Ok, maybe it’s time for a Genetics 101 lesson:

DNA is made up of 4 different kinds of nucleotides (Adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine or A,C,G and T). DNA is nothing but a very long string of these nucleotides. Any one gene will have specific nucleotides….like a written word has specific letters in a specific order.

Very basically, there are two kinds of genes: coding genes and non-coding genes. Coding genes specify a cell to make a specific protein. These proteins are the building blocks of all cellular functions. Without them, life does not exist. Non-coding genes don’t code for anything. They are also referred to as “junk” DNA. These genes have no known purpose and just "go along for the ride".

From time to time DNA mutates. An A might turn into a G, or a C might turn into a T. If this happens in coding DNA it’s usually bad news. The resulting protein will be messed up and the cell can’t do its job or will do it the wrong way. This can be seen in some cancers, birth defects etc. Many times the organism will die. Now, if the mutation happens in non-coding DNA it’s no big deal. Since it doesn’t affect any subsequent protein, the organism still lives and reproduces, passing along that mutated non-coding gene to it's offspring.

When we compare the DNA of different species, we generally compare the non-coding DNA. You could use coding DNA, but because this DNA can’t and doesn’t change much it looks much the same in very different organisms. You and I actually have many coding genes identical to those in bacteria. But the non-coding DNA in me looks very different from a bacteria’s non-coding DNA. Because I am more closely related to a dog than bacteria (we are closer in the evolutionary tree) my non-coding DNA will be more similar to a dog than a bacterium. Likewise, my non-coding DNA will be a closer match to a chimps DNA than a dog.

If I have an unknown organism, I can compare its DNA to the DNA of most other known species. There’s been a lot of work, sequencing non-coding genes in many many species the past few decades. And most of those sequences are stored in an electronic database known as GenBank. So, if I have a sequence of a BF gene, I can easily compare it to the thousands of species that have had a gene sequenced already. TADA…….I then know if my BF sequence is genuine (because it will be different from all other species). And I’ll know what species BF is most closely related to.

Unlike hair, or footprints, or blobby photos, or a film, DNA is unambiguous. I can’t change the DNA in the organism I’m sequencing. It can’t be faked or hoaxed. Nor is it subject to interpretation or opinion. The nucleotides in a sequence are in a specific pattern that anyone can read clearly. And if I sequence the same gene from the same organism again, it will result in the exact same sequence.

I’ll save this all as a word document so I can post it again in the future. I have taken a few minor liberties to keep this explanation simple. So, if anyone has corrections or clarifications, I’ll add them.

I suppose I could explain the sequencing process, but I’m getting tired of typing. And anyway, college students pay good money to learn this stuff from PhD’s, and I'm not getting squat for this!

I repeat my demand that Drew draw a diagram explaining this all.

I'm afraid I failed art class in grade school. This is the best you'll get, for now. You're welcome.

I will certainly add my thanks!
(BTW- BM is a class act and has a great sense of humor - I am sure he was making a little inside joke.)

And then when you get additional samples you will be able to know if they match the geniune BF sequence and you will be able to tell if they are from the same individual or not? Of course, you wouldn't be absolutely certain that the samples were actually from a bonafide BF, but you would be able to know if the animal it came from was primate and whether it was definitely not a known primate in GenBank. And you could place it on the tree of life somewhere between say, human and chimp, for example, and whether it should be placed closer to human or closer to chimp, correct? You could certainly determine that there was an undiscovered primate in North America.

I don't understand why this hasn't been done given all the alleged samples over the years.

My question to the forum is this: Can we figure out how to get hold of as many of these existing samples as possible and get them to BlueGenes so he can start sequencing them?

Oh! And Thank You, Professor BlueGenes, for your wonderfully presented genetics lesson!

It HAS! Many times. Resulting in matches with deer, bison, bears, and mostly with humans (and some ungulate if you include the yeti sample).

Bluegenes- Nice job, this is something I've been meaning to tackle for years but intended to be more thorough and complete (which is part of why it never got done) when something like this is probably more appropriate. But we should probably credit one of the Zenor brothers who I'm pretty sure has given this level of explanation at least once. I suggest we (that's the Royal "we," as in "you Bluegenes" ) start working on a page covering this in the Squatchopedia so we all have it as a reference in the future and people like me can save a few gaskets as we go over it again and again.

A couple clarifications, more for the record than because they are important or contradict anything BG wrote:

Any gene can actually have multiple versions, each with at least a few different nucleotides, these are called alleles (e.g. blue v. green eyes).

Likewise, some nucleotide differences won't affect the translation to proteins so note BG's proper use of "usually" in reference to them being bad news.

So-called non-coding genes remain VERY poorly understood and are being increasingly found to have roles (many structural), so many scientists would argue that referring to them as junk is a bit archaic- but we still do it. I offer this more as a parenthetical aswer to the obvious big question of "why the heck is it there?" than because it's germane to the larger discussion.

Indeed DNA can't (easily) be hoaxed... but mistakes can happen in multiple steps and some results can be somewhat ambiguous and there can be a fair amount of interpretation of some results....so, depending on what you're specifically referring to, some issues may not be quite as black and white as Bluegenes might have implied. But most of these issues are very subtle in the grand scheme. They may, however, be pertinent to discussions about subtle genetic difference between two very closely related organisms, especially if the overall genetic variability of one or both isn't well known or documented.

Ok, I'm done for the night too, especially because I type with only two fingers and a thumb.

Apeman

i sure do hope it's an opposable thumb....

No offense to you. I think you're doing a great thing by sharing your knowledge. It's just that Drew's artwork is... Drew's work is.... well it's something.