Comments? excerpt on an article posted at

http://www.thevillagesdailysun.com/article...news/news02.txt

I quote,

"Have there been any recent significant discoveries?

Short: “On Nov. 7, the History Channel reported that a DNA sample from a Sasquatch has been analyzed from a board of sharp, threaded, protruding screws placed in front of a cabin in remote Canada. Dr. Curt Nelson, senior scientist and biologist from the University of Minnesota, and anthropologist Dr. Jeff Meldrum from the University of Idaho found a bloody footprint and collected hair, small portions of foot tissue and blood from the bottom of the foot from the ‘screw board’ for DNA sequencing.

“The hair sample looked human, but human hair has a medulla, a spongy mass of material in the center of the hair’s core. According to the program, the hair sample matched no known primate and nothing living known to science, certainly not bear. The DNA from the tissue found on the bloody screws was identical to human DNA, except it had one nucleotide polymorphism. The nucleotide that was different, was one shared with chimpanzees. It was primate DNA. They knew they were looking at the DNA structure of a sasquatch. The DNA said ‘primate’ but not quite human and not-quite nonhuman primate … just one of the base pairs is deviated from ours! Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that pretty much cinch the case for Sasquatches being classified in the genus Homo, probably with little difference from us?”

Gary Corsair is a senior writer with the Daily Sun. He can be reached at 753-1119 or gary.corsair@thevillagesmedia.com."

Thats been covered in the monsterquest threads.

the final answer is that the DNA wound up not really proving anything because its too degraded

That would seem to indicate that it branched off 'prior' to the break between humans and chimps. That would certainly make it non-homo.

Meldrum didn't leave the screw board at the site. He examined the screw board after the cabin owner left it out and apparently something stepped on it.

can you give me the link?

I just recently saw that a few days ago for the first time and missed the other threads. It doesn't make quite sense to me the way it was presented. They sequenced 388 base pairs which is just a small portion of the area on the mitochondria that can be sequenced. Chimps, I assume, differed on 34. The one base pair different from a human but shared with a chimp isn't very good mathematical evidence of it being non human since it must have also had 33? base pairs different from a chimp. I am wondering how that equates to a 1/5000th chance of it being human DNA? He said he needed to sequence a much longer region and it would take a year.

If it were sasquatch DNA, then sasquatch must be a modern human or very close. They should randomly accumulate so you could estimate about 1 mutation every 1/34 the distance to the human chimp common ancestor or maybe 1 per 150,000 years. In other words it roughly suggests an animal that diverged so recently it would essentially be a modern human. There is much less accuracy with one base pair since they are random. A hybrid between a human female and another more distantly related hominid could also be possible and explain how a more distantly related animal could appear closer but hybrids are not usual. Hopefully he will get the right primers and sequence a much longer section and have some better answers.

Nobody said anything about it being mitochondrial DNA. But the point is valid, although for the life of me I don't know how they can say "one nucleotide polymorphism" was different than human but present in chimpanzee DNA. Heck, even between individual humans there can be at least ten different (mutant) nucleotide polymorphisms, if they mean single point nucleotide switched mutations, as I understand it. So how can they say that? I wish the article was more specific. If it means in a particular area of the code that sequences for a particular protein, that is consistent through all humans, and differs only slightly with chimps, that would make more sense.

And frankly, I would expect sasquatch DNA to be very, very similar to ours, they are physically very similar, except for the fact that they are larger and have body modifications which account for that. I mean, heck, chimps and us are so close in the first place! Hairiness, robust bones and teeth, even slight differences in locomotion, feet and stance can all be accounted for by size modification. Kinda like the physical differences between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane. Still dogs, but lots of slight body modifications.

Questions:

1) Are there DNA differences between chihuahuas and Great Danes?
2) Are there DNA differences between wolves and domestic dogs?
3) Are there DNA differences between black bears and grizzly bears?

They were more specific on the show and said that they were testing mitochondrial DNA. I think they said there were 35 not 34 differences between a human and great apes so I assumed they meant chimps. It is kind of an odd way to put it since chimps are closer to us than gorillas. One guy, NY scientist with mohawk haircut, did the test on the sample and got nothing. Another guy did something to screen out the effects of the galvanized metal that supposedly inhibited the test. After that he got good results.

Hunster, there would be slight DNA differences between a Great Dane and a chihuahuas but probably not significant mitochondrial differences. You are going to have a certain number of mutations on the mitochondria in most populations. The same thing applies to a wolf. The nuclear DNA varies much more and that is where the differences between individuals come from. The differences measured in the mitochondria apparently don't matter at all and that is why it makes a good theoretical clock.

“The hair sample looked human, but human hair has a medulla, a spongy mass of material in the center of the hair’s core. According to the program, the hair sample matched no known primate and nothing living known to science, certainly not bear."

Isn't that a significant finding unto itself?

If we were discussing any other animal it would be.

One nucleotide polymorphism was different but present in Chimpanzee DNA?

Does that mean present ONLY in Chimp DNA?

Because maybe it is present in other animals, and they just mentioned that it is present in Chimps to get the base all riled up. Maybe it's present in Black Capped Chickadees also, and it crapped on the nail board.

Does anyone know if the Nucleotide polymorphism is present ONLY in chimps?

Im in 100% agreement, what a great note!

Significant only in that there wasn't a match. A lack of a match doesn't make a match if you get my drift.

It only represents one base pair. There are only 4 possible bases. That single location would be the same for 1/4 of all animals. The other 388 indicates it is a human or something that is separated by no more than a few hundred thousand years. It did seem to be just a way to mention great apes. The odds of that being another animal would 1/4 raised to the 388th power or some astronomical number if my math is right. I also don't get the odds calculation of 1/5000 of it being a human. It is essentially a human or a sasquatch or his sequence is somehow flawed. That pristine hair without the medula sure makes me wonder though.

Maybe it's hollow like a polar bear, warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer.

But we do have some lovely parting gifts! Tell 'em what they win Don Pardo!

Well, they win yet another fabulous opportunity to hear how there's nothing to match the unidentified DNA to!

BTW, I tried Meldrum's method and it didn't work. My wife still got pregnant.

Hi

You Win A Monza,,, A New Mazda,,, Or A Winnebago,, A solid gold Handmade Coffee Pot Or A Baby's Arm Holding An Apple


Peace
Tim

I am thoroughly confused...

Math is certainly not my strong suit but I calculated the odds of that sequence appearing randomly. It is less than one chance in a google squared or a number with over 200 zeros. That is why I would say it is absolutely the sequence of a modern human or very close relative but the source could certainly be contamination. If it is contamination, the sequence would logically be from someone that contacted the screwboard or sample. The scientist who almost certainly knows more than me says the odds of it being a human are 1/5000. There is virtually no chance of encountering a near perfect match to a human. The test can't be infallible and a base-pair must get misread at some frequency vastly greater than 1 in a google but for the sake of argument, I took the results as legitimate or accurate. Now it seems reasonable to me to conclude that it statically must be something very close to a modern human because of the astronomically slim odds of randomly getting that sequence. When I examine the 1/5000 chance of it being a human I am left with the conclusion that it is 99.98% chance that it is a sasquatch (or a wild humanoid that is being mistaken for a sasquatch) and that they are very closely related to modern humans. It is still being linked to a great ape because of that single base pair in common with chimps. I may understand it but I am thoroughly confused with the conclusions and the logic.

Just for the record, I assume it is a modern human unless much more of the relevant portion of the mitochondrial DNA is sequenced. It can't be said to be unidentified. It is just hard to believe that it could be that close to a modern human.

Bobzenor has got some good things to say...

Why is that? Are you convinced they are just apes?

Are you saying the nucleotide polymorphism, which they found is present in 1/4 of all animal species on the planet? and one of those animals is a chimp?

Would human DNA give the result you questioning Bob Zenor?
In other words, if there was human DNA mixed up in there, would it give the same result?

Robert, the results of the mitochondria indicate that it came from something that is either a modern human or something within a few hundred thousand years. I do strongly favor the hominid over convergent ape theory but that would be really close. It would be closer than Neanderthals. Dogs supposedly changed from wolves in less time so it is certainly possible. One base pair is not enough evidence to be convincing because of random mutations. If they sequenced a much larger sequence of the mitochondria, it would be much better evidence but the doubt might remain.

Drew, I only have theoretical understanding and lack the experience with the primers and procedures. It is my understanding that they take something called a primer that targets something like 10 base pairs with a particular sequence. It is like a marker and they read from that portion. An error reading the sample doesn't seem likely because the match is nearly identical to a modern human. You are just sequencing a section of the DNA. Mixing an ape and human shouldn't give you that result. The sequence would be something like CTCCTGCACAAG only 388 letters long. Each letter is a base and since there are two "identical" strands to make DNA it is called a base pair. All you are doing is finding these random spots on a larger section of DNA and sequencing the base pairs from that position. Mutations theoretically randomly accumulate along the entire region called the D-loop or hypervariable region which is about 2,500 base pairs if my memory is correct.

There is nothing special about the location of the "nucleotide polymorphism"except that would be consistent with an animal that split a few hundred thousand years ago if we changed on that location very recently. It doesn't indicate that it is closer to apes because if we diverged recently from the owner of the blood we are both the same distance from a common ancestor and equally distant from all other animals. We also diverged so recently that its ancestor must be nearly a modern human. It adds a little weight but we are only talking one base pair mutation so it could be just a human with a mutation. I may be confused because I certainly don't understand the 1/5000 chance of it being a modern human conclusion especially considering the odds of the sequence occurring randomly.

Dr. Meldrum is searching for a primate that developed bipedalism independent of the human line. The logic fits.




edit, can't spell.

I am thoroughly confused because I have not been schooled in the ways of DNA sequencing... you will make a believer of me soon enough if you throw enough obscure statistics and fancy words in my direction... I am a sucker for such things...

My team has used the nails/screws in a board before. It is a very good idea to try. And could be very effective.

I had been trying to stay out of this thread, but it seems there is some confusion, although we've been over this before.

BobZenor is right on, but I'll try to address some of his questions. The on-going problem here is that we have a single nucleotide difference over less than 400 basepairs using a method that generates copies of the actual sample. Essentially, you generate two primers (approximately 10-20 nucleotides long) pointed towards each other (in this case, they would sit on the sample approximately 400 bases apart). Using PCR, you would generate thousands of copies of the bases in between. Then you would essentially read the DNA sequence of your copies. Reading the DNA sequence is fairly foolproof. However, the problem is that PCR inherently can and will make mistakes, so the notion that one nucleotide is different between humans and this sample is nothing to get too excited about, even if that mutation matches one of the 22 found in chimps. Another caveat to this analysis was that the sample was very badly degraded and had sat out for quite a while before it was analyzed. A degraded/damaged DNA sample is more likely to produce mistakes in the PCR step.

As for the nature of the offending creature, there are a lot of challenges to this. First, we don't know the nature of the DNA that was sequenced, thus it could have been contaminating DNA from someone who examined the board before the Monsterquest people were able to collect the samples. Second, the primer sequences from humans and Bigfoots need to match up pretty darn close in order to obtain a good quality PCR and good quality sequence. Mutations in the primer targets (in the mtDNA) are going to alter what is read in the 'sequence' vs. what is actually present in the sample.

The bottom line is...I wouldn't put too much stock in the 'findings' of the Monsterquest episode. If you can obtain a recent, properly collected sample from a Bigfoot, you want to amplify and sequence a much larger portion of DNA and be able to determine that there are multiple base differences between humans and Bigfoots. More importantly, you'd actually like to show that you can get DNA from multiple Bigfoots and show that they are more closely related to each other than they are to humans.

Thanks for that, Mon0705. It's great to have someone in this line of investigation with sound theoretical understanding, a genuine working knowledge and a sympathetic viewpoint on what these efforts are trying to accomplish.
The method of using a cabin as an attractant or if merely a curiousity generator, despite some reservations about sticking the feet of a curious creature with sharp screwtips, is one that I'd think would be worth trying again...perhaps set up with cameras located away from the cabin at some distance, looking back at the cabin itself, and other similar evidence gathering devices (hair snaggers) and with a much longer time frame. I think that even if one didn't attract a BF, it'd be interesting to see how a cabin like that impacts the generally curious critters.

I have one simple question regarding the DNA obtained. It was stated that it was quite similar to humans but different from known animals.

It's also been stated that Kennewick man had a slightly differing DNA from the known Native Americans. Is it possible that the DNA from the screw board could be compared to Kennewick mans?

No, because the highligted bit above is simply untrue. There's no requirement for human hair to have a medulla, and even when it IS present, it's usually described as "thin", "amorphous", or "fragmented".

From: http://www.patticarothersonline.org/hap_fo...airs_identi.htm

(my bolding)

Other sources:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan...research01b.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/apr...standards02.htm

Googling 'human hair medulla' will produce numerous additional results.

RayG

Good scrutiny there Ray.

As many have concluded, Henner is out of his depth with the hair thing. I guess that's what you get when you send a parasitologist to study hair. That fact that he's kept all of his findings so close to the vest, and not published anything on the hair - not a word (let alone a journal article) has always been a red flag.

When he did go on record in Jeff's book his main point was the whole medulla issue. But that band plays on.

Thanks for the links.







Edited for spelling.

Good question. I don't know the extent of genetic analysis done on Kennewick Man (someone else would have to fill-in the details). I doubt the DNA could be compared directly as is, since it is likely that Kennewick Man's DNA sequence and the 400bp from the screwboard likely were different fragments of the genome. However, if a pretty good sample of Kennewick Man's DNA is available, it would be possible to try to compare them. But I'm unsure if that's available.

I completely agree. Until he decides to publish something, his findings are meaningless in the scheme of things.

This is interesting stuff, thanks. Why would it take a year to figure out if the DNA is from a primate and if so, if that primate is known? I don't get it; we can do a human DNA match in a few days, right?

BFX