Guest Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) I can't believe I even open this thread anymore..habits die hard...and must confess I haven't read back beyond this page today and won't...part of the distancing... On above comment... the reaction of everyone I heard to the double/single strands in the electron microscope images was ...contamination.... that RNA or virus or bacteria get entangled in the result...an astounding 20% of the time even in the top genome labs..... (and no I don't have the citation..but a few key words ought to turn up study).. it seemed rather common actually, rather than troubling... And, that does reflect the importance of peer-review..legitimate peer-review...precisely b/c most of us don't know...and can not review her paper critically, and MUST depend on the peer-review process...that's why it's there.. I think I read another of her Facebook posts here that we can expect to wait months and months for an after the fact Secret review..along with another weak excuse about not putting the data in GenBank.... A recent interview on C2C with Lee Spiegal was interesting.....he spelled it out for Noorey.... not sure he listened... many won't b/c they want BFs to be something more than they are? I did go to the FB page (b/c I could not believe that was posted!) and see consistently 20 or so likes on posts.....when the protection group first formed....a year ago..there were hundreds....really sad Edited March 25, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Nice post Maelsquatch, So good matter of fact I'd be willing to bet, that had you come to opposite conclusions in support of the study's findings your post would've been blasted all over FB via Ketchum camp and you maybe labeled a geneticist. (I mean that as a compliment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Update from John Marsh, which Dr. Ketchum, DVM, somehow neglected to post on Facebook. Emphasis mine: James,You have hit the spot with your posting, and you have proved me an idiot!!!! Yes, the error I made was not realizing that FTDNA currently used the RSRS reference, while Ketchum's study tested by FTDNA and the alleged Cro Magnon study used the rCRS reference sequence. I have a feeling I had heard that FTDNA might have been considering a change of reference sequences, but it did not pick up the significance of timing. The Ketchum sequences were published only last month, but they were probably tested one or more years ago when the different reference standards were used. So much of what I have been saying on this thread is not correct. I will have to go back, convert all of the sequences to the same standard, and then re evaluate what it all means. Thanks for correcting me, I would rather be proved wrong, than continue being mistaken. Do you know if the reference sequences used for nuDNA have also changed? Would the nuDNA partial sequences published by Ketchum have to be adjusted to a different standard? The nuDNA for Bigfoots which were full genome sequenced were I believe sequenced more recently than the mtDNA from Bigfoots, so perhaps there is question about which reference sequence was used for nuDNA? John. -----Original Message----- From: James Lick Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:58 PM To: Subject: Re: [DNA] Bigfoot DNA- mtDNA T2b-- Cro Magnon T2b I'm not sure if you've had a chance to look at the link to Ian Logan's site in my earlier mail? There you will find a list of a few dozen T2b samples from GenBank, admittedly a couple of years out of date, but most are full sequences or at least coding region sequences: http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/t2b_genbank_sequences.htm You still have not explained clearly what your sample set of T2b sequences is, but if by "T haplogroup project" you mean the Family Tree DNA group, then that would explain your difficulty. Ketchum and Ian Logan's site both use the rCRS standard reference sequence. Ian Logan's previous post about the "Cro-Magnon" sequence similarly was against the rCRS standard. FTDNA now uses the RSRS standard reference sequence which was proposed April 2012 and which few others have yet adopted. The two notation systems are not compatible, and trying to make comparisons between them will lead to numerous errors. For the purposes of HVR results, you can convert from RSRS to rCRS by the following substitutions: Add: 73G 263G Remove: 146C 152C 182T 195C 247A 16129A 16187T 16189C 16223T 16230G 16311C (16519C is another to add but it is unstable and non-phylogenetic, so ignoring it is safe. Some cases may be more complicated if a marker's complement to add is present or if a marker to remove is not present.) After converting the FTDNA results to rCRS, I think you will find that your difficulties are resolved. However, I would suggest using Ian Logan's site as a representative sample of T2b as no conversion is needed. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) For me this played out a while back - there has been no passing peer-review for JAMEZ/DeNova and it failed peer-review with Nature (or such).... .... and I am astonished this continues to writhe any life at all. Did I understand her post correctly..there is still no GenBank upload or timely promise? This should be over shouldn't it? Mr. John Marsh....what a responsible family hobbyist! Self correcting so openly and without agenda, but to understand..... amazing how that works... Liesure ty for one more little wormy wiggle...I guess...Yes, ty for the truth, but I am at a point where this thread feels surreal... and I wish it were not pinned anymore! edit vortex... Monday..blah! Edited March 25, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Soooo, where and when does the trashing of people stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) I sure didn't mean to appear to trash Mr.Marsh! I can see that now, that you might read it that way..but I meant it sincerely. He seems really into his family's genealogy, found some big claim paper, tried to make sense of it, thought he found something, someone else says no - double check, he seems to say, hey you are right I will...?? I did just skim it b/c I don't care.or understand at that level....but , he seemed deeply interested in his family's genetics, open to the idea of BF and this paper, and willing to correct online his views....? You give me too much credit/interest if you thought i knew how to trash his actual take on the data/argument he presented! But, ya...when does this thread end? OTLS! seems to have it wrapped up at this point. Edited March 25, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted March 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2013 Soooo, where and when does the trashing of people stop? Sorry man, it doesn't. That seems to be one of the identifying characteristics of the bigfoot community. There's something about this area of interest that attracts pathological personalities then drives the pathology out of hiding. The anonymity of the internet makes it even worse because there is no real accountability for mistreating others. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 For me this played out a while back - there has been no passing peer-review for JAMEZ/DeNova and it failed peer-review with Nature (or such).... .... and I am astonished this continues to writhe any life at all. Did I understand her post correctly..there is still no GenBank upload or timely promise? This should be over shouldn't it? From her (now deleted) comments about a forthcoming paper, I suspect she will not be doing anything that would endanger her spotlight. I would not be surprised if the independent review or whatever she calls it now is never released. Mr. John Marsh....what a responsible family hobbyist! Self correcting so openly and without agenda, but to understand..... amazing how that works... Agreed. It is a refreshing change from the norm. Sadly. Liesure ty for one more little wormy wiggle...I guess...Yes, ty for the truth, but I am at a point where this thread feels surreal... and I wish it were not pinned anymore! I have to disagree about unpinning it - this is a fairly widely read forum in the bigfoot community, from what I understand. I would support leaving this thread where it is easily accessible for anyone who wants to see a more critical review of Ketchum's project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) ^oh, you are correct..the desire is selfish on that unpinning, to overcome my own weakness to stay updated on the grime.. . To MIB (ironic name for your post!) above..agreed the anonymity thing is an issue and the pathologies, Bigfoot Fever or Syndrome, but the lack of true accountability, and the misuse of that...the game players...drive that as well...oohhhh Bigfootery. OTLS! did get that right today, this can survive for what it is..our world is full of this stuff. . But, this Ketchum paper does not rise to what it was billed, or is being billed..among other weirdness...which also reflects importantly on larger society/science/law issues that are current beyond BFdom, conversation continues to be in this grimey realm b/c of those claims and manner of making them... And so the need to keep this amazingly long thread pinned - , b/c peer-review and science were the calling card of this study. What that really means, what can be shown, or hoped to be shown, in relation to the truth and how it all played out (even the Bigfoot Community pathology issue! yes!) is important..and here at least we retain a record of those willing to post opinions, or in some cases cited facts and it is archival for the community.... I retract my comment and lament about this thread. I have learned a great deal here. Thanks! Edited March 25, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 I think the first step in stopping any trashing, is realizing that criticizing someone's work isn't trashing someone. When it comes to this study, science is all about the back and forth. It's impossible to go back and forth if you don't release everything, but in her own words, everything she used for the paper was released. From that data we should have been able to verify her results, but it doesn't. It's the same problem the peer reviewer said. The data doesn't support the claims. I don't need to know a lick about science to get that. Every time someone comes out with a claim that ends up being false, it raises the level of scrutiny. Meldrum's and Sykes' reputation is pretty sound, but if he made claims without the evidence to back it up, they'd be pointed out as well. It has nothing to do with being personal, it has to do with backing up your claims. It bothers me when it gets personal as well. But no one should ever expect a claim to be taken blindly. No one's word is good enough on it's own. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 But that's the root of a big problem here and everywhere when it comes to this subject. Too many DO expect to be taken at their word with no questions asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Nice post Maelsquatch, So good matter of fact I'd be willing to bet, that had you come to opposite conclusions in support of the study's findings your post would've been blasted all over FB via Ketchum camp and you maybe labeled a geneticist. (I mean that as a compliment) Plussed you on that post, BartloJays. Too funny. You mean I didn't have to go to college all those years? I can't believe I even open this thread anymore..habits die hard...and must confess I haven't read back beyond this page today and won't...part of the distancing... On above comment... the reaction of everyone I heard to the double/single strands in the electron microscope images was ...contamination.... that RNA or virus or bacteria get entangled in the result...an astounding 20% of the time even in the top genome labs..... (and no I don't have the citation..but a few key words ought to turn up study).. it seemed rather common actually, rather than troubling... And, that does reflect the importance of peer-review..legitimate peer-review...precisely b/c most of us don't know...and can not review her paper critically, and MUST depend on the peer-review process...that's why it's there.. I think I read another of her Facebook posts here that we can expect to wait months and months for an after the fact Secret review..along with another weak excuse about not putting the data in GenBank.... A recent interview on C2C with Lee Spiegal was interesting.....he spelled it out for Noorey.... not sure he listened... many won't b/c they want BFs to be something more than they are? I did go to the FB page (b/c I could not believe that was posted!) and see consistently 20 or so likes on posts.....when the protection group first formed....a year ago..there were hundreds....really sad I keep hoping this thread will die a nice quiet death, but it keeps springing back to life. My money is on Sykes now. Sadly, I can't resist reading the latest posts. Genes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 RR, is a genome really 3 terrabytes in size? I was under the impression it was much smaller. The 3Tb is the size of the raw data - 3 genomes at 30x read, or so is stated. The genome is 3Gbp - not sure how many terrabytes is needed for 3 giga base pairs - it seems form the data provided the file sizes were about 1byte/bp, so a genome should be 3Gbytes. Based on this it looks like the raw data gets "condensed" about 10 fold during assembly although I don't have any practical experience on this. Anyone else wondering why MK is providing the raw data to her independent scientific reviewers? After all, all the data required is already in the paper, right? They should be able to reach the same conclusions as MK without the need for any more data! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 I keep hoping this thread will die a nice quiet death, but it keeps springing back to life. My money is on Sykes now. I regret that I have but one plus to give. ... by the way, why DO we have only one plus per day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 From Robin Lynnn to Melba Ketchum on March 13th, which explains a lot about there foundation site. "For anyone who has seen the Global Foundation on line. It is NOT supposed to be live. There is a problem with the server and it is being corrected as we speak. We cannot release the site until all of our paperwork for the Non-Profit Org is here. Thanks" For those of us who jumped to conclusions, there you have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts