Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

Soulskill posted about a month ago | from the film-at-never dept.

Science 198

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.

cancel ×

198 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Clever! (5, Funny)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | about a month ago | (#47366923)

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?... [youtube.com] )

Re:Clever! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367145)

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

Re:Clever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367223)

That's what they want you to believe!

Re:Clever! (3, Funny)

nospam007 (722110) | about a month ago | (#47367503)

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

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

Re:Clever! (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a month ago | (#47367629)

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...

Re:Clever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367849)

You completely miss the point. Bigfoot did not plant false DNA to throw us off his trail. He clearly represents a new frankenstein branch in the tree of life simultaneously related to all bears, dogs, and horses.

Americans (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47366927)

Wow Americans really are uneducated and will believe in all sorts of garbage. From this, to paranormal crap, to religion, to pseudoscience, to debunked science like autism being caused by vaccines, etc.

Re:Americans (0, Offtopic)

alphatel (1450715) | about a month ago | (#47366995)

Wow Americans really are uneducated and will believe in all sorts of garbage. From this, to paranormal crap, to religion, to pseudoscience, to debunked science like autism being caused by vaccines, etc.

Yes but not that Global Warming fiction!

Re:Americans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367233)

Of course not! No self-respecting bible-thumping redneck would believe in anything that's been tainted with science.

Re:Americans (2)

umghhh (965931) | about a month ago | (#47367469)

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

Re:Americans (5, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month ago | (#47367067)

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.

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367171)

Citation needed. There are people here (in Europe) who object to vaccines out of religious convictions, but they are a tiny minority, comparable to people who refuse blood transfusions out of religious conviction (though they are not Jehovah's Witnesses).

Re:Americans (3, Interesting)

Sique (173459) | about a month ago | (#47367203)

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.

Re:Americans (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47368475)

The anti-vaccine crazies have been around for decades. Well before wakefield committed fraud and illegal experimentation on children.

Re:Americans (0)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month ago | (#47367405)

Americans really are uneducated and will believe in all sorts of garbage [...] paranormal crap, religion, pseudoscience...

There's no need to repeat yourself.

Re:Americans (0, Troll)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a month ago | (#47368245)

AGW is Psuedo Science.. Every major prediction in the last 20 years has been completely falsified, yet plenty of people cling to it like a bible or a gun or something.

We should be many Degrees warmer and the Ice Sheets should be gone already, and flooding of Florida should nearly be complete. Don't forget about the Polar Bears Drowning ....

I look and see Piltdown Man all over again. "scientific consensus" means nothing, and isn't science.

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47368305)

In 2012, researchers at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and the Museum of Zoology in Lausanne, Switzerland, put out a call for hair samples thought to be from anomalous primates

Correct me if I'm wrong, after all I'm only an American, but those places aren't in America?

But this won't stop the History Channel (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47366939)

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

Re:But this won't stop the History Channel (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a month ago | (#47367683)

Don't forget the siffy channel, theyre into ghosts and other crap too

Re:But this won't stop the History Channel (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | about a month ago | (#47368419)

Yeah as they repeat the upright guy with the Yeti suit walking through the forrest up in Washington for the 5000 th time.

Re:But this won't stop the History Channel (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about a month ago | (#47368501)

Wait a minute, I *know* Bigfoot is real! I remember seeing Colonel Steve Austin fighting him back in the 70's!

Myths are socially hilarious (5, Insightful)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about a month ago | (#47366943)

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.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (0)

narcc (412956) | about a month ago | (#47366957)

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

Think about that for a bit. Do you see the problem? If you're having trouble, check out a website called youtube.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

Megol (3135005) | about a month ago | (#47367151)

There are no evidence on youtube so... WTF do you mean exactly?

BTW: http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopu... [zapatopi.net]

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

narcc (412956) | about a month ago | (#47367241)

Seriously? This isn't complicated.

If you visit any video sharing site, you'll find countless amateur videos purporting to be evidence of those 'kinds of things'. Now ask yourself: "Why don't these videos constitute evidence?"

Got it? Great, let's take that and apply it to the statement in question:

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

Do you see the problem with that statement now?

This is what happens when people trust Randall Munroe to do their thinking for them. (See: xkcd 1235 for the origin of the parent's nonsense.)

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a month ago | (#47367277)

Ask yourself. "is any of what I said an argument or am I trying to let the reader do my work?"

Now we're in agreement on that, do you see how wrong you are?

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

narcc (412956) | about a month ago | (#47367337)

"is any of what I said an argument or am I trying to let the reader do my work?"

Neither. Teach a man to fish, you know?

I could provide an argument, but it's pointless. They'll just spout more nonsense in defense of the nonsense they're repeating. If you're ability to reason and understanding of logic is that poor, you're not equipped to handle it. Better to let them work out the details themselves. Thinking is skilled work, after all.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month ago | (#47367431)

Thinking is hard. Let's go shopping!

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367339)

Do you see the problem with that statement now?

Nope. The mere fact that it's possible to fake some evidence does not mean that all or even most amateur video is useless. Non sequitur.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367365)

If you visit any video sharing site, you'll find countless amateur videos purporting to be evidence of those 'kinds of things'. Now ask yourself: "Why don't these videos constitute evidence?"

Because those videos are not of what people claim they are. Most are manipulated and faked. Those would only constitute evidence to gullible idiots.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month ago | (#47367441)

You just said yourself that most are manipulated and faked. That means a percentage, even if very low, is proof of whatever is recorded.

Just because we can't yet understand or measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Isn't the first rule of science to begin with "I don't know"?

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

EasyTarget (43516) | about a month ago | (#47367541)

No; the remainder are too fuzzy to show anything clearly; or don't actually show anything inexplicable, but the up-loaders really seriously believe they do.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | about a month ago | (#47367583)

Isn't the first rule of science to begin with "I don't know"?

Not when used as an excuse to believe in things which all evidence points to not existing. Science relies very heavily on testability, measurability and evidence. "I can't prove this is false so I better assume it is true" is the opposite of science. Science is "Assume false until evidence".

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a month ago | (#47367699)

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.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (0)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a month ago | (#47366997)

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.

Can I add divinities to your list? Or being invisible protects them from being proven just as fake.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367011)

Can I add divinities to your list? Or being invisible protects them from being proven just as fake.

To be honest, when humanity builds whole civilisations on arbitrarily chosen premises, I prefer it when they just declare an imaginary sky fairy than vigorously handwave bullshit. Catholicism, communism or capitalism - it's all the same ideological bullshit driven by powerlust.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (5, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a month ago | (#47367089)

Relevant XKCD [xkcd.com]

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

narcc (412956) | about a month ago | (#47367543)

LOL! One of Randall's worst, by far. IIRC, he even takes a beating on the forum for that one.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a month ago | (#47367931)

Yet, as soon as I saw GP, I started scrolling down looking to see if somebody already posted it.

Actually, I liked this one. It took me a second but, honestly, I think he makes a great, if somewhat tounge in cheek point. I can see more evidence of people's fancy breakfast than I care to count, a significant portion of the population has high definition cameras that do a great job, even in the hands of novices.... and nobody caught a picture of Nessy or Big foot yet?

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

peragrin (659227) | about a month ago | (#47367099)

ah that is because those are digital camera's. ghosts, big foots and ufo's only show up in analog photos.

digital stuff just can't reproduce all the details.

Haven't you ever listened to an audiophile talk about vinyl?

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month ago | (#47367207)

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.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month ago | (#47367457)

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

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month ago | (#47367193)

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!

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (4, Interesting)

physicsphairy (720718) | about a month ago | (#47367367)

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."

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367453)

Except that there's no real evidence that these things exist, so these people generally aren't reasonable. Furthermore, they'll point to evidence that has been proven to be fake and defend it to the death while tuning out any opposition. Calling these people reasonable is just unreasonable.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a month ago | (#47367859)

Some of the people might be reasonable but just with bad evidence that they don't know is proven false. Many more, though, are thoroughly mentally committed to the proven-false phenomenon and will take any debunking of their theory as propaganda from The Conspiracy that wants to keep everyone in the dark about it. (See: The Moon Landing Deniers.)

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a month ago | (#47368413)

You cannot prove falsehood. You can only establish likelyhood of truthfulness. While these seem to be the same thing, they are not. For as much as nobody has proof (and therefore unlikely) evidence of Sasquatch, it only takes one to prove it true, and that is still possible (though unlikely). While I doubt there is a Bigfoot living in various wildernesses, that doesn't mean they do not exist. It only proves I have doubts.

But then again, this is what makes for a wonderful conspiracy, the fact that you cannot prove it false (only unlikely). You cannot prove the government didn't setup 911, you can only prove that it isn't likely the government didn't set up 911, so the conspiracies remain and will remain. Just like Kennedy assassination, Oklahoma Federal Building, Waco, Sandy Hook, Aurora CO ....

The question isn't the conspiracy, it is how unlikely is it? You cannot prove a negative. While people say "it is proven false" are sincere in their statement, they are also wrong, what they should be saying is "It is highly unlikely that bigfoot/UFO/Ghosts exists". But we should also cut them a little slack, as they are probably as accurate as they can be.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (2)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a month ago | (#47368197)

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.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a month ago | (#47368467)

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.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47368327)

People can go to the zoo and encounter all sorts of species they never anticipated. Where can they experience quantum mechanics?

Aha! Finally an excuse to post this link: Double-slit experiment at home (1) [physicsforums.com] . Thank God for technological advancements to allow for cheap laser pens. :)

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a month ago | (#47367493)

It freaked Einstein out too ya know?

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

Z80a (971949) | about a month ago | (#47367225)

Even if there was any sort of "magical or supernatural event", it would end being just some regular but unknown physics property or some smart use of the existing laws.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month ago | (#47367415)

What really shocks me about our modern life full of cameras is how often a guy getting hit in the balls gets recorded. Then I wonder what percentage get captured on video and I just feel sick.

Then again, maybe "Ow my Balls!" will soon become a real show, probably on Fox.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about a month ago | (#47368149)

Then again, maybe "Ow my Balls!" will soon become a real show, probably on Fox.

It's already a real show. It's called Ridiculousness and it's on MTV.

Though I hate to admit it, I actually enjoy that show. But I realized a while back that it is essentially "Ow, My Balls". That knocked my self-regard down a peg.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a month ago | (#47367569)

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

I dunno, polar bear hybrids in the Himalayas. That's pretty interesting.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a month ago | (#47367805)

Actually, I think reality is far more interesting than we think it is. It just isn't "interesting" in the area of Bigfoot, UFOs, and ghosts. Look to astronomy, though, and we're constantly finding weird planets/stars/etc that challenge our current understandings of the Universe.

Re:Myths are socially hilarious (1)

ray-auch (454705) | about a month ago | (#47368465)

It just isn't "interesting" in the area of Bigfoot,

Um, 2 of the hair samples from the Himalayas match polar bears. 40,000yr old fossil polar bears. That is pretty interesting, no ?

JBS Haldane (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a month ago | (#47366975)

Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J... [wikiquote.org]

Almasty? (2)

Mondor (704672) | about a month ago | (#47366981)

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

Of course (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47366993)

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.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367575)

or it is an offspring of lesbian females of bear, horse and dog.

Horses and dogs and bears? (1)

return 42 (459012) | about a month ago | (#47367025)

Oh my!

Re:Horses and dogs and bears? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367369)

man-bear-pig DNA may have also contaminated the horse-dog-bear samples.

Re:Horses and dogs and bears? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month ago | (#47367471)

Thank you, I was getting near the end of the comments and I feared for a second that nobody had written man-bear-pig vs horse-dog-bear yet.

I've believed in the abominable snow man. (0)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a month ago | (#47367027)

(now questioned)

I've believe something like the big foot or more importantly the abominable snow man for many years now.

Due to Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, also known as the Andes flight disaster, in South America, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1... [wikipedia.org] this was a rugby team that crashed and survived close to two months, on a snow whipped mountain top.

The big deal about this crash is they had to eat the dead to live. The book (which I read) mentions two large "ape like creatures were that were "busy" in the route they were taking to get down so they diverted. They tried to wait them out but grew tired of waiting so circled around them. It sounded like they ("apes") were waiting for the survivor out of curiosity.

They might of of been called abominable snow men in the book but there was no real clue what they were other than very large, ape looking beings (given bears they could of been).

Re:I've believed in the abominable snow man. (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a month ago | (#47367051)

Edit: the name of the book was "Alive!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]

Re:I've believed in the abominable snow man. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a month ago | (#47367195)

Have you seen the movie adaptation of the same name? I can't speak for accuracy as I haven't read the book but it was very engaging.

Loch ness DNA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367033)

Sasquatch may not be true; but there is still a dinosaur in a loch in Scotland.

Re:Loch ness DNA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367473)

So...Southpark was partially right... (5, Funny)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month ago | (#47367045)

It wasn't ManBearPig [wikipedia.org] it was ManBearHorseDog! Quickly someone let Al Gore know!

Re:So...Southpark was partially right... (1)

Al Gore (verified) (3728615) | about a month ago | (#47367383)

I'm super cereal!

Inconclusive (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | about a month ago | (#47367159)

Chupacabra isn't included.

Not even our scientific laboratory can detect Big (1)

nhat11 (1608159) | about a month ago | (#47367177)

foot... that's how elusive they're!!

Documentary series (5, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about a month ago | (#47367181)

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.

12s to oblivion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367227)

so one matched DNA of a human yet they state still no matches.... when do we have DNA of a Sasquatch anyways?
They have nothing to compare and still could be human with over jealous hair genetics.

Re:12s to oblivion (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month ago | (#47367521)

...still could be human with over jealous hair genetics.

You're talking about Ruby Rhod, right?

Alternate theory. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a month ago | (#47367231)

It's human on its father's side.

Re:Alternate theory. (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month ago | (#47367529)

And Wookiee on its mother's side.

Re: Alternate theory. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367759)

I don't think I could get drunk enough to hit that!

Horse! (1)

SeeingMole (1965542) | about a month ago | (#47367247)

Even here, they've managed to mix in some horse!

This headline sucks due t inaccuracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367341)

First it's 'DNA Samples', then next it clarifies and says this is RNA, so we're actually only getting a view of what the mother was (the mother of bigfoot may apparently be human, or a horse, or a dog, or a bear). Subsequent references discuss 'DNA' and 'RNA' interchangeably like it means something. Seriously, how did this get past an editor?

Re:This headline sucks due t inaccuracy (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a month ago | (#47367347)

RNA and mitochondrial DNA are two different things, I thought?

The mishmash of DNA is to be expected (2)

dietdew7 (1171613) | about a month ago | (#47367349)

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.

The mishmash of DNA is to be expected (2)

Black Copter Control (464012) | about a month ago | (#47368405)

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.

Bigfoot doesn't exist (1)

myth24601 (893486) | about a month ago | (#47367401)

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.

Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47367413)

I'm not a Bigfoot believer or anything — I personally am the closest thing I know of — but the excuse is that they eat their dead.

Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367451)

The closest thing to a bigfoot?

Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47367567)

The closest thing to a bigfoot?

I'm two meters tall, got plenty of mass to me, quite hairy, and I often sound like a wookie when I yawn. Not to mention, I wear a size 16. "Sasquatch" is one of my nicknames from high school.

Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a month ago | (#47367879)

Including the bones? And what if one Bigfoot is wandering the woods, gets injured and dies alone? Do the other Bigfoot hunt his corpse down (knowing where it is due to psychic abilities or something) for the sole purpose of eating him? Even if Bigfoot did eat their own dead, there would still be traces.

Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist (1)

Triklyn (2455072) | about a month ago | (#47368441)

ha, shows how much you know, bigfoots don't die.

Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367537)

And I am 100% certain you have not found it.
I am also certain that 100% of basement dwellers dropped off in the wilderness would be dead within 72 hours.
The saddest part about the whole thing is, even though the democrats could wiñ the white house with anyone they trotted out, you are going to get Hillary.

Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a month ago | (#47367631)

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.

Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist (3, Informative)

niado (1650369) | about a month ago | (#47367983)

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 [wikipedia.org]
List of recently discovered mammals [wikipedia.org]
List of cryptids [wikipedia.org]

Not very many on the second list that I would consider "large" (scientific definition of "large" in the context of megafauna [wikipedia.org] 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, [wikipedia.org] discovered over a century ago.

Re:Bigfoot doesn't exist (1)

Graydyn Young (2835695) | about a month ago | (#47368503)

Well, Bigfoot does seem pretty unlikely at this point, but what about Yeti? Some form of undocumented mountain ape that lives in the Himalayas seems totally plausible to me. It's not like people are going through leisurely jaunts up the Himalayas with their camera phones.

Not all work was wasted (2)

Flavianoep (1404029) | about a month ago | (#47367427)

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.

Strange twist? (1)

slater86 (1154729) | about a month ago | (#47367499)

So bigfoot turns out to be manbearpig. Didn't see that coming.

Recent Bigfoot sighting in NJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47367771)

Some have connected that creature to the closing of several lanes of traffic on a bridge.

Proof that Slashdot editors ARE working (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47368061)

The original headline was Alleged 'Bigfoot' DNA Samples Sequenced, Turn Out To Be Horses, Dogs, and Bears, Oh my!

What more proof do you need?

I, for one, welcome... (1)

kick6 (1081615) | about a month ago | (#47368383)

our new horsedogbear overlords.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>