was unaware of that. so, they have no dna evidence of any dinos or anything from back then?
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 24, 2012 14:55:46 GMT -5
so, they have no dna evidence of any dinos or anything from back then? In fact they DO ... in a round about way. The only genetic material that we have been able to extract from dinosaurs are found within insects trapped within amber. The insect fed on the dinosaur, was trapper (and preserved) in amber and the amber fossilized around it - in effect cocooning the bug and thus the dino-dna within the feeding track of the bug. For once the movies did show the masses something that is scientifically correct (Jurassic Park) - at least where we can extract dino DNA. Generally though, fossils are NOT bones, they are rocks. The bones of the animals have been replaced with minerals seeping in from the environment and thus 'hardening' the bones. The process kisses DNA bye-bye. Other than amber-based DNA, the other old natural DNA viable material has been extract from flash-frozen creatures, such as Wooly Mammoth. Sadly palaeobiology isn't in my area of specialization thus I'll pass it onto members who are likely much more educated on the subject matter to explain this one... Richard
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 24, 2012 23:32:30 GMT -5
Even the team doing the research has stated on at least one interview that they cannot prove that sasquatch exits by doing dna tests. Not sure what in my post would make you ask me this question. well, you stated that you are looking forward to this research. i assumed it's because they are hoping to conclude that it is bf. No as I stated even a negative result is a result. An example lets just say that 100 pieces of proposed yeti/sasquatch/orang pendak samples are submitted. As it stands right now all of those samples are contested, and may be listed as evidence for the existence of said creature by proponents. Now lets say 80 of those samples come back as human or another identifiable animal. These tests have provided some clarity as we can now remove those 80 samples from proposed evidence of existence to identified and not relevant. Much like the "Yeti finger" that when tested was shown to be human. We can now remove that sample from the proposed evidence.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 24, 2012 23:59:52 GMT -5
Now of those 20 samples that are left over we could have a number of results such as; No viable DNA for testing Unknown type specimen
But here is where these types of studies get interesting. Homo floresiensis lived in Asia (Indonesia) from 95,000 to 17,000 years ago (one report I saw said 12,000 years ago). Some claim that the orang pendek is a remnant population of H. floresiensis. Maybe if a orang sample comes back as unknown we can compare it to a H. floresiensis if possible.
Maybe some of the samples are much older than presently thought, who knows.
Also some DNA testing has been done other hominins such as denisova hominin and neanderthals. Some sasquatch proponents claim that almas/bf may be remnant populations of neanderthals or heidelberg man etc. The "unknown specimens" could be compared against these hominins to prove or disprove these theories
Right now the difference between belief or disbelief in sasquatch is what we consider as evidence for existence whether it is photographic, eye witness, tracks or samples collected. Studies such as this can add some clarity to this
|
|