Asked AND ANSWERED many, many times.

With due respect, you both need to get a little more friendly with the search engine. Bluegenes has only been here a couple months and is tired of explaining this very issue, which he's even done at least twice in this very 3 page thread! I've been here for years and am starting to feel like everything I write is totally meaningless because so few people bother to make an effort to search for answers to the same old questions, month after month after month. Throw in the daily influx of newbies and it starts to feel pretty hopeless. Yes, this is by nature a discussion forum, but that doesn't mean everyone shouldn't try to benefit from the half million posts already here.

That's my rant for the moment, and is not solely aimed at you two, so please don't take it as personally as it seems.

Apeman

It's close to saying if a body was found, it would not be proof because there is no body of a known sasquatch to compare it too. It would just be an unknown primate.....

The search engine here is nice, the buttons on the top right of the page below the banner.

Well, except if a body was found and it fit the "general" description of what most people call Sasquatch, it really wouldn't matter what it is named after that..mystery solved. In my book at least.

As would the placement of sequenced DNA on a taxonomic tree somwhere within the superfamily Hominoidea.

Cadaver dogs is an interesting idea, have you tried to find say, a dead bear, with one?

You know, they're always saying how dead bears are never found in the wild, and bears are certainly more bountiful than sasquatches.

Yeah I have dispelled that myth 4 times in the last 2 years, none of them being killed on the road.

That's awesome!

And cougars too? Might not be for this thread, but do you have pictures and/or information on how, where, and in what condition the bodies were found?

Oh, what about lion kills? I don't know how often predation occurs between cats and large apes today, but there is evidence for Austalopithecines being predated.

Krantz speculated (Bigfoot/Sasquatch Evidence) that the best time to find a body would be in the winter, since the cold and lack of food might drive some old/young/sick sasquatches into starvation.

Have you observed any patterns of the types of areas and conditions you've found large top o' the food chain animals during the thaw?

Do you think similar patterns could be used while looking for a sasquatch?

I think someone needs to draw me out some sort of comic book on "sequenced DNA on a taxonomic tree and how that proves it is an 8 ft hairy beast with bigfeet."

I'll throw this around with him and see what we can find or create unless someone can step forward with a clear, laypersons illustration.

Apeman

Bluegenes might have something on hand, but it seems that no matter how many words we write, the idea still isn't clear to most people so we need to do a better job of illustrating things. Our fault, not yours. I'll throw this around with him and see what we can find or create unless someone can step forward with a clear, laypersons illustration.

Apeman

Perhaps I'll write up a short explanation detailing how and why DNA could virtually put a lid on the mystery.

So far there has been a lot of hair samples found,and studied.Sometimes they turn out to be from woods animals like bears,rabbits,coyote,etc.BUT sometimes in a few shows and documentaries i have seen,some hairs turn out to be "PRIMATE,BUT FROM NO KNOWN SPECIES". Isnt this proof? If its primate,but doesnt match known primates,wouldnt that mean we have an UNKNOWN PRIMATE out there?? Also, how come they cant get DNA off these unknown primate hairs?

The scientists want proof-here it is! It shows them there is an UNKNOWN creature out there,someting they,and their science cant account for.So they should logically say something like "hey,this hair is from an unknown creature not in our charts and books,perhaps we should look into it more"

I am a little lost on this DNA subject as it is not (or ever will be) my forte'. But I really do want to understand this. How does DNA evidence, presuming it is the right animal, show that it is the species that is what we consider sasquatch? Or does it just show that it is an unknown primate. I mean, can you actually look at DNA sequencing and say that "this DNA comes from an 8 ft animal with really big feet??" Not to be trite, but is that what it does? If it doesn't do that specifically, than how can it really crack the BF mystery?

I’ll bet a lot of people wonder about this – just what one can tell from DNA.

Because every animal (and even every individual) has unique DNA, one can know all about the animal by reading its DNA. The sequence of letters (just four) encodes all the instructions for building and running animals (and plants and everything alive). It takes a lot of instructions – lots of DNA sequence – to do that for an animal like a sasquatch. There is no up-front statement to be found in any DNA to the effect of: The Following Are Instructions For a Sasquatch, so one has to work it out by reading enough, and especially enough of the right bits of DNA, because naturally most of it talks about general things animals have in common, so it’s the same sequence. But a sasquatch, being a specific (unique) species, will have sequence about what it really means to be a sasquatch – that’s the stuff one wants to find.

So, to look for the really sasquatchy sequence one might look at the places that differ between presumed sasquatch relatives, like between humans and chimps. One can zero in on specific spots in DNA using primers, little pieces of DNA one can make, and using some well worked-out techniques, one can read the sequence in those key spots… and deduce out what animal it is, (or isn’t). In the case of something like a sasquatch, one, presumably, would find sequence that is a lot like human and chimp but not actually either one. If someone can show a lot of unique, but not quite this or that, sequence, it would make people sit up and look closely.

I’ll bet a lot of people wonder about this – just what one can tell from DNA.

Ugh....I think I need a break from these boards...my head is starting to hurt.

I would ask forgiveness if I sound rude and arrogant. I'm just a bit weary of people throwing around "facts" about DNA and phylogenentic analysis when they don't know the basic concepts of these areas of study. You are correct in saying that a species can not be described using a DNA sequence alone. In fact, the rules of the International Zoological and Botanical Congresses don't allow it (you need a type specimen). Many have argued this is an outdated concept perpetuated by the "old guard" who don't understand phylogenetics, but this is not the forum for such a discussion.

However, if I did have a genuine BF DNA sequence I could place it's exact position within tree of life. I could tell you who it is most closely related too, who it's not related too, and it's evolutionary history. I don't need DNA from a confirmed BF body to compare it to. If BF is a real species it's DNA will be divergant enough to do so. It simply won't match any other species on record (DNA sequences from virtually every animal species is pubically available on a website knwn as GenBank).

As long as the same sequence could be found, from the same tissue sample, in different labs, the results would be considered valid and conclusive........you would have almost perfect confirmation of BF's existance. Yes, a body would be better, but the DNA would be enough to convince even the most skeptical biologist (assuming they know someting about phylogenetic analysis).

There is not BF body to test currently, and I'm not holding my breath that any will be found. But, there are enough hair samples to make a Persian rug. I propose that we should test many of them. If, after a few hundred or thousand samples match only known species we can all find other pursuits other than BF to occupy our time. If one sequence....JUST ONE........ reveals something valid and different mainstream science will lock onto the mystery and the rest will be history.

if a test is done and the results come back "inconclusive / human contamination," we'll still be scratching our heads and wondering what we did wrong, won't we?

No, with DNA sequence analysis there is no "test" and the results are never inconclusive.

W: Glancing at the wall of my office I see a piece of parchment. It says I have a masters degree in genetics (granted it's not a PhD, but it's nothing to sneeze at). Today it's how I earn a living. When I go to my doctor I don't tell her how to read my blood pressure. When I go to my mechanic I don't tell him how to fix my car. When I go to Burger King I don't tell the workers how to flip the burgers. Through education, practice and experiance everyone has specialties that they are "experts" in. It is my understanding that one of the purposes of this board is to learn from others expertese. I won't question someone who can clean up a recording or someone who knows volumes about cadavear dogs. That's their fields. I trust them and hope to learn from them.

In other words, I'm not blabbing words and terms about DNA that I picked up reading Newsweek or learned in an undergraduate biology lecture. I've devoted my life to this field and (call me arrogant and pompous) I have a very good idea of what I'm talking about. It's obvious that you know a ltittle something about PCR's and DNA sequences. But I can tell from your writings that you are far from an expert on the subject. Throwing out terms like homology, primers and SNP's might impress those who have no experiance with the subject, but those of us who do are merely raising an eyebrow and shaking our heads.

When I go to Burger King I don't tell the workers how to flip the burgers.

W: Glancing at the wall of my office I see a piece of parchment. It says I have a masters degree in genetics (granted it's not a PhD, but it's nothing to sneeze at). Today it's how I earn a living. When I go to my doctor I don't tell her how to read my blood pressure. When I go to my mechanic I don't tell him how to fix my car. When I go to Burger King I don't tell the workers how to flip the burgers. Through education, practice and experiance everyone has specialties that they are "experts" in. It is my understanding that one of the purposes of this board is to learn from others expertese. I won't question someone who can clean up a recording or someone who knows volumes about cadavear dogs. That's their fields. I trust them and hope to learn from them.

In other words, I'm not blabbing words and terms about DNA that I picked up reading Newsweek or learned in an undergraduate biology lecture. I've devoted my life to this field and (call me arrogant and pompous) I have a very good idea of what I'm talking about. It's obvious that you know a ltittle something about PCR's and DNA sequences. But I can tell from your writings that you are far from an expert on the subject. Throwing out terms like homology, primers and SNP's might impress those who have no experiance with the subject, but those of us who do are merely raising an eyebrow and shaking our heads.

W: Glancing at the wall of my office I see a piece of parchment. It says I have a masters degree in genetics (granted it's not a PhD, but it's nothing to sneeze at). Today it's how I earn a living. When I go to my doctor I don't tell her how to read my blood pressure. When I go to my mechanic I don't tell him how to fix my car. When I go to Burger King I don't tell the workers how to flip the burgers. Through education, practice and experiance everyone has specialties that they are "experts" in. It is my understanding that one of the purposes of this board is to learn from others expertese. I won't question someone who can clean up a recording or someone who knows volumes about cadavear dogs. That's their fields. I trust them and hope to learn from them.

In other words, I'm not blabbing words and terms about DNA that I picked up reading Newsweek or learned in an undergraduate biology lecture. I've devoted my life to this field and (call me arrogant and pompous) I have a very good idea of what I'm talking about. It's obvious that you know a ltittle something about PCR's and DNA sequences. But I can tell from your writings that you are far from an expert on the subject. Throwing out terms like homology, primers and SNP's might impress those who have no experiance with the subject, but those of us who do are merely raising an eyebrow and shaking our heads.

I do.

For some reason though they won't let me go back there anymore.

Well, not enough findings to conclude any patterns, some general observations, all above 6000' elev., many on ridgelines, but that describes about 90% of search area. Wish I could be more help on that. And ridgelines don't surprise me for Mountain Lion as they almost always stay above game trails, unless they come down for a drink.

If BF is a real species it's DNA will be divergant enough to do so.

The part I have placed in bold is a subtle supposition leading to a signficant degree of interpretative skew. Of course, if a test is done and the results come back "inconclusive / human contamination," we'll still be scratching our heads and wondering what we did wrong, won't we?

No, with DNA sequence analysis there is no "test" and the results are never inconclusive.