Yowiehunters Forum

I'm sure this might be controversial but I'm just interested in peoples opinions. Talk has been quiet lately regarding DNA or the aquiring of it. I read these questions on a US blog and thought they were particularily revevant to both sides of the pond. I know people and of people actively concentrating on the collection of hair and saliva samples with an eventual aim to DNA testing. Of course, and I'll quote Andrew, 'First find your Yowie" but what after you do identify an area? I suspect it would be easier to trap hair or saliva than take a photo... If we have a sample how important is it and what can be proved from it?

1.Can DNA results be tampered with?

2.Is it possible to show results that claim these creatures exist, even if they don’t?

3.What does positive DNA bring to the table? Will the world of science really take notice?

4.After all is said and done and the results are in, could it sill be recognized and categorized as a living breathing species without access to a cadaver?

5.Will academics be sold on DNA alone?

The best that can be hoped for in the scenario of sending in a sample of "yowie" DNA is that you have nothing to compare it with. I imagine the best possible result for the crypto hypothesis would be "unknown primate DNA".

New organisms are found reasonably regularly. What certainly helps get them taxonomically catogorized is actual examples that can be actually examined, and their genetics analyzed.

The first point is that we know a lot less than we think we do. Take this recent discussion showing a "serious discordance between geneticists and paleoanthropologists."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/scien ... emityn.www

I am not going to get into this for reasons I have explained before. The only point I will make is that clearly we have a long way to go before the two sides of the debate can arrive at some concensus.

Next point. Laboratory procedures and protocols will eliminate false dna results, especially if the work is repeated at various institutions, as was the case with the dna analysis of Mungo mans material.

Now to the crux of the matter. Can dna tell us what is a new species and will science accept the results? Short answer is that there are specific species markers in the dna sequence. Find those and compare to what is already known and we can declare a new species or not. Science will accept that but there needs to be a solid provenance for the sample. However, these markers, and there are several, are a very tiny component of the entire genome, so once you have identified that a new species exists, you then have decades of work to compare the entire sequence with that of other "primates" to see what is common and what is not. The great apes, chimps and humans share a huge amount of dna, as we do with many animals. It is that detailed work which, as I understand the science, that allows us to see how different the unknown dna is from our possible forebears. There is no CSI instant results with this research. It is slow, tedious, methodical work. My daughter worked for years on just a small component of tree dna when she did research for the CSIRO. Anyone expecting some magical quick answer is going to be sorely disappointed. No doubt the procedures will get faster and the processing of results easier in time.

That article above shows just how science is in its infancy in this area. I have no illusions that we will have no definitive answer for a very long time about what "sort" of animal it is and how it is, or is not, related to us. If we get the species markers, we can be sure though that we have found an unknown species which, bytheway, clearly is proof that there is a real critter and not some myth. That will do me for now.

Hey guys,
For me DNA is the math for biology.

Cheers

A.

Ultimately the only way that DNA evidence will confirm the existence of the Yowie will be if Yowie DNA is available for comparison.

Until we have a complete body, you can have hair samples tested but they will only be classified as unknown.

Hard to argue that logic. Spock wouldn't, nor would I.