The Hairy Truth of Bigfoot: DNA evidence presented

Hi Readers,

An image from Roger Pattinson and Robert Gimlin's famous 1967 film.

 

I was given a very interesting article to read the other day. Ketchum et al. have presented a unique paper in which they argue that they have DNA evidence for the existence of bigfoot. What it equally as interesting is the almost violent backlash that this paper has caused from the scientific community. The study of hitherto unproven animals is called cryptozoology. The bigfoot is one of the most high profile example of a creature that has been obsessed over by cryptozoologists, along with others like the Loch Ness Monster, Bray Rd Beast and Yeti.

By and large cryptozoology is regarded as an illegitimate and laughable branch of science. This is an unfortunate reputation as the field of cryptozoology has yielded some significant finds in the past. These include the komodo dragon, giant squid, panda, coelacanth and okapi. The not-entirely undeserved negative reputation of cryptozoology comes from the bulk of work done in the field which shows poor scientific conduct, radical, speculative assumptions and bold statements. Ketchum et al.'s paper is an unfortunate case of the latter scenario.

Panda. Image taken from jezebel.com

Ketchum and colleagues tested purported hair, blood and tissue samples from the bigfoot, or Sasquatch, for DNA sequencing and morphological similarities to known animals species. The results presented are very interesting. DNA sequencing showed that most samples were human except for a few where new genes were sequenced that did not match any other animal previously sequenced. The morphology of hair samples also showed that they were mostly human with a few inconsistencies. These findings are exciting and if  conducted and presented to a higher scientific standard would have been an incredibly significant finding and potentially the greatest success for cryptozoology to date.

Komodo Dragon. Image taken from www.venomdoc.com

 The main issue with this paper is that purported sasquatch samples have not been taken and collected in a controlled manner and are therefore unaccountable. Their is only anecdotal evidence provided incessantly throughout the paper that states the samples are indeed from a sasquatch. Ketchum et al. also give into the temptation of speculation when discussing their results which is a big no-no in science. It is argued that the aforementioned DNA and hair sample results conclusively prove the existence of bigfoot in North America. Also they go as far as to say that they have evidence of human-sasquatch hybridisation. This is wild speculation at its best. Because of the unaccountability of the sample origins, there is no credible link whatsoever that the samples used in this study are from a sasquatch. What is evident is that novel hair and DNA samples have been characterised that show similarities to primates including humans. That is all.

In addition to the above, Ketchum et al.'s paper is that it is not written in scientific prose or even presented in the right format for a scientific paper. Papers are written in a conventional style so that the ideas contained within it are clearly organised and follow a logical flow (Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion). The end result being that a person reading the paper is able to see precisely what the research aimed to do, what was achieved by doing the project and how this adds to the human body of knowledge. Ketchum's paper does not follow a clear style of writing melding results and methods into the introduction area and discussing/interpresting the results at basically every opportunity they can. This makes for a confusing read and gives an err of inexperience at scientific writing.

In summation, Ketchum and colleagues have presented novel human like hair and DNA samples. This is a significant finding however, poor scientific conduct, equally poor writing and outrageous speculation impede this paper ever being taken seriously. This is a fine example of poor science which further tarnishes the credibility and reputation of the field of cryptozoology.

Until next time,
Jay

Press article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/bigfoot-dna-controversy-science-journal_n_2711676.html

Journal homepage
http://www.denovojournal.com/#!special-issue/crrc