Guest Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 See for me Melba's Research makes more sense to me Science isn't about what makes more sense. Its about data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 We just heard from some mtDNA geneticists and they have found uniqueness in our mtDNA findings that prove that 1. The data is real and couldn't have been hoaxed 2. That it shows relatedness amongst a large percentage of the samples 3. Supports our hybridization theory 4. Supports our timeline. I am estatic. We are asking permission to make these findings public. As soon as we have it, we will post them. Source: Dr Melba Ketchum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Follow-up, You are also saying Melba was sloppy in her work. A Typo that was possibly made also indicates sloppiness or maybe the lab mixed results from another sample. It has been known to happen many times that labs make mistakes and mix up samples and reports. So if you require Melba to be better than you should expect the same from any other lab that presents evidence to try to refute Melba's DNA testing. She has done a lot of things right. But, human nature loves to point out the errors of others, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Cath, A typo does not make a report sloppy in the same sense as leaving out more than 99% of your raw data. Or ignoring the fact that numerous, globally-distributed haplotypes are present in a geographically-isolated species is highly unlikely. Or publishing a supercontig that SEVERAL scientists IMMEDIATELY recognized as a mosaic of other species - indicating sample contamination. Or stating that Q30 scores support the fact the samples were not contaminated when Q30 scores mean something else entirely. Or when questioned, fails to produce any evidence or support from other scientists or reviewers, even from co-authors. Or fails to gain any traction in the popular press. Or, or, or, or..... Jeepers, one is a typo, the other is (perhaps, might be construed as, might be interpreted as, in view of common scientific practice is) not constant with ethical scientific behavior. Apples, meet oranges. Not the same. Genes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Posted on Ketchum's Facebook: " We just heard from some mtDNA geneticists and they have found uniqueness in our mtDNA findings that prove that 1. The data is real and couldn't have been hoaxed 2. That it shows relatedness amongst a large percentage of the samples 3. Supports our hybridization theory 4. Supports our timeline. I am estatic. We are asking permission to make these findings public. As soon as we have it, we will post them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Think she will name the experts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Sy, how would the typo happen twice when it's only listed once? There weren't two tests that listed the wrong Haplotype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Cath, A typo does not make a report sloppy in the same sense as leaving out more than 99% of your raw data. Or ignoring the fact that numerous, globally-distributed haplotypes are present in a geographically-isolated species is highly unlikely. Or publishing a supercontig that SEVERAL scientists IMMEDIATELY recognized as a mosaic of other species - indicating sample contamination. Or stating that Q30 scores support the fact the samples were not contaminated when Q30 scores mean something else entirely. Or when questioned, fails to produce any evidence or support from other scientists or reviewers, even from co-authors. Or fails to gain any traction in the popular press. Or, or, or, or..... Jeepers, one is a typo, the other is (perhaps, might be construed as, might be interpreted as, in view of common scientific practice is) not constant with ethical scientific behavior. Apples, meet oranges. Not the same. Genes So, if the typo was overlooked and passed through peer review, how does that not make a report sloppy to those who pick up on it later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 The Trent report didn't go through peer review or claim to be a scientific find. It's a standard DNA report that you get from running DNA. I'm still curious why the 111 reports for Ketchum's paper haven't been released. How about just one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Sy, how would the typo happen twice when it's only listed once? There weren't two tests that listed the wrong Haplotype. Better go look at the report again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) Tyler and njjohn Thanks for the support. As for some other posters, I DON'T think you can have it both ways with the data. I suppose a typo may make you wonder what else is a mistake in the Trent report, BUT the Trent scientists went to the extra effort to write an entire paragraph detailing what their haplotype analysis meant. It meant "T". And, the objective sequencing data shows that both samples are identical. As I see it, I have to decide between consistent RAW data from Trent and DNASoln (the sequence provided in both reports) vs a self-published paper, with unverified peer-review, back-editing post post-publication, and less than 1% of the genomic data. I have to draw conclusion every day based on the data I have in hand. Guess what my conclusions are in this case. And ya know what, if I'm the one giving testimony in court, it will stand up! I know that from experience. I get paid pretty well for my testimony. Cheers, Genes Nice that you get Paid for your testimony but then you should know that that typo would open the door for responsible doubt to a jury about the lab report. It could be argued that it actually belonged to another sample? That is where the Doubt and possible mistake comes into play. What I know is that my credentials always trump the other party's arguments. That's a bit unhelpful, but let me say this. So how do we move this forward. The "A" in the Trent may introduce some doubt, but the PDF showing concordance between the samples is very strong evidence. Since this isn't being argued in a Court of Law but rather the BFF, let's figure out what is acceptable here. SY, huh? Happened twice? The Trent report said "A". The DNASoln report said "T". That's once for each. The Trent report haplotype description coincides with the DNASoln conclusion of haplotype "T". And, the DNA sequences reported by each lab match. Confidence in Trent and DNASoln 100% here. Why don't we wait for Sykes? Edited March 22, 2013 by GenesRUs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I did. The table is the only place it lists it. Just because the swabs came at a later date doesn't mean the analysis was done twice. The report even says the swabs match the DNA from the sample. And the descriptions identifies a haplotype other than A. As to the statement from Ketchum.... it makes no sense. The mtDNA was 100% human according to her and the paper. The nuDNA is where they hybridization comes into play. Is she now claiming that somehow they're showing hybridization from the 100% mtDNA? The only thing the mtDNA will show is that the human maternal lines originated 13-15k years ago. You could do the same with any human mtDNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 CathJ I don't think you can compare a single character typo to a whole genome. Not even close to the same. Tell that to the government! If you're one number out on your social insurance number (Canada) or you're name is incorrectly spelled by one letter, your benefits will not commence, death certificates can't be issued or existing benefits will cease. One number or one letter difference is all it takes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 See for me Melba's Research makes more sense to me Science isn't about what makes more sense. Its about data. Do you not think science is the application (sense), while data is the result of the application? Without sense, one can not attain data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 i too fail to understand what is leading SY to say the mistake happened twice. It's one "A" in a table...in one report... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts