Slashdot Mirror


Alleged 'Bigfoot' DNA Samples Sequenced, Turn Out To Be Horses, Dogs, and Bears

sciencehabit writes: In North America, they're called Bigfoot or Sasquatch. In the Himalayan foothills, they're known as yeti or abominable snowmen. And Russians call them Almasty. But in the scientific laboratory, these elusive, hairy, humanoid creatures are nothing more than bears, horses, and dogs. That's the conclusion of a new study—the first peer-reviewed, genetic survey of biological samples claimed to be from the shadowy beasts. To identify the evolutionary source of each sample, the team determined the sequence of a gene—found inside the mitochondria of cells—that encodes the 12S RNA, which is often used for species identification. Unlike standard DNA, mitochondrial genes are passed only from mother to offspring.

Seven of the samples didn’t yield enough DNA for identification. Of the 30 that were sequenced, all matched the exact 12S RNA sequences for known species, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Ten hairs belonged to various bear species; four were from horses; four were from wolves or dogs; one was a perfect match to a human hair; and the others came from cows, raccoons, deer, and even a porcupine. Two samples, from India and Bhutan, matched polar bear 12S RNA—a surprising finding that Sykes is following up on to determine whether some Himalayan bears are hybrid species with polar bears.

33 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Clever! by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That is what Sasquatch wants you to believe by placing DNA from other sources!!!!
    Now excuse me, I see I need to go out and spay those nasty chemtrails again. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... )

    1. Re:Clever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am not up on my conspiracy lore, but it seems unlikely to me that chemtrails have genitals.

    2. Re:Clever! by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Two samples, from India and Bhutan, matched polar bear 12S RNA"

      Obviously there was a Dharma Initiative station there at some time.

    3. Re:Clever! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Actually, it's just racist scientists badmouthing BearHorseDog for nothing else than being BearHorseDog in the first place. Horrible. You would have thought we left things like this in the 19th century, but no...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Clever! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      If the chemtrails didn't have genitals, how would they be able to impregnate a horse, a woman and a polar bear with bigfoot sperm?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    5. Re:Clever! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      Laugh all you like, but the result will just be that half the cryptozoologists take up the belief that yeti-alikes are hybrids caused by drunken idiots sh*gging horses and polar bears. (How any man would get that close to a polar bear is beyond me, though.)

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  2. But this won't stop the History Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From making more BS shows about something that doesn't exist, and people selling books on fabricated facts.

    1. Re:But this won't stop the History Channel by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can excuse syfy. It's the history channel and the learning channel I can't excuse.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. Myths are socially hilarious by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 5, Insightful

    UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts!

    You would think the modern age of cameras in everyone's phones would produce evidence-a-plenty of these kinds of things.

    But reality is far less interesting than we want it to be ...

    No magic, no supernatural stuff --- and sadly no bigfoots or aliens that bother to come here and snatch cows.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Relevant XKCD

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But reality is far less interesting than we want it to be ...

      For some reason I end up talking to a lot of people that believe in this nonsense... especially ghosts. My main argument is usally that their view of the world is just too mundane. Ghosts? No... the universe is far stranger, far wackier then that. Then I go on to explain Relativity and Quantum mechanics. They freak out, refuse to believe it. They'll believe in a 7' tall ape man living in the pacific northwest that no ones ever found a corpse for... but a sub atomic particle being in 2 places at once? I'm just crazy!

    3. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      My favorite is when they shut off the breaker to the "Haunted house" and them use some $3 EM sensor they got off ebay to show all the "energy" in the air. Apparently the local power company invented EM radiation and the rest of the universe must abide by our circuit breakers.

    4. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be fair, in the domain of common experience a 7' tall ape man living in the pacific northwest *is* far less crazy than the idea of a subatomic particle being in two places at once.

      Many scientists of yesteryear were hardly willing to accept such preposterousness, though I imagine they would not have batted an eye at an undiscovered hominid of unusual cleverness. (In fact, sometimes they seemed to be far too trusting when evidence of new hominids was presented to them.) People can go to the zoo and encounter all sorts of species they never anticipated. Where can they experience quantum mechanics?

      It's only through substantial and careful methodological treatment of the evidence that we're able to develop the capacity to distinguish truth which contradicts intuition, accepting the fantastic but real and dismissing the common but false.

      My wild and probably quite unpopular thinking on this is as such: the people you describe are perfectly reasonable people. They are drawing reasonable(ish) conclusions. They just lack access to the expanded toolset and and supply of evidence modern science has provided. What if instead of calling their theories a bunch of hocus pocus, we simply sent them on the right trail? Used the Socratic method, as it were. They are clearly already interested in the subject of undiscovered species, so "You think there is a wild ape man? Interesting. I wonder how we could prove its existence. What about DNA evidence? There's this great book called 'Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters.' Maybe we could read it to learn a bit more about genetics and see if it helps us come up with any ideas."

    5. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      The last time a friend of mine talked about his vinyl collection, it was about his blow-up sex dolls.

    6. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      I think you're lacking in context here. In the 1980s and 1990s, the absence, poor quality or ambiguity of supernatural photos and video was always justified by the fact that not everyone had a camera with them at any given moment, and that the cameras were unweildy and difficult to operate. Now that cameras are ubiquitous, easy to operate, and far higher quality, the quality of the evidence has not improved, which rather implies that it was all camera glitches and mistaken identity to begin with.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      My wild and probably quite unpopular thinking on this is as such: the people you describe are perfectly reasonable people. They are drawing reasonable(ish) conclusions. They just lack access to the expanded toolset and and supply of evidence modern science has provided. What if instead of calling their theories a bunch of hocus pocus, we simply sent them on the right trail?

      Some folks don't want to be on the right trail. The right trail is kind of hard. The right trail also requires the ability to throw away knowledge when it is disproven. If the History Channel shows a program that has script like "Some scientists believe that humans were descended from DNA experiments by aliens from outer space" well there you have it. That was a lot easier than studying biology, anthropology, and physics.

      Or of course the easiest explanation of them all.

      Used the Socratic method, as it were. They are clearly already interested in the subject of undiscovered species, so "You think there is a wild ape man? Interesting. I wonder how we could prove its existence.

      They aren't all that interested. They saw a History channel show, and probably fell for the old false dichotomy trick. You think you are trying to help, but they are just very casually interested, and more likely to just enjoy arguing with you for the fun of it.

      What about DNA evidence? There's this great book called 'Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters.' Maybe we could read it to learn a bit more about genetics and see if it helps us come up with any ideas."

      There are a lot of books out there. A lot of evidence. It's shoveling shit against the tide. I think it is based on a fundamentally different thought process. The person that thinks like a scientist wants to know what the truth is, and looks for evidence of what that truth is. The vast majority of people decide what the truth is first, then look for evidence for what they have already decided.

      The latter group cannot understand that there would be a different manner of thinking. That's why they talk about atheism as being a religion, or that a scientist's personality determines the veracity of his work, or that debate can change the laws of physics.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMHO, true Atheists don't talk about atheism. Those that do, border on religious. I don't talk about not believing in the FSM or Pink Unicorns or .... because I don't believe in them. If I ran into someone that believed in those things, I would simply be amused and go on my way. But this isn't the case for vocal atheists, who run around recruiting like Jehovah's Witnesses people to their cause. They even sponsor, like churches, the "Atheists of Butte County " Roadside clean ups and get a hwy sign, just like a church.

      If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck like creature.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Arker · · Score: 2

      While I wont dispute I have seen people that remind me of your description, I would caution against applying it too liberally. Just having e.g. an Atheist organization that functions something like a church does not necessarily imply anything religious. Churches themselves, often, have little if anything to do with religion. They are communitarian institutions, social institutions, and it makes sense that atheists would feel the same need for socializing as theists do.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    10. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IMHO, true Atheists don't talk about atheism. Those that do, border on religious.

      Fascinating that you take one small throway statement in my contribution to th ediscussion, and turn it into the never ending "attack on religion". meme. Which in itself was just part of a group of people who I believe think differently than the scientifically inclined.

      But since you steered it this way.........

      While I don't recruit new atheists, I am not all that amenable to people who have a long list of abominations thet their God commands them to kill people for.

      Ant therein lies the issue. There are Christians out there who would gladly kill me for my lack of belief - and they have verse and scripture to justify that. It's not possible to dent that it has occurred, and still does occasionally (usually gays at this time) But 2 Chronicals 15 tells us of the penalties for nonbelievers.

      They even sponsor, like churches, the "Atheists of Butte County " Roadside clean ups and get a hwy sign, just like a church.

      If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck like creature.

      This is exactly what I am talking about. You are sitting there taking umbrage that Atheists are sponsoring a roadside cleanup. "Just like a church."

      Churches do not own the rights to road cleanup efforts. Road cleanup is not the exclusive right of churches, and shame on you for insinuating that atheists are trying to horn in on the churches domain.

      Iin my area, Fraternities sponsor road cleanup, there is a society of chemical scientists, Some individual families, and some local businesses. Other student groups. And a couple churches. But the majority is not churches.

      It's a good thing that these people do.

      But despite your desires, the real reason that a lot of church-targeted groups have decided to not sit in silence and conform to what the fundamentalists demand is that many of them are in the same groups that the fundamentalists want to eliminate. Others just don't want whacky ideas like the world being created in 4004 b.c.e. or that the speed of light speeds up and slows down conveniently or that the Flintstone Cartoon was a documentary (that's a joke)

      I mean the absolute crap that went down in Arizona recently was religion oriented, The "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", or Georgia's HB1023, and SB377 bills Idaho's HB427 and HB426, Mississippi's Religious Freedom Restoration act has passed, and Missouri's Senate bill 916.

      All of these allow Businesses to refuse to do business with anyone they feel like, and call it religious belief.

      Arizona's Governor only vetoed it because a lot of businesses, and the Superbowl were planning on pulling out:

      http://washingtonexaminer.com/...

      So no no no, dear believer. As much as you might desire that Atheists, and Homos, and all those other yucky people you want to muzzle would just keep their mouths shut, and not sponsor roadside cleanups and not meet to discuss anything.

      We've seen your plans, and how you want to implement them. You do not have the right to deny other people their rights, and those

      This has drifted far off topic, and if someone wants to mod me off topic, they should have the decency to do the samt to your post too.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Myths are socially hilarious by SillyHamster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And therein lies the issue. There are Christians out there who would gladly kill me for my lack of belief - and they have verse and scripture to justify that. It's not possible to dent that it has occurred, and still does occasionally (usually gays at this time) But 2 Chronicals 15 tells us of the penalties for nonbelievers.

      And who are those Christians, exactly? Where do they live? What groups have they formed? How many people have they killed in their fervor to live out 2 Chronicles 15?

      There's actually a religion out there known for killing unbelievers (and believers), but this citation of a singular verse in the Old Testament as evidence that Christianity is bloodthirsty against unbelievers is pretty pathetic.

  4. Almasty? by Mondor · · Score: 2

    Well, Russians are calling it the Snow Man. Almasty is what it's called in Caucasus - Chechnya and so on. Just saying.

  5. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The logical explanation is that Bigfoot has no mitochondria, and that the results obtained are from contamination. Scientists really shouldn't bring their pet polar bears to the lab.

  6. So...Southpark was partially right... by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Funny

    It wasn't ManBearPig it was ManBearHorseDog! Quickly someone let Al Gore know!

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  7. Re:Americans by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm guessing you've never been to EU, Russia, Africa or Asia. Paranormal crap is even bigger business in Asia and Africa than it is in the US, pseudoscience outshines the US in many Asian nations, and autism by vaccines is pretty much equal universally across this rock(I take this as a fair point that no matter how smart someone claims to be, stupidity is a universal trait). I'm surprised that you didn't get in with "fattest nation" but then you'd be talking about Mexico.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  8. Documentary series by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Informative

    Channel 4 put out a three-part documentary series about this research last year, called Bigfoot Files. Depending on the episode you got a mixture of local legends, interviews with bigfoot chasers, and of course the search for and testing of the putative hominid remains. The article mentions that one of the samples tested as human; there's a rather heartbreaking local tale behind that. Very nicely done and desensationalised.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  9. Re:Americans by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is just an anecdote, but anyway. When we had our first child, I was in serveral lectures about child upbringing and first aid and similar. One was in Frankfurt(Main), Germany, by a physician who strongly opposed vaccination and had lots of graphs and pictures to support his stance. He didn't mention the vaccination-autism-connection, because that seems to never have caused the big craze in Germany as in the U.S. and U.K.. But the people there didn't seem to be of the religious type (Religion isn't that big in Germany anyway, especially not in large urban regions), but more of the wealthy non-conformist affiliation.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  10. The mishmash of DNA is to be expected by dietdew7 · · Score: 2

    Bigfoot has shape shifting abilities. That would explain why there is so little evidence of his existence. A shape shifting big foot turns the big foot is a robot theory on its ear.

  11. Not all work was wasted by Flavianoep · · Score: 2

    Two samples, from India and Bhutan, matched polar bear 12S RNA—a surprising finding that Sykes is following up on to determine whether some Himalayan bears are hybrid species with polar bears.

    While it may look like a waste of time searching for bigfoot, something unexpected and interesting was found.

    --
    Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
  12. Re:Americans by umghhh · · Score: 2

    judging on the '-1' score neither group has sense of humor

  13. Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist by niado · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seriously, we have never found any corpses from this beast and with the amount that man has spread out, I am 100% certain we would have found the beast by now.

    At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic, just a few years ago I remember seeing several scientists stating on camera that they believed that every large mammal on earth was already documented and known to science. Not long after that I read a news piece reporting the discovery of several previously unknown species of mammals including a species of deer that reportedly weighs in at 150lb. Another example is a species of whale native to the Southern Arctic that is only known from a few DNA samples obtained from whalers. The point being that even though it is fun to ridicule crypto zoologists, there are numerous examples even in this day and age of unknown species hiding right under our noses.

    Here are some relevant lists for your perusal:

    List of megafauna discovered in modern times
    List of recently discovered mammals
    List of cryptids

    Not very many on the second list that I would consider "large" (scientific definition of "large" in the context of megafauna is somewhat ambiguous, though often bounded on the lower end at 100 pounds). Most of the creatures on these lists are very similar to already known and described species (the giant peccary, for example), and aren't very impressive discoveries from a lay viewpoint. Notice on the "list of cryptids" there is only one creature with "confirmed" status - the Okapi, discovered over a century ago.

  14. The mishmash of DNA is to be expected by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2
    Since mitochondrial DNA is passed on by the mother, this means that it's still possible that some guy's going around getting bears, dogs and horses pregnant. The human DNA match, of course would be from a woman getting pregnant by a bear.

    The mystery continues.

    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  15. Reinhold Messner was right! by 14erCleaner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Legendary alpinist Reinhold Messner once wrote a book about his encounters with suspected Yetis in the Himalaya. He concluded that they were bears, a variant of Ursus Arctos, the same species as polar bears.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
  16. Re:Americans by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

    The original study linking vaccination to autism was from the UK. The press has really overstated the anti-vaxer thing in the US. I don't remember the exact statistic, but close to 99% of American children are vaccinated (at least partially). Most of the ones who aren't are clustered in immigrant communities, that's why we see the outbreaks. It poses no threat to the general population.