Lisa A. Shiel: DNA will not provide rock-solid proof of Bigfoot's existence

Author Lisa A. Shiel

Author of Backyard Bigfoot and The Hunt for Bigfoot, Lisa A. Shiel chimes in on the Bigfoot DNA research. Unlike Adrian Erickson, who believes the DNA will prove the existence of Bigfoot as a real, biological animal, Lisa disagrees. "DNA by itself will never prove Bigfoot exists," Lisa wrote on her blog.

Posted on August 10, 2011, this is what Lisa had to say about the Bigfoot DNA "Myth":

The Myth of Bigfoot DNA

There’s been a lot of talk recently about Bigfoot and DNA. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve read someone say or had someone tell me that DNA will prove the existence of Bigfoot as a real, biological animal. All we need is a really, really, really good sample and an open-minded scientist to perform the testing. DNA has become the holy grail of Bigfoot research, but it’s based on a fallacy. DNA by itself will never prove Bigfoot exists.

Why not? To name and describe a new species, scientists require a physical sample known as a type specimen or holotype. A holotype is a single individual that represents an entire species. Although a single specimen may represent the entire species, multiple specimens are preferable for demonstrating that a new species has indeed been found. A DNA sample by itself proves nothing, as far as defining a new species. Comparing the new sample to existing DNA samples on file will show, at best, that the new sample does not correspond with any known species. All you will have proven is that scientists can’t identify what type of creature the DNA came from.

This does not mean the DNA came from a new species.

The sample could’ve been contaminated, a possibility that plagues Bigfoot research because purported DNA samples from Bigfoot have likely not been collected with an eye to preventing contamination. Even scientists have problems with contamination. A 2008 article in Archaeology magazine discussed the problem of contamination in collecting DNA samples from archaeological sites. The author stated that “excavators would have to wear what amount to space suits” in order to eliminate contamination. DNA samples collected in the wild may have been exposed to the elements for an undetermined time. Even if they were supposedly collected straight from the source — namely, a Bigfoot — the Bigfoot researcher may have inadvertently contaminated the sample simply by collecting it. Are researchers wearing space suits, or even sterile gloves?

Let’s assume said sample was collected in a perfectly sterile manner, with zero chance of contamination. The DNA test comes back as an unknown animal or, at best, an unknown primate. This has not proven Bigfoot exists. It has not even proven the researcher has discovered a new species. The test has proven only that the specific DNA sample in question can’t be identified with anything currently known to science.

The confusion over Bigfoot and DNA is understandable. It’s easy to get confused reading news headlines announce new species discovered using DNA. We have to dig a little deeper, sometimes just by bothering to carefully read the entire article and other times by searching out the original scientific paper, to discover the truth. New species “discovered” through DNA analysis alone are actually cryptic species, creatures that are physiologically identical to another species, akin to identical twins in our own species. By studying the DNA of the species in question, scientists have discovered genetic differences that led them to conclude one twin is different enough from the other to be considered a new species. The new species was, in essence, hiding within another species. Scientists already had specimens of the new species, though they didn’t realize it.

DNA alone won’t prove Bigfoot exists. If we want scientists to accept Bigfoot’s existence, we must present them with physical specimens, not DNA. It’s time we accept this fact and move on.

- Lisa A. Shiel

Source: jacobsvillebooks.com

Comments

  1. Well said, that's what I've been saying all along.

    I typically say, "What would you compare it against?"

    I also recount that if you took a cup of water from the ocean - can you image how much DNA is in that cup of water? Same with dirt and maybe air. Contamination of a DNA sample is very likely.

    Also, about BF being human it's my thought that no, it will be an unclassified Ape. They purportedly have stink glands that function voluntarily and they have night vision; which human has that, none. In addition, I know species to a great deal can be seen as just nomenclature but I even being of a scientific mind think that human are a different sapient animal and superior. I think that we have something to use that may likely not ever be stuffed into a test tube, hence something that can't be measured. I think we have a soul that does something different or goes to some other space once we die.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I disagree. Its the collection of multiple samples that are unclassified but the same that will define that Sasquatch exists. Contamination should be no worse than any other field sample. Thousands of classifications are made annually with thatsample quality

    ReplyDelete
  3. And when someone else shoots and kills another BF, All the supposied scientist that can classify a new insect or monkey with a simple photograph But, If its BF its Hands Off in the scientific communities,it will be because of people like you and them, BF's blood will be on your hands, When Ketchum said "constitutional Rights", I believe she is trying to say Right to Life and not have Idiots going out to try to get Sci-Fi channel's !0 Million dollars.

    If you were the "alien species" and BF were talking the same way, "Got to have a specimen" Which of your children should you send out? You need to let that sink in!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story