Is DNA evidence enough to prove the existence of Bigfoot?
 |
| Bigfoot blood tissue on a plate courtesy Erickson Project |
Author of Backyard Bigfoot Lisa A. Shiel says not to get too excited if the outcome from the Bigfoot DNA study swings in the researchers' favor. She references a few examples of how problems can still occur during the DNA study.
"Before we can even get to the question of whether DNA can prove the existence of Bigfoot, we must first ask whether DNA samples can be collected completely free of contamination and whether the analysis itself will influence the outcome," wrote Shiel. "DNA is far from foolproof. And when it comes to Bigfoot, the problems are only compounded by the elusive nature of the animal being studied and the far-from-ideal circumstances in which samples are collected."
Regarding contimation of DNA evidence she cites a case in Germany:
Now consider the case of Germany’s Phantom of Heilbronn. For two years, police sought not just a serial killer but a rare female serial killer. DNA evidence collected from forty crime scenes implicated a single woman in crimes ranging from burglary to the murder of a police officer. Other people who had been convicted of some of the crimes denied any knowledge of the Phantom. The confusing menagerie of evidence finally led police to reexamine the DNA results — and conclude that the cotton swabs used to collect DNA samples had likely been contaminated at the factory that produces them.
According to Shiel, software analysis of raw DNA data can also influence the desired outcome:
Next, we must consider that DNA analysis relies on computers to process the results. For instance, when tracing the origins of humanity scientists have used DNA as a vital part of their evidence. Computer software dutifully swallows the raw DNA data and spits out a family tree for humanity. Yet, as geneticists themselves have pointed out, the exact same data could impart different trees depending upon what software is used to process it and how many times that software analysis is run. Thousands of possible family trees might lurk inside the data collected by a single team of scientists. Which version to choose depends upon what outcome is desired.Shiel believes it will take more than one body to prove Bigfoot's existence and we should not expect genetics to offer the ultimate proof.
You can read the full article at jacobsvillebooks.com
if that is the case, then dna should not be
ReplyDeleteadmissible in a court of law.
isn't there some way of testing to see if it is contaminated ?
if the person who collected the dna submits their dna for screening then they would be able to instantly detect if the collector/submitter had handled the sample and contaminated it with their own dna. If the DNA sample does not match the collector/submitter then DNA HAS NOT BEEN CONTAMINATED.
ReplyDeleteProof of such a Mythical Being will not come through one person, one team or one study.
ReplyDeleteNot perhaps even with one body.
It will take a very long time as this will only be our first window into the genome of just a few purported Sasquatch individuals, with limited extrinsic evidence. But, it is a great deal more than we had before (unless you believe her current opinion entirely erroneous).
What is important? Dr. ketchum, et al. is the first group to publicly stick their proverbial neck out and indicate they believe there is a Sasquatch and they are a kin to our human family.
The long grueling road to overturning decades, centuries, of folklore and Myth will take the help of many.
As far as I can tell there may as many as four groups currently working on DNA? I hope so.
For me the real question is: Who are they?
LOL - sorry... (didn't care so much which DNA teams...)
ReplyDeleteI meant:
Who are the Sasquatch as a cultural people?
How is one body not proof?
ReplyDeleteI've thought about this many times and the people "collecting" the DNA are not doing it as a crime scene is handled. There is no verification of how it was handled, what it was handled with and such. I've seen some pretty scary sampling of DNA portrayed on documentaries that made me cringe. Let's take for instance the nail board at the Canadian Lake (Snellgrove) where Meldrum got some fibers. Given the nature of the well visited cabin and foraging critters and time that had passed, even if they collected it meticulously, the sample still could have come from so many that have crossed that path that it's no way to link the hairs to the one who stepped on the board. It is going to take a body ultimately (hopefully living) for us to accept a new reality. Like photos and video, it's always questionable about the conditions and source.
ReplyDeleteThat screws on the board was the nastiest thing.What an amateur and cruel way to collect samples.
ReplyDeleteI thought the glass shards on the plate was bad,but that one was brutal.
@anon - I could be wrong really (b/c normally a type speciman would suffice).
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Sasquatch what it appears they are looking for is a subtly of DNA to define a sub-species of humans...so Homo sapiens hirsutii.. and one body will not reveal that statistical significance of the many individual genomes.
Also, one body does not answer the question of the potential for other hidden primates/hominids.
But, I am definitely not well educated in this regard and am getting one as I read!
Also, maybe a body IS NOT the way to go..now that it is the AGE of Genomics...
ReplyDeleteit might not look good at the Smithsonian..a stuffed Sasquatch!
I would like to ask Lisa if your so worried whether Bigfoot DNA is contaminated, why aren't we concerned with the DNA that is tested everyday in criminal human endeavors that know one throws their hands up about. DNA is only questioned for contamination when dealing with Bigfoot. I can see it now, "OMG it's human DNA must be contaminated" I know it will break your heart when it comes back human and not some dumb ape just deal with it ok sweetheart !
ReplyDeleteNope. A skeptic will always find a way to explain away evidence. The only thing can't be explained away is a captured or killed sasquatch.
ReplyDelete