The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

Her study is right until it is proven wrong ......

It was already proven wrong in the peer-review process and by multiple highly qualified people on this forum and elsewhere.

NO STUDY IS "RIGHT UNTIL PROVEN WRONG"

that's idiotic and that is not science. science obliges those with an hypothesis to PROVE IT, not the other way around.

the above is the fundamental problem with EVERYONE who believes that this paper is correct.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The paper and the data that were provided have already been proven to be incorrect regarding the conclusions and claims that were made by Dr. Ketchum. But it seems some people have come up with the excuse that she is holding back on the proof and that the real data hasn't been looked at. Seriously, who came up with that?

[georgerm]

What Phds in genetics have come out against DK? Let's talk in facts......................let's make a list. What Phds have come out in favor?

[Guest]

Why is BF dna so hard to identify? Seem like from all the samples MK received, that some of them would be real clean BF dna. How could all of her samples be bears, canines, humans but no BFs?

My suspicion it is because BF is very closely related to humans. The closer it is, the more difficult it is to "prove" it is BF and not just human. Especially with samples without a clear and direct indication having come from BF.

Sample 26 was collected weeks after the report of a shot BF with no indication it was from BF;

sample 31 from a baited plate with no direct evidence what interacted with it;

sample 140 from an odd case of something attacking a drain pipe.

None of them can be attributed directly to a BF. 26 has bear DNA and 140 has canine. 31 is more interesting as it is primarily coming back as human. Disregarding the assembly errors, the sequences is virtually identical to modern human. Could it be BF - sure, but it is not proof in any capacity. Detailed statistical analysis may yield some novel changes (analogous to the small changes in Neanderthal). Given though that both 26 and 140 are contaminated with human DNA, there is the possibility that sample 31 could also be contaminated, which would be a mess to sort out. As I mentioned previously, the nature of samples 31 and 140 would preclude them from being decontaminated by thorough washing.

The hair samples with non-human morphology but testing positive for human mtDNA are the most interesting samples. To my knowledge, no nuDNA sequence was generated from these samples. As championed by SY, analysis of the Y chromosome (if present), would be the most concrete evidence to get from these samples as it would be the most like the original parental contributor if the hybrid theory (that they are/were able to mate with modern Hss to produce viable, fertile offspring) is correct.

Collectively, every (well many) DNA testing results coming back as human supports the highly related to human possibility imo. Not to say that everything coming back as human is therefore BF. And it still is not proof of a new species. But it may be a pointer for what to look for and the challenges that lie ahead.

[georgerm]

thanks for the reply.................humm......................if BF dna is so close to human that we can't distinguish the two, then what? Does our dna methodology need to advance before we tell human and BF dna apart?

[Guest]

I think it will come down to very subtle differences that are proven to be statistically significant, much like Neanderthal. MKs data that was published was only 0.5% of chromosome 11 (for sample 31 which remains the only viable nuDNA sample), so much less than 0.02% of the whole genome is provided. Full coverage of the genome may provide sufficient variation to find something. Ideally this would be consistent over several independent samples/individuals. No new technology or methodology is required. Just more sequence and a very detailed analysis by someone very well trained in the appropriate field.

[georgerm]

Here is what Wikipedia said about chromosome 11. Sounds like we need to get much more information before we can tell if it's a BF. Do we need to know about chromosome 10 or 9 to tell if it's a BF? There must be some markers that tell us, yes it's a BF.

"Chromosome 11 is one of the 23 pairs of chromosomes in humans. Humans normally have two copies of this chromosome. Chromosome 11 spans about 134.5 million base pairs (the building material of DNA) represents between 4 and 4.5 percent of the total DNA in cells. It is one of the most gene- and disease-rich chromosomes in the human genome.

Identifying genes on each chromosome is an active area of genetic research. Because researchers use different approaches to predict the number of genes on each chromosome, the estimated number of genes varies. Chromosome 11 likely contains between 1,300 and 1,700 genes.

A recent study [1] shows that 11.6 genes per megabase, including 1,524 protein-coding genes and 765 pseudogenes can be found on chromosome 11.

More than 40% of the 856 olfactory receptor genes in the human genome are located in 28 single- and multi-gene clusters along this chromosome."

[Guest]

Why is BF dna so hard to identify? Seem like from all the samples MK received, that some of them would be real clean BF dna. How could all of her samples be bears, canines, humans but no BFs?

The easy answer would be that bigfoot doesn't exist, or at least is extremely rare.

[southernyahoo]

The hair samples with non-human morphology but testing positive for human mtDNA are the most interesting samples. To my knowledge, no nuDNA sequence was generated from these samples. As championed by SY, analysis of the Y chromosome (if present), would be the most concrete evidence to get from these samples as it would be the most like the original parental contributor if the hybrid theory (that they are/were able to mate with modern Hss to produce viable, fertile offspring) is correct.

Ridgerunner, I just wanted to point out an error here, Dr. Ketchum claims to have nuDNA results from the amelogenin locus, and I listed the sample numbers they are from. The AmelY locus was sequenced across Exons 1, 2, 4/5 and 8, with varied results. Some with human sequences at certain exons, some with unknown sequences at certain exons etc. See table 4.

Sequencing exons of the amelogenin gene also gave novel results. Some of the samples indicated a normal human AmelX, yet others failed completely to amplify. Further, when the AmelY locus was sequenced across Exons 1, 2, 4/5 and 8, varied results were obtained, with no samples successfully amplifying and sequencing across all five exons (except the human controls). The resulting sequences ranged from totally non homologous matches, not found in Genbank® after numerous BLASTs (including dissimilar sequence BLASTs) to novel SNPs and even failure to sequence (Table 4). These findings were consistent at other loci tested. The documented anomalies came from DNA samples that yielded long sequences with pristine electropherograms at other loci including at least one AmelY exon. Notably, this indicated that the DNA was of high quality and that degraded DNA was not responsible for the anomalies.

Promega PowerPlex® 16

87,95, 26, 27,130, 36, 39,42, 43, 89, 103, 28, 83, 33, 35, 38, 49, 44, 54, 71,72,82, 85, 88, 91,106,90,94, 98 96,100,109,114,117,99,122,135,4,117,5.

I think she has that data, but it may be that it is still too inconsistent across the samples.

[Guest]

SY,

As usual, you are technically correct! I guess I was referring to nuDNA sequences more along the line of what was presented for 26, 31, 140. The AmelX results do seem to be all over the place, and there is very little sequence presented in Table 4 to look at. I really don't feel I can give MK the benefit of the doubt anymore when the data is not presented in a way to be evaluated. Did I miss some published data somewhere? And I don't want to deal with additional data that she may or may not have and may or may not make public.

What is your take on this?

[georgerm]

Sounds like running DNA samples is quite complicated and hopefully, MK can make it clear for all to see. Those with degrees in genetics, we appreciate your presence on the forum and keep trying to explain it.

[southernyahoo]

SY,

As usual, you are technically correct! I guess I was referring to nuDNA sequences more along the line of what was presented for 26, 31, 140. The AmelX results do seem to be all over the place, and there is very little sequence presented in Table 4 to look at. I really don't feel I can give MK the benefit of the doubt anymore when the data is not presented in a way to be evaluated. Did I miss some published data somewhere? And I don't want to deal with additional data that she may or may not have and may or may not make public.

What is your take on this?

I think it was just too much data for her to assemble and put in the paper. No I don't think you missed any, I think she needed help managing it all. She did know where to look to confirm her hypothesis, but the dang DNA probably didn't cooperate in sequencing and amplification,,....... too many failures for what ever reason.

I think this is where she began to expect this from the nuDNA as SeqWright probably provided some of the data/info there. I do hope she will have the data independently analysed, but if not, some samples can probably be tested again.

[Guest]

So, now Dr. Haskell Hart, a chemist, verifies MK's claims. That's pretty cool, but can she find a geneticist to do the same? And, good thing RobinLynne posted for MK, so that she could misspell Hart's name, and keep that par for the course lack of detail thing going. My brother has a PhD, attended Cornell, and is in the same field as Hart, so maybe I'll have to get him to jump in the game, since we're taking opinions of people in completely unrelated fields relative to the study.

Edited April 23, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher

[Guest]

A retired physical chemist who has studied paint pigments is hardly the right person to verify her paper's claims. And the other PhD referenced on her Facebook page today has a doctorate in public administration.

Gee, why can't she find support from PhDs in the right disciplines ... like genetics or bioinformatics or statistics?

[Guest]

Because they don't exist ?

Just a guess.