Dr. Ketchum Processed All The Samples

The earliest anatomically modern human remains found in Australia (and outside of Africa) are those of Mungo Man; they have been dated at 42,000 years old.[21][22] The initial comparison of the mitochondrial DNA from the skeleton known as Lake Mungo 3 (LM3) with that of ancient and modern Aborigines indicated that Mungo Man is not related to Australian Aborigines.[23] However, these findings have been met with a general lack of acceptance in scientific communities. The sequence is criticised as there has been no independent testing, and it has been suggested that the results may be due to posthumous modification and thermal degradation of the DNA.[24][25][26][27] Although the contested results seem to indicate that Mungo Man may have been an extinct subspecies that diverged before the most recent common ancestor of contemporary humans,[23] the administrative body for the Mungo National Park believes that present-day local Aborigines are descended from the Lake Mungo remains.[28] Independent DNA testing is unlikely as the indigenous custodians are not expected to allow further invasive investigations.[29]

These methods of genetic testing are accurate, as long as the genetic origin of the tested disease is known (Mahdieh & Rabbani, 2013), but their reliability is harmed by the fact that the results determine probability of diseases occurring (Holt, 2012). Even though a test accurately determines the presence of a given mutation, that mutation may only indicate a patient’s predisposition to developing symptoms. Since other genes or environmental factors may play a part in the tested disease, the results of testing aren’t entirely reliable for a conclusion of whether or not a patient will develop the disease.

was merely science fiction. Furthermore, the nature of DNA sampling is better suited for use in

The Australian Institute of Criminology has produced documentations explaining “the technique of ‘DNA identification’ compares the DNA of two bodily samples to ascertain whether or not they came from the same human being. Identity of DNA in the cells across both samples implies that the samples are derived from the same person (or identical twins); non-identity implies different human sources.”

Julie Beavers pointed out that DNA that was found on the body was that of an

The hairs were tested for mitochondrial DNA which narrowed the hairs down to five possible people: Casey, her mother, grandmother and brother and also Caylee (Library.C, 2017).

Technology in the late 60’s was insufficient to collect DNA samples from suspects, however, in 1998 Riverside Police collected skin samples from their only remaining suspect in the case. The results of these tests have not been released to the public.

The specimens are not fossilized, but were reported in a Nature news article as having “the consistency of wet blotting paper” (once exposed, the bones had to be left to dry before they could be dug up). Researchers hope to discover preserved mitochondrial DNA to compare and contrast with samples from similarly unfossilized specimens of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens (www.en.wikipedia.org). Some are hoping to find a relationship between

When Dr. Ketchum analyzed the mtDNA contained in the skin tags of the Bigfoot hair every sample tested human. The point cannot be stressed enough, non-human hair yielded HUMAN mtDNA. When you link the eyewitness testimony of a large hairy bipedal hominid leaving the hair, in my opinion,

The theory behind DNA profiling technology is a bit difficult to explain. Basically, DNA is almost similar in everybody, except at some specific locations on DNA strands. At such locations, sequences vary. Such variations are repeated at regular intervals on the entire DNA strand and are unique to every person. These repetitions are referred to as short tandem repeats, or STRs. The focus in the case of DeSalvo's case was on the Y chromosome, which is received by men from their father and usually is common in all male members of the family across generations unless there are mutations.

the bones or DNA to try to and how they did not find the bacterium Y. pestis. They also argue

There are factors that are difficult to determine with hair analysis. Such factors include gender, age or race. When conducting an autopsy, a person’s body the bone tells a story about that individual. For example, by examining a person’s bones you can determine whether or not a person is a man or a woman and for about how long that person has lived. However, the hair does not. This may seem counterintuitive, but much can be learned about the human hair. Nationality on the other hand can easily be determined from hair analysis. One such example of a person’s race is that of a Caucasoid or European, Mongoloid or Asian, and Negroid or African follicles are all very distinct in texture and can be linked to that particular nationality. The analysis of hair is general in nature and limited to those three nationalities.

I am interested in this topic because it is intriguing to me to learn about a new hominid species.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in Livermore, California has found that human hair could replace it in which DNA evidence is either damaged or nowhere to be found. Similar to DNA, the test on a patient’s hair can not only could identify an individual but trace his or her ancestry. This new test is a reliable alternative to DNA identification, since DNA is very fragile and will start to decay over time. Hair does not actually contain nuclear DNA which is the chemical which is inherited from both parents. However, it contains mitochondrial DNA which is passed down matrilineally.

John Hawks a biological anthropologist of University of Wisconsin said that our hair is a remnant from evolution, our ancestors known to be the “apes” (according to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution) were all covered with hair, and we are left with the small patches.