Originally posted by BrokenCircles.....anyways, One person(some sort of scientist) was talking about the DNA he had tested that was
allegedly from something thought to possibly be Bigfoot hair. I don't know much about DNA, but he was claiming that 1 specific section of the DNA
strand was almost identical to part of Human DNA. Aside from that 1 little section, most of it wasn't even close to Human.
Yes, I have heard this claim 3 times inside the Bigfoot DNA testing 'community' (were there such a thing). There are two types of DNA in our genomic
1. Mitochondrial DNA - mtDNA - which is handed down from the mother to progeny via the mitochondria in the cytoplasm in the zygote - and not via
nuclear material, - and ONLY carries the maternal history of an individual's genome.
2. Nuclear DNA - nDNA - which is the complete gamete fusion of mother and father DNA into the nucleus genome of the cell which forms the zygote (us,
in genomic library terms).
Most DNA analysis is performed on mtDNA because there are only 16,569 base pairs in human mtDNA - which is not really that much. It is usually value
laden and much much cheaper. Cambridge University and a few other sources cite benchmarks that one mutation will naturally occur inside .0033-.0043 of
a bacterial sized genome in a generation. There is debate over this. Nonetheless, we can generally origin-age our human mtDNA roughly by how many
and what type of mutation record is extant in it.
So when they analyze a 'Bigfoot' hair, the first thing to look at is the mtDNA. The extraordinary claim is that it shows up to be basically human.
An old version of human, but human nonetheless. The result I saw published in one study links a purported Bigfoot hair and skin sample back to Homo
sapiens haplotype A10L1A2 mitochondrion (16,558 bp per Mishmar, Pesini, Golik, et al.).
Now that is a version of human which is 15,500 years old.
So, it begs the question. If it is not a Bigfoot hair, where did they get a sample of 15,500 year old human mtDNA? Not from accidental
contamination, and not by going out and yanking hairs off people's heads on the street at random, hoping to get an OLD human DNA sample.
Where did they get this old human DNA?
The only two options are Bigfoot is linked to 15,500 year old human DNA, or the studier fraudulently stealing an old human mtDNA sample and salting it
into the test materials, or paying the external labs off to publish fiction.
In any case, these are indeed claims, not observations - and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. So, this should be replicated by a
competing open science peer review group with the same sample base used in the claim study.
Otherwise, if they are not willing to do this, we are forced to assume fraud as the only viable explanation. I am growing weary of constantly having
to parsimonious conclusions that everything is fraud on this topic.
edit on 29-7-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)