You are being hopelessly pedantic. I can compare an unknown with knowns. Bring me this new, unknown DNA. show me how it is distinctly not human, bear, beaver, etc. Show me how it most closely matches something, or doesn't. Determine that it is in fact unknown DNA belonging to an unidentified mammal (we have markers for mammals, riiiiggghhhht?), and place it as best you can in the phylogenetic tree after sequencing. The problem with your analogy is you set it up to where we don't have markers for the most cosmopolitan mammal on Earth: us. It's like saying "if you never knew about genes, how could you analyze the DNA?!" It's dumb. We have fully sequenced the human genome. We have markers for all of the species you mentioned and more. Hell, we have them for pretty much every mammal in the western hemisphere. Bring that bigfoot DNA and show that it is of none of these. Don't give me that horseshit "99% fruitfly" stuff. Sharing 99 % genes with a fruit fly in no way hinders the ability to distinguish between a fruit fly's DNA and most anything else's, same as you and I being genetically 99.999% the same doesn't make us indistinguishable.
It absolutely does make us indistinguishable for the purpose of proving or disproving exactness. You are essentially saying Bigfoot DNA lacks known markers for squirrel, rabbit, human, blah, blah, blah. And there is no proof that that is true; thus DNA is proof of nothing. Like kpt said, it is merely evidence based on best known data. It is not proof. So again, here's some DNA.
You are. You're saying "show me the DNA," but it's been shown, yet you repeat the mantra as if the DNA that has been shown is proof against the notion. It isn't. Feel free to look at any number of provided DNA samples gathered from "sightings," and put it in the column for you as evidence against, but understand that it fits in both columns, for and against, and your best argument against why it shouldn't fit in the "for" column relies on "known DNA markers" that cannot be factually stated to NOT exist in the unknown's DNA. So you, IP, stop putting forth this idea that DNA is proof, and so again, I say, "here is the DNA, now what?"
Point of order: Tenny only relayed what a dude that I know has said. Next Trump argument, someone will accuse me of believing in Bigfoot and accusing me of failing to produce some promised evidence of it. And somehow, it'll make me a racist for failing to provide it.
Quote me saying DNA would be proof. Again I say, provide the DNA of the alleged creature, and demonstrate that it isn't human, bear, beaver, raccoon, dog, etc. That's the challenge to the alleged evidence. Call me idiotic and invent the straw man that I called alleged DNA of a creature I am pretty certain doesn't exist "proof" all you like, if that is what gives you satisfaction. I can't stop doing something I never did in the first place.
Point of order acknowledged, I didn't mean to imply otherwise regarding the usage of the word "evidence." Don't worry about Bigfoot, the Gruden angles have more sting around here.
Is there a precedent in nature for this sort of thing? Are there animals whose unique markers (those that differentiate them from their closest relatives) show up in other animals ironically? For example, does a sequence of DNA unique to Bonobos also appear in warthogs?
A plumber from Minneapolis — who claims he has seen Bigfoot — was wearing a homemade suit of raccoon pelts in the woods of North Carolina when a group of Bigfoot hunters mistook him for the legendary beast. Gawain MacGregor, 36, said he was alone Friday night in McDowell County, northeast of Asheville, when he donned his furry suit to perform a shamanistic ritual. http://nypost.com/2017/08/10/i-dont-want-any-trouble-how-i-was-mistaken-for-bigfoot/
Provide the evidence that DNA from Bigfoot cannot resemble human, bear, beaver, raccoon, dog, etc. You cannot prove a negative, and that is exactly what you are asking. So for the third time, I provide your quote talking about proof. And for the third time, I quote you. Right. Up. There.
If it were unique, by definition, it cannot exist in both. What is looked at is proteins traveling through a media. Those proteins have weight and dimension, and leave marks when stained. And those markers generally travel and separate similarly for similar species. This is the type of study most are doing on discovered DNA, because it is fairly cheap. They aren't being sequenced. If this were a new fossil found, the banding would help place that, and so too would the fossil, by using the fossil record. Since that doesn't exist for Bigfoot, the conclusion can only be drawn from DNA is that of its nearest relative. Hair samples undergo a similar testing, but based on banding. Again, only so far as "closest match." These tests are non-specific, and the colletions easily contaminated. But yes, two distinct species can exhibit near identical banding that requires further study, but they must be closely related.
Wow, some of that sounds pretty similar to other things said in this thread. Idiotic things. PM me for my address. I will forward your sample off any time. Spoiler: it won't be an unknown if it is a fur bearing creature in north america.
Yes, it will be an unknown. For the fourth time, I quote you speaking of proof. Proof leaves no possibility for any other explanation. Evidence leaves the possibility. Any DNA sample I submit to you will be less than 100%. Any. Mine. Yours. Any DNA sample. Thus all DNA is called evidence, reported as belonging to its closest KNOWN match. It doesn't mean there isn't a closer match that is unknown. So again, you speak of absolutes, which is known as proof. And again, you are shown to not understand he difference between proof and evidence, or even what DNA is capable of showing when matching.
Float. You can't quote me using the word proof to describe that DNA. This is semantic nonsense. Or is the word proof indistinguishable from "show me the DNA so I can test it against known species?" Are those 100% indistinguishable pieces of text?
