Geneticists Chime in on Bigfoot DNA Paper

The following was extracted from Eric Berger's Science Blog, which can be found here:

"First up is Richard Gibbs, one of the key scientists behind the Human Genome Project and director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at Baylor College of Medicine:
“As a scientist I would consider anything.The currency of scientific advance is keeping your skepticism at bay. You have to approach these things incredibly agnostically. As I read the paper I asked, is the evidence here compelling? I don’t know. Is there clear evidence of fraud? That’s not apparent. It’s an intriguing hypothesis. One would need to view more sequencing information before supporting the conclusions.”
Specifically, Gibbs said, it’s standard protocol to upload the raw sequencing data which can then be analyzed to determine whether this is a new species, or simply an amalgam of existing species. Only a text file, which is unhelpful, accompanies the paper.
Next is the view from Leonid Kruglyak, a Princeton University geneticist:
“To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid. Instead, analyses either come back as 100% human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts. They make the bizarre claim that the failures might be caused by novel, nonstandard structure of the DNA (“Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR.”) which would mean this DNA was different from DNA in all other known species. There’s also the strange statement they couldn’t deposit sequences in GenBank because it’s a new/unknown taxon — GenBank does that no problem.”
“The tree in Fig 16 is inconsistent with known primate phylogeny and generally makes no sense.”
Figure 16 from the paper. (DeNovo)
Here’s the view from Todd Disotell, a human origins expert at New York University who has previously tested dozens of DNA samples from people claiming to have Bigfoot DNA.
“It’s clearly a fake Vanity Journal with lots of ShutterStock pictures, misspellings and it was only created on 2/4/13. I’ve only read the abstract and conclusion and neither makes any sense.”"


  1. A very good and informative article indeed . It helps me a lot to enhance my knowledge, I really like the way the writer presented his views. I hope to see more informative and useful articles in future. |

  2. Hi, i think that i saw you visited my blog so i came to “return the favor”.I am trying to find things to enhance my website!I suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!! |

  3. This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing blog that understand the value. Im glad to have found this post as its such an interesting one! I am always on the lookout for quality posts and articles so i suppose im lucky to have found this! I hope you will be adding more in the future.. |

  4. Whatever information to be shared it is also good to stay open to it. |

  5. I must say that while reading your post I found my thoughts in agreement with the topic that you have discussed, which happens very rare. |

  6. Mate this is a very nice blog here. I wanted to comment & say that I enjoyed reading your posts & they are all very well written out. You make blogging look easy lol I’ll attemp to start a blog later today and I hope it’s half as good as your blog! Much success to you! |


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I don't Believe Todd Standing

Tsiatko: The Story Of The Stick Indians