Guest OntarioSquatch Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 It would be nice if she comes out tomorrow and says the study was an April fools joke. That way everything that has happened so far will seem less disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Oh, Ridgerunner made another excellent observation. It stretches the limits of credibility to believe that all 111 samples MK tested all tested positive. Really? There wasn't even one sample that was negative? I don't gamble, but even I would bet hard cash that the next sample she tests will be positive for BF. Genes Genes, I second that. What i cannot understand is how she knows all 111 are positive for BF, when she only ran nDNA on 3 samples as far as I can tell. So by her own paper, she has 111 samples, all human mtDNA, by her own report. So how do you get from 108 human mtDNA into calling all 111 of them Bigfoot? doesn't add up - her results say 108 human, 3 bigfoot highbrids right? Thats what her results and her paper state - right? so how do thopse 108 magically become BF samples, with no data to support anything other than human? If this was actually a "scientific paper" It would have stated "we tested all 111 samples mtDNA profiles matched human. further testing of 3 of those samples using nDNA however revealed anomolies that were not consistant with what we know about the human Genome". None of that happened - instead with a complete lack of any supporting data she proceeds to claim 108 samples are BF! And the people who submitted those samples, are claiming the same thing! The tests said human, there was nothing in there that could be construed as anything else! If you want to go further, then you need to do the nDNA inquiry - which never happened! CWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 How many sample were submitted for testing? How many were rejected before DNA testing? How many samples were tested for DNA? How high do the numbers assigned to samples go? Where did the 111 out of 111 number come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 How many sample were submitted for testing? How many were rejected before DNA testing? How many samples were tested for DNA? How high do the numbers assigned to samples go? Where did the 111 out of 111 number come from? The highest sample number was 168 listed in table 1, so it was at least this many samples. The 111 comes straight from the paper... "All 111 screened samples revealed 100% human cytochrome b and hypervariable region 1 sequences with no heteroplasmic bases that would indicate contamination or a mixture. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 111 samples were accepted. There was at least 168, because the sample #'s are different so I think that's just confusion leading some to believe they were all positive. It's part of the problem of not including the lab reports (or at least some of them) and not showing some failures and why to strengthen the argument. Everyone focuses on the data, but I think the biggest missing piece is the lack of information on the haplotypes for all the submitters and testers. She included a small table which isn't proof. Because of that it's impossible for Bart and Tyler to prove the Justin sample is the same as #26, but it's also impossible for Dr. Ketchum to prove it isn't. The same goes for every single sample on the list. Without seeing all of the data on the submitters and testers, it's impossible to rule out contamination by either side. Just saying they're not the same isn't proof enough for a scientific paper. There's a set number of haplotypes, so anyone can make a table in 30 seconds. The proof is easily available and it's not 3 terabytes of information either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 The proof would be in table 4 labeled UNK where BLAST did not yield a match. (data needed). This is Y chromosome nuDNA targets which include samples other than the whole nu genomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) About as mind boggling as the interbreeding human-lemur statement put forth, with no data or proof to back up the statement. Yet many will end up believing that yarn! You are absolutely right. It is outlandish for Ketchum to suggest that humans and lemurs not only mated but produced viable, non-sterile offspring. I don't believe MK suggested that? It's posters on this thread that are making the claims. As she does go on in her paper that she has 3 WHOLE genomes to support her new species claims, so maybe she SHOULD put it all on GenBank. . Based on the publication, I do not believe that MK is a critical thinker. The fact that 111 of 111 samples all came back as positive is worrisome. No, I don't believe they are all contamination, nor do I believe they are all BF. So which ones are which?? In the end, I can only base my opinion on the paper and the conduct that MK has shown in the handling of this all. Yes this is worrisome!! So, were there only 3 whole BF genomes that tested positive? Where does the 111 come in, that everyone is stating, not to mention the interbreeding that has been suggested to have taken place? Thanks. Oh, Ridgerunner made another excellent observation. It stretches the limits of credibility to believe that all 111 samples MK tested all tested positive. Really? There wasn't even one sample that was negative? I don't gamble, but even I would bet hard cash that the next sample she tests will be positive for BF. Genes Genes, I second that. What i cannot understand is how she knows all 111 are positive for BF, when she only ran nDNA on 3 samples as far as I can tell. So by her own paper, she has 111 samples, all human mtDNA, by her own report. So how do you get from 108 human mtDNA into calling all 111 of them Bigfoot? doesn't add up - her results say 108 human, 3 bigfoot highbrids right? Thats what her results and her paper state - right? so how do thopse 108 magically become BF samples, with no data to support anything other than human? If this was actually a "scientific paper" It would have stated "we tested all 111 samples mtDNA profiles matched human. further testing of 3 of those samples using nDNA however revealed anomolies that were not consistant with what we know about the human Genome". None of that happened - instead with a complete lack of any supporting data she proceeds to claim 108 samples are BF! And the people who submitted those samples, are claiming the same thing! The tests said human, there was nothing in there that could be construed as anything else! If you want to go further, then you need to do the nDNA inquiry - which never happened! CWB This soap should be called "Finding Genomes" Edited April 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Man ... To have jumped on that perfect 4 point statement ..... Excuse me 111 of 111 ..... Now that's a stretch..... As I recall she started with more than 200 to chose from and eliminated down to 168 or so.... Oh well ...... attack the stats .... I'm guilty tooo ... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) @ SC... I won't go into the spelling errors......LOL Here's one for the interbreeding believers. Why did the chicken cross the road? A) to be with her human-platypus parents.>>>>>> http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/11/R243 Edited April 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 My spelling errors ? Or others .... I always try to include one in each lengthy post just for fun.... lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Not your's or anyone else's. But I do get embarrassed when I make my own..... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 This whole discussion that has been on going....seems like for centuries...puts me in mind of people trying to determine what the black spot represents in the middle of a standard sheet of white paper! ...from my view point, everyone is concentrating on the black spot, typical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 TM - she only got 3 nuDNA genomes out of the study. She didn't say how many of the mtDNA, because she just said they were 100% human and then kind of dropped it, which didn't make sense. If she had the microphotography and data that showed it was unique, why not use that? She only put a few of the samples data in the paper and it doesn't show enough. If you had 111 samples worth, I'm sure it would have gotten a deeper look. I think that's why so many said there simply wasn't enough data. And she's the one that started the inbreeding discussions. She said hybridization takes place and she's also the one that claimed the donor was closer to lemur than ape, which if you look at any genetic tree, it makes no sense that hybridization would be possible if that were the case. If she said it had active lemur genes, then yes that would make sense, but the way she described it is just a head scratcher. That's why I've been saying... even if you don't understand the science completely, if you break down the details, there's a lot that doesn't makes sense about the paper. And when you start getting into the ethical standards, it makes you start questioning everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) Did you read my link in post # 2169 John? The results stated in that report do not indicate hybridization, but just the genome links of chickens, humans and platypodes. Based on their findings, and how they were expressed, I would venture that MK's findings would be much along the same lines, but in her excitement, MK's choice of wording was ill chosen. Edited April 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 No, that would make her entire hypothesis false. That's not poor wording, that's just not understanding what you're looking at. All life shares some genes... that's not even a debate. But her hypothesis is that this male donor chose to mate with humans about 15k years ago, and the resulting offspring are what our current Bigfoot are. Not that it's some weird hybrid of two species. If she would have stuck to just proving their real instead of trying to prove her theory of hybridization, then I would 100% agree with you that it's a possibility to look at. But because she linked the two together, and still keeps pushing the hybridization (that's what she was using A. John Marsh's statements for) it invalidates the possibility of a platypus type being, at least in her view. Her paper and the hypothesis you propose are incompatible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts