The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest njjohn]

I never said they did. I said the trees that were run on the mtDNA were only done on the 3 samples they ran nuDNA on. They meaning Dr. Ketchum. Sorry If I was confusing. I do that at times lol.

If you look at table 2, only 30 samples were actually really analyzed. The rest were just screened and they are so random, but upon first glance, the ones they analyzed fit the timetable that fits the 13-15k year hybridization hypothesis. The others originated at much earlier dates. If the samples were unknown, would Dr. Ketchum ONLY ask Family tree for BLAST results done on those that fit the timeline? Or would Family Tree do the initial screening and then Dr. Ketchum BLAST those herself?

Where are the mtDNA sequences in the paper btw? The supplement 4 looks more like a table than sequences.

[Guest]

It's like all the analysis that's being posted by "PHDs" on this board- that can't be verified, so we have to take their word for it. NOT definitive evidence in MY book, but it's enough to full the fire of people who are looking to prove their agenda. Until a name is attached to the analysis, it's meaningless. If you can't put your name behind what you say, it says a lot about the value of what you say.

Please DON'T take my word on ANYTHING! Of course it can be verified!! You are fully able to do this analysis yourself - I told you what I did so test it for yourself! The web site is

http://www.ncbi.nlm...._TYPE=BlastHome

I am quite certain you would not take this information any better even if you knew my credentials and identity. So attack the results of my analysis not my degree. I await your analysis. If you come to a different conclusion, please let us know.

[southernyahoo]

I never said they did. I said the trees that were run on the mtDNA were only done on the 3 samples they ran nuDNA on. They meaning Dr. Ketchum. Sorry If I was confusing. I do that at times lol.

If you look at table 2, only 30 samples were actually really analyzed. The rest were just screened and they are so random, but upon first glance, the ones they analyzed fit the timetable that fits the 13-15k year hybridization hypothesis. The others originated at much earlier dates. If the samples were unknown, would Dr. Ketchum ONLY ask Family tree for BLAST results done on those that fit the timeline? Or would Family Tree do the initial screening and then Dr. Ketchum BLAST those herself?

Where are the mtDNA sequences in the paper btw? The supplement 4 looks more like a table than sequences.

I would say Dr. Ketchum still has the whole mito sequences provided by Family tree. I think she screened all the samples for cytochrome b and HV1, then sent to Family tree for whole sequencing and haplotype determinations, then she probably BLASTED every bit of that DATA she could, to find any annomalies if present. As far as the 3 samples with whole nuclear genomes and mito trees, well I'll just say that I'm more interested in sample 31 than the other two. I have a more difficult time imagining a hominin with fangs shredding a down spout with it's mouth than I do with a bear or canine doing that.

I've looked up the haplotype for my sample, it seemed to appear around the end of the last glacial maximum, about 15 to 19 thousand years ago if I remember correctly and associated with the first farmers in Europe.

[Guest]

It is interesting that the haplotypes they didn't go beyond screening were outside of the timeline to fit the hypothesis. The 30 that did all fit the 13-15k timeline. The rest sit at 25-30k.

I did not realize that. That is interesting, thanks for pointing that out.

[Guest thermalman]

@tyler. "Once again, you can find many situations on the net, where professional, credentialed scientists ran into human contamination in situations where they took every precaution to avoid such. So, to think that the lay people submitters were able to completely negate any potential human contamination is ludicrous. But don't take my word for it - talk to someone who does this sort of laboratory testing."

Were your samples, along with Barts, human contamination exempt?

@SS. "I don't know why that question wasn't asked in that thread. I haven't participated in it, hence my "I can't speak for anyone else". Maybe it was. I don't know. I did however say that if they made the same claim as Melba, that they should be held to the same standard. Apples to apples

Agreed

@ SS. "This would mean they all tested positive for modern human DNA. That said if known hoaxers participating in the study doesn't bother you then that's certainly your prerogative and you are welcome to it."

No it doesn't bother me, and it shouldn't bother anyone for that matter. Who, how and where the samples were obtained from is irrelevant. Adhering to test procedures and protocols would have no bearing on who presented the samples, only what was found in them.

Edited April 5, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest thermalman]

TM - I think you might be confused. Credentials weren't swapped. Dr. Rayford Wallace is the editor of the paper, and he's the one with a minister degree. The name Raymond Wallace was my mistake, which I've said repeatedly now was a mistake. I quoted Rayford's own words back in that original post, so it's obvious Raymond wasn't what I meant.

What evidence do have that you've even found the correct Dr. Rayford Wallace mentioned in the report?

@njjohn "Panda shows up because there are many Panda genomes in Genbank, while there have been very few genomes entered of American species."

That's a given John.

Explain your theory on how panda genomes were found in the samples provided by the supplier?

Edited April 5, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Apparently Ketchum doesn't know her Ass from a LLama!

proof resides here! http://ketchum.smugmug.com/Travel/Peru/27411238_VjBtjT#!i=2342397766&k=CRHqHV9

So let me ask TM and SY etc. If she cannot tell the difference between a llama and a donkey - (remember she is a vet!) should she be trusted in telling theDNA of a bigfoot from the DNA of a bear? or human?

[Guest]

Were your samples, along with Barts, human contamination exempt?

TM , I am beginning to think you have not even bothered to actually read the lab results Bart and Tyler got. Of course there was human contamination. That was Justin's DNA. Being that MK has the same sample means that her study has contaminated DNA belonging to Justin.

Hence her claims that there is no contamination are ludicrous.

[TimB]

I believe she addressed the contamination issue. Most of the participants in this thread feel she's wrong in what she said. That doesn't make it so- just popular.

[Guest]

She is absolutely wrong in her claims about the Q-scores having anything at all to do with contamination. It's surprising she would claim that when it is so easily refutable by the Illumina website itself.

[TimB]

I hear your stance on that.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

She is absolutely wrong in her claims about the Q-scores having anything at all to do with contamination. It's surprising she would claim that when it is so easily refutable by the Illumina website itself.

So then I guess it's a fact that the Q-scores don't have anything to do with contamination. I think that's proof right there that she's turning the study into something that it isn't. It really makes no sense for an honest scientist to do that.

Edited April 5, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

Looking at sample 31, again taking the same approach as before, isolating the sequences that appear to have homology to something, I took about 40 homologous sequences (each about 100bp in length - the equivalent of one read from the illumina sequence). These sequences started at position 141 and ended at 5025 from the Ketchum sequence of sample 31. Blasted against NT_009237.18, in alignment mode, this correspondes to the sequence positions of 85,931 to 983,212bp. As such the Ketchum contig contains 0.54% of the human reference sequences. Furthermore, the "homology" regions constitute about 85% of the sequence over this contig for sample 31 - so about 15% is not highly homologous to Homo sapiens. A sequence from 226 to 536 in this contig has a 95% identity to Leishmania genuses (discontinuous megablast, filter and mask off, excluding Homo/Pan/Gorilla).

Blasting each of these 40 regions against the Homo/Pan/Gorilla portions of the database, all sequences had highest homology to Homo sapiens. The average % identity of these 40 sequences comes out to 99.6% for human. There was one homology sequence from positions 4654-4853, that had an insertion of 19bp in the middle of the sequence (excluding this sequence it was 99.8% identity). Otherwise, there were very few alterations from the human sequences present in GenBank. There were no sequences that had higher homology than human from the Pan or Gorilla genus (but several "hits" had 99% for these genuses).

IF this 5000bp is representative of the contig for 31 (I believe it is, but have not tested the remaining 99%) then I would conclude this sample is effectively modern human Homo sapiens sapiens, with the % identity of 99.6%.

So this could be either:

1) pure contamination,

2) a feral human,

3) or a Bigfoot if it were very highly homologous to Hss (and even Hss).

There is likely more information in the remaining 99% of the homologous segments that may be able to determine which of the above is true, but given the high degree of homology to Hss, it would require statistical analysis well beyond my capabilities (it would be similar to the work required to prove the Neandertal differences from human).

Nothing I have seen so far in these contigs indicates any new species or proof of Bf.

I put this out there NOT for anyone to take this as proof, but to inspire others to evaluate this data and replicate it or refute it, followed by debate.

[Cotter]

As always, impressed here ridgerunner.

[Guest]

Well, that's very interesting, RR. Wonder if she ran DNA on Stan and the folks living where the gutter was chewed up?