It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sasquatch Clone!!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Would it be possible to clone a Sasquatch from the DNA in the hair samples that have been collected? If so, an answer would finally be available after hundreds of years of sightings! Could this happen?

[edit on 15-6-2005 by anthromagnonadonis85]




posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
If you had DNA from hair, or tissue samples... it would be better than cloning the thing, it would prove its existance.

No one has ever provided physical evidence on the DNA level. Not even people who claim to have fur, tracks, droppings, etc.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   


No one has ever provided physical evidence on the DNA level. Not even people who claim to have fur, tracks, droppings, etc.

Yup....screw the clone idea. The evidence of an existing sasquatch would be better. In order to have a clone, first you need something to clone. and as of now...there is nothing to clone.

Good idea tho



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
If you had DNA from hair, or tissue samples... it would be better than cloning the thing, it would prove its existance.

No one has ever provided physical evidence on the DNA level. Not even people who claim to have fur, tracks, droppings, etc.


They haven't ??

paranormal.about.com...

www.bigfootencounters.com...

www.bfro.net...

The test's have been ran, and they are inconclusive...

Most of what I've read, it is of an unknown creature...



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Originally posted by Quest
If you had DNA from hair, or tissue samples... it would be better than cloning the thing, it would prove its existance.

No one has ever provided physical evidence on the DNA level. Not even people who claim to have fur, tracks, droppings, etc.


They haven't ??

paranormal.about.com...

www.bigfootencounters.com...

www.bfro.net...

The test's have been ran, and they are inconclusive...

Most of what I've read, it is of an unknown creature...



Inconclusive does not imply it is a cryptid. Inconclusive means it could not be positively identified as any known species. It could be a deer or bear or primate but just cannot be determined exactly which from the sample.

Contrary to the miracle DNA testing they do on TV hair and soft tissue degrades relatively quickly after exposure to the elements. Bone and teeth protect it longer, but getting a good sample from hair that has been exposed to extremes of temperature and humidity, and chewed on by insects and fungi....



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Yea on this show they found hair on a sharp spike bit of bark where something was nesting. Twant bear or human or monkey or nething. Its DNA was indistinguisable.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
even if you have the hair doesnt mean you can do anything with it, that is unless its complete with the follicle thing attached.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Yep coz thats where the nucleus with all the "data" is. I think the actual hair is just dead amino acids (obviously among other stuff....just not data, they can still verify what it is using the hair even without the follical, but its useless yur right)



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
You also can't know for sure if it came from a bigfoot, and the dna will probably damaged considering the environment it prefers.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
but i hope you know DNA cant be damaged so it doesnt resemble a bears. If its bigfoot DNA, its bigfoot DNA, nucleus damaged or not



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I have to say that in my opinion it would be impossible to clone a sasquatch. Let me explain:
a) you need a womb to grow a cloned embyo
b) transplanting an embryo from one species to another doesn't work
c) you would need a female sasquatch with a healthy reproductive system to carry the cloned fetus
d) if you had a female sasqautch handy then you wouldn't need to clone one

I feel that if viable DNA was found from a saquatch but no creature itself then the DNA would be useless as the scientists would have no reference to figure out what the genes do. They could map the creatures genome but it would be useless as they would have no idea what many genes control. Most likely it would be a novelty and not of any use in a practical manner.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
You could of course grow it in a person.......or a large mammal if placing it in a human is deemed unethical.....yes it will be fed by the surrogate mother but if the DNA of the embryo is initially 100% (for the sake of simplicity lets call it bigfoot) bigfoot feotus will develop into 99% bigfoot baby, child, adult.

Not that i'm an doctor or anything but 1. Since it is placed in the womb it is protected from antibodies or whatever and is not rejected by the body (although i heard sometimes drugs are neccesary????:puz
and 2. No extra DNA is given to the Feotus so it wont become a hybrid or anything.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
However there have so far been no real instances of an animal being grown inside an animal from a different species. There was the idea of the chimps being IVF'd with orangutangs or whatever, see if it works. Duno where i heard it though. maybe then if it works theyll take some cells, reproduce base cells, (it will take a while to find how exactly they do this.....sigh...so ask if ya want i guess) and produce sperm and egg cells, make an embryo, stick it in sumthing and voila. Ok so thats the short SHORT version but i cant be bothered to write in depth



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Oh JESUS...IT's THOSE DAMN

SAND-SQUAMPCHES



I doubt they can be cloned. Why cant they be though? Testtbue babies dont exist yet?

[edit on 20-6-2005 by Bane Of Your Existence]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I seriously doubt that a sasquatch clone is a likely event. It's not nearly as easy as it's been made out to be. Here are some links to info on the difficulties in the process:

www.npr.org...

The existence of Dolly the Sheep, Copy Cat, and rumors of human clone pregnancies suggest that cloning is a relatively straightforward process. It's not. Most attempts fail. A report in Science magazine indicates that this is probably because the nucleus of the transferred adult cell fails to reprogram and behave like an embryonic nucleus.


www.kamero.net...

The stress placed on both the egg cell and the introduced nucleus are enormous, leading to a high mortality rate in resulting cells. As the procedure currently cannot be automated, but has to be performed manually under a microscope, SCNT is very resource intensive.
The biochemistry involved in "activating" the recipient egg is far from understood.
Not all of the donor cell's genetic information is transferred. DNA of organelles (mostly mitochondria) is left behind, with the resulting cells retaining those structures which originally belonged to the egg.


www.npr.org...

But in cloning, the DNA of an "ordinary" adult cell -- whether it's a skin cell or a kidney cell - is essentially being forced to assume the powerful and versatile starter state normally found only in egg and sperm. That switching or transforming process, known as reprogramming, occurs when the adult cell nucleus is inserted into an egg whose own nucleus has been removed. There are special proteins in the egg cytoplasm that facilitate reprogramming. Most scientists believe cloning fails so frequently because this reprogramming doesn't work properly. Indeed, some scientists believe it never works properly, and that no cloned animal is completely normal.


You see for cloning to work you would need a female sasquatch to donate several unfertalized eggs and other cells to preform the cloning. Also you would need a female bigfoot to carry the embryo/fetus to term. Thus if you had a healthy living female sasquatch then you would have no need to clone one.

Also don't forget alot of good data about clones is beginning to suggest that a clone can never be a healthy organism because the process of creating life is altered so drasticly in the process.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
didnt they already find some bigfoot hair???



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Why not just put it in a normal gorrila? Then have a half sasquatch?


Originally posted by looking4truth
I have to say that in my opinion it would be impossible to clone a sasquatch. Let me explain:
a) you need a womb to grow a cloned embyo
b) transplanting an embryo from one species to another doesn't work
c) you would need a female sasquatch with a healthy reproductive system to carry the cloned fetus
d) if you had a female sasqautch handy then you wouldn't need to clone one

I feel that if viable DNA was found from a saquatch but no creature itself then the DNA would be useless as the scientists would have no reference to figure out what the genes do. They could map the creatures genome but it would be useless as they would have no idea what many genes control. Most likely it would be a novelty and not of any use in a practical manner.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
sigh....biology 101 anybody?

ok read the ting about base cells etc

you cant mate a gorilla sperm with a sasquatch egg, its incompatible dna, u have to have all sasquatch bits, or a relation (EXTREMELY close relation) to sasquatch.




top topics



 
0

log in

join