Guest Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 SY why are you keeping this SO DEAD subject alive by continuing to reply to it? Just curious. MK failed in epic fashion. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 It will never die WTB1, there will always be more witnesses, more samples to find, and the DNA will keep coming. It simply is not dependent on Ketchums' report. I'm not the only one responding to it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 SouthernYahoo, The comparisons of humans to Denisovans and Neanderthals must be through mtDNA, because there is no Denisovan nDNA and only very short disconnected sequences of Neanderthal nDNA in the databases. The mtDNAs are very similar to human, 98% and 99% identity, respectively, as found in my review under miscellaneous searches(this is not a new find). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Welcome to the forum hvhart. WTB1, the MK paper is just the beginning and will continue to be refined by others if not her. Her work will help others build their papers until we get to the bottom of this issue by showing dna from bfs.........................just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 It can't be refined georgerm. It has been found to be erroneous. As proponents have always said DNA = critter. This paper explicitly did not prove this. It failed. MK is done IMO. I'm pinning hopes on Sykes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 SouthernYahoo, The comparisons of humans to Denisovans and Neanderthals must be through mtDNA, because there is no Denisovan nDNA and only very short disconnected sequences of Neanderthal nDNA in the databases. The mtDNAs are very similar to human, 98% and 99% identity, respectively, as found in my review under miscellaneous searches(this is not a new find). hvhart, this article says the entire nuDNA genome of Denisovans is sequenced, and compared to Neanderthals and humans. Any idea where that data is? http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/human-ancestor-bred-neanderthals-siberia-101222.htm But mitochondrial DNA, a small loop of genetic material inherited only through the female line, isn't as informative as the DNA packed into cells' nuclei. So Reich and his colleagues decided to sequence the entire nuclear genome. In so doing the team found that the Denisovans were much more closely related to Neanderthals, who had their genomes sequenced earlier this year. And comparing the Denisovan DNA to that of modern-day humans turned up a big surprise: DNA samples from people living in Melanesia carried about 4 to 6 percent of the ancient Denisovan genome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I agree with Southern Yahoo. This is just the beginning. How can people be so blockheaded? Can't they see that science is the proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 georgerm and others, To answer your question and open up discussion, I have transferred my extensive review, which I sent to Dr. Ketchum, to my facebook page. Some of the formatting was lost, but it's readable. Also there I offer to send my Word file and the attachments to anyone. Please be as critical as you like. I don't claim to be the last word. Reading this and, of course, the original Ketchum article is much better use of your time than speculation about our credentials. We both admit(she to me, me to you) to not being geneticists. But Einstein was a patent clerk when he discovered the theory of relativity(not that I claim to be anywhere near as brilliant or that anything I do is anywhere near as important). Hope to hear from you all, Sincerely, Haskell Hart So, you feel that MK proved the existence of Bigfoot with her paper? Holding the same doctorate as my brother, I know that a lot of you guys have various patents on a myriad of chemically-based compounds. Would you think it was alright to self-patent, and list your self-patents on your own site, independent of the Patent and Trademark Office, with the expectation of people honoring said patents? I guess if you were Einstein, you could probably write your own with ease, I'd imagine. He laughed, apparently, when I e-mailed him the paper to gloss over recently. But he isn't a geneticist, so his opinion about the paper doesn't really matter anyways. If MK needed a detergent to wash contamination from the samples, I guess he'd be helpful. Qui *** canibus concumbunt *** pulicibus surgent, Mr. Hart. Be careful, my man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Pac, My conclusions concerning the DNA results are quite simple as stated in my review. I never commented on the "existence of Bigfoot" or claimed that the samples were from Bigfoot, as that is a much bigger question requiring a lot more data and analysis. Read the review, then criticize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 hvhart, do you have access to data that is not uploaded and provided with the paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 (edited) So many misconceptions here. You can't claim a match with 100 bp sequences. You get what you got, ridgerunner: matches to things that are very distantly related genetically. Ailuropoda melanoleuca is a PANDA (did you check?), not even a true bear and not found in the wild in the US. True proof of homology usually involves thousands of bp in sequences. Haplotytpe stuff cut out saved for later discussion Do some homework, people. mR HVHart, I am a bit disturbed by your cavalier ignorance of basic biology and DNA technologies. May i ask you for clarification on a few of your points? as for the 100 BP, i assume you are refering to the fragments created by Next gen sequencing? That is standard,(actauly typically 50 - 250) it varies, and they are then reassembled. That is the core issue that no one has been able to address. who actually reassembled these 100 BP fragments? using what software. To judge how accurate that assembly was, typically any peer reviewed scientific paper using this methodology would include specific numbers that allow the reader to judge for themselves the quality (accuracy) of the reassembly. The N50 for the data assembled would be hugely important, as would be the HR, RR, and ER measures? are you privy to those numbers? If so, would you mind sharing them with me? if not, how on earth did you determine the accuracy of the reassembly? As for your claim that the giant panda is not a "true bear" can you provide me your source for that information? I went back into my antique (1986) Mammalogy textbook, and it places panda with the rest of the bears, noting it is a bit dicey placement. At that time, some believed it was more closely related to the racoon family. However through the magic of next gen sequencing, we have now confirmed the Giant Panda as being a true bear. I'm not sure why you would not simply google up wikipedia if nothing else: Classification and evolution For many decades, the precise taxonomic classification of the giant panda was under debate because it shares characteristics with both bears and raccoons.[42] However, molecular studies suggest the giant panda is a true bear and part of the Ursidae family,[3][43] though it differentiated early in history from the main ursine stock. The giant panda's closest extant relative is the spectacled bear of South America.[44] The giant panda has been referred to as a living fossil.[45] So perhaps you need to take your own suggestion, and i quote: "Do some homework, people." Edited May 2, 2013 by slowstepper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Has anybody downloaded hvharts paper? Could you put it somewhere accessible? Not sure why I'm contemplating reading the 'analysis' by someone who doesn't understand why running a sample a system could flag 'Panda' as a match for ursine DNA fragments, but I am a glutton for punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 People do need to just read the review before getting up in arms. https://www.facebook.com/notes/haskell-hart/review-of-ketchum-et-al/145941685585819 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 (edited) georgerm and others, But Einstein was a patent clerk when he discovered the theory of relativity(not that I claim to be anywhere near as brilliant or that anything I do is anywhere near as important). It says a lot that Ketchum et al compare themselves to Einstein and Galileo. It's not surprising, given Ketchum's remarks about a Nobel Prize, but it says a lot. And, because it should be repeated on every page: MK failed in epic fashion. The end. Edited May 2, 2013 by leisureclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I am pleased to see that Dr. Hart's review is not a broad-based blessing of the paper in that he acknowledges quite a few shortcomings. I'm anxious to hear more from Slowstepper, Ridgerunner and GenesRus regarding the more complex information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts