Hello all,
i got this idea the other day and i cant get it out of my head

has anyone ever thought about cloning the suspected DNA of sasquatch?

wouldnt whatever the cells produce after its cloned be definate proof in one way or another, its either going to produce a saquatch, or it will produce a known animal and it will be knowledge that it isnt sasquatch DNA. I remeber seeing on an episode of monterquest that thy recovered some sort of unknown primate dna. im certainly not an expert on cloning so i have no clue if this would even be possible, or the cost of it or anything, like i said it just popped into my heads and id like to hear other points of view on this

Interesting thought. I am certainly not an expert (nor do I play one on TV), but I would think that any DNA collected from a suspected BF would not be in good enough shape to use for a clone.

thats what i was thinking, i was just cuious as to others opinions on the matter

something else to consider..........if biggy is as close to human as some think.........isnt there an international moratorium on cloning humans?

I think I read it somewhere......

Officially yes. Unofficially, I am sure that there are "rogue" scientists out there working on said projects.

yes i do believe your right about the human cloning thing. however sasquatch is sasquatch and humans are humans, theres about 2 feet and a few hundred ound differnce between the two, just name a few differance haha

Too clone something, you need an intact nucleus. If they had that, then they would have more than enough DNA evidence to prove that bigfoot or at least some unknown hominoid species exists. They would know how closely related it was to other primates.

Assuming it was close enough to a human or other apes, someone could probably do the procedure. Cloning probably causes bad health consequences to the offspring so it would be questionable to do it from an ethical point of view. It also took many attempts to get it to work when they cloned the sheep. You also have to find some woman or ape to carry the bigfoot to term. Something that sensational would be hard to keep a secret for long. It might be a good reason to take some cells from any bigfoot captured in case they work out the problems in cloning in the future. You pretty much would have to have a live bigfoot to get intact nuclei from their cells. The DNA from old blood or hair isn't likely to be useful.

thanks you i really agree with you, i think itd be unethical, i was just curious as to what other thought about the idea that popped into my head when i was in the shower the other morning

I yahooed BF and Yeti har samples and came across an article that said a company named Cryptozo in california tried cloning alledged Sasq. hair and got two goats and a bear......may have been a nonbeleibver misinformation article too.

not sure how much i beleive that website, i beleive you, just not so sure about the website

The question of cloning is, from my perspective, actually 2 questions. One is about actual cloning of an animal but within that is the question of identifying the animal's species based on what it looked like.
Bob Z is right about needing a nucleus as well as needing a suitable environment in which to bring it to term, and that kind of wet work is pretty complex, messy prone to slight differences leading to significant problems in viability.
But, there are continuing to be really impressive advances being made in reading the complete genomes from certain types of samples in which the DNA is preserved though fragmented, which is not to say it would be useful for cloning, but its code would still be in its original order and readable and thus comparable to other known genomes. This is particularly relevant to DNA that's been presevered within hair, horn and other long lasting chitinous materials. It's all broken up into small fragments but the original order is preserved because the fragments are embedded and held in place by the chitin in which it is contained, which is like a protien based polymer (like a cellulosic plastic).
This is not to be confused with the mitochondrial DNA which is used to identify individuals and species to a specific sample, like at a crime lab. That mtDNA is like the blueprint/building instructions/programming for the little powerhouses only that reside within the cells and they are seperate from the genome of the host cell and the creature in which they are found. If you cloned them you'd only get another mitochondria, not the host organism, but each is slightly different and specific to each individual and much simpler than the complete genome of the organism in which they reside which is why they are so commonly used for i.d.purposes.
Seems not too long ago sequencing the complete genome for any organism was considered a real breakthrough, and the first one (I think it was a simple worm called a nematode) was a laborious, expensive, meticulous process, but once it was done it showed how to do it for more complex organisms and soon the race was on for the human genome, which again was orders of magnitude more difficult, but it was done faster than many had thought it could be done, and then the genomes for a few more scientifically and commercially important species were decoded, and now you can have yourown genome sequenced for the price equivalent of a sports car, and the price continues to come down. I just read the push is on to sequence 10,000 species' genomes, a huge effort creating a huge digital library in which researchers could look for commonalities and patterns that will further illuminate the inner workings of living organisms. And while people laugh a bit, the visionary polymath Freeman Dyson speculates that the technology required to do sequencing and actual engineering is going through the same kind of growth curve we saw in electronics and computers, and suggests that we might one day see kids getting genetic sequencing kits for Xmas like kids in an earlier generation got chemistry sets and later began to build their own computers and designing/programming them. Hard to believe is becoming harder and harder not to believe.
So, if you have some hair you think is sasquatch, it might be possible in the not too distant future to sequence it, see how it differs from say a chimp...or maybe a neanderthal since they've sequences some of their genes already and they technically aren't H. sapiens yet...make the changes needed to match your sample, embed it into a viable egg, and see how it goes from there. And even if you don't try to bring one to life, the specific differences between the sample sasquatch and the human or chimp or orangutan might be of such a variety that one will be able to sgo to the library of tens of thousands of other genomes and see just what these kinds of differences do in other species and have a feel for what it would do when it modifies the workings of the organism you are wondering about, such that one could say with some degree of certainty that it would create a large, hairy form of whatever it is closest to.

But lets say you get to the viable egg stage, the real question is, WHO is going to carry to term and raise that particular baby? Any hands? And say said youn'in grows healthy and strong, where is it going to fit in? A zoo? A high school? Not an easy question to answer.

Agreed. When I first read of this proposed technique, the scientist was speculating about using mammoth hair, rhino horn and extinct birds but that question was being touched upon, in the most speculative of ways, as a "what if" scenario where some researcher trys it with a neanderthal's code by way of modified chimps' eggs, thus avoiding the legal question, and for some the moral dilemma, of working with higher order primates and extinct lineages. I thought about the alleged unknown primate hairs, of course. I can believe we'll be able to read the codes of animals genes and be able to determine quite a lot about what the animal will be like based on our comparison with the tens of thousands of other animals that will be in the library of genetic codes as the coding of animals continues, which would do much to both satisfy my curiosity and yet leave open the possibility of trying to bring one to term and adulthood, and countless Michael Creightonesque plotlines, in order to better understand the specifics of a creature created like that. I don't suppose it would be much like its wild antecedent since animals are the result of both their genes and environement. I don't suppose either human or chimp wombs would be just like a supposed sasquatch womb would be like, beginning with its immunological chemistry or its intestinal flora, though it might be close.
People are curious monkeys, prone to getting into trouble easily enough but it seems that historically we get into the most trouble when we try to prevent the unknown while ingnoring the known stuff that we should be addressing instead, or so it seems to me, though I'm usually wrong.
I can say who on earth would want to raise a test tube yeti, probably not very many, but if there were any I'd be surprised if they haven't visited this forum, or coach football.
In the mean time, hold on to them wild hairs.