Scientists Confirm That Supposed Bigfoot DNA Isn’t Actually Bigfoot’s DNA July 3, 2014

Scientists Confirm That Supposed Bigfoot DNA Isn’t Actually Bigfoot’s DNA

You’ll be happy to know that the first peer-reviewed study of Bigfoot has been conducted! (I know you were waiting a long time for this.)

Since 2012, researchers — including Professor Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics University of Oxford — have been accepting DNA samples from unknown sources and (if the DNA was approved) matching it up against known creatures. If there was DNA that didn’t match something already in the database, it might have lent some credibility to those who believe in a Bigfoot or Yeti…

Sorry, but there’s no evidence that this evil, evil creature exists

This week, the Proceedings of the Royal Society B published the results of that research:

Sykes and colleagues tested 36 hair samples from Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Russia and the U.S. using DNA sequencing and all of them matched DNA from known animals. Most were from bears, but there were also hairs from a Malaysian tapir, horses, porcupine, deer, sheep, and a human.

While Sykes said they didn’t find any proof of Bigfoot-related creatures, he acknowledged their paper doesn’t prove they don’t exist.

Well, you can’t disprove the existence of a fictional creature. Atheists known that better than most. But before you dismiss the paper as some silly publicity stunt, realize it’s using actual science to refute wacky theories. Will the Bigfoot/Yeti believers now admit the elusive fantasy creatures don’t exist? Of course not. If they took science seriously, they would’ve dropped their beliefs a long time ago. But at least the bar is set a little higher now; if they want us to take them seriously, they need to produce previously-unclassified DNA. Maybe a body part or two.

Sharon Hill has an easy-to-read deeper analysis of the paper here.

(Image via Shutterstock. Thanks to Matt for the link)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!