TimB Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 How long did you work on the denisovan sample, slow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 @SS, 10 samples is not statistically sound to base a decision on. Need more data points! @SY, have you submitted your hair to any place else? I don't believe i made any claim of statistical significance. What statistical test would you like applied to this. I was making a simple declaration. I tested 10 samples, all came back known mammals. what about that statement needs statistical support? heres an analogy for you. say you touch a hot stove, and it burns your hand. so you touch it again, and get burned again, and you do it again. same result! So you figure, well 3 times in not statistically significant, so I need to keep touching it, because sooner or later I will not get burned, and that will disprove the theory that a hot stove burns my hand! At what point would you abandon your statistical significance argument, and stop touching the stove?? Well, sure, you didn't come out and use the word 'statistic' or any of its derivations. And perhaps I incorrectly inferred that you are under the understanding that all BF samples will test as known. Based on your stove analogy, it sure seems as though you have made up your mind definitively on the subject. But perhaps I am wrong. Do you allow for a chance of the existence of BF? Do you allow for the chance that DNA samples will indeed test as an unknown primate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) Thanks for answer and in advance ... Right SS, so if similar to modern genomes it would be tricky to find a BF via mtDNA as typically tested? I suppose in wildlife ID protocol there is some short version/analysis to compare with human? What in Denisnova mtDNA was unique compared to modern humans? If any, is it something that would be picked up by typical comparative wildlife testing that might conclude sample was human? Or would there be some different protocol to find that difference if BFs were Denisova..or similar...? I know new genome articles are open access, but really I would not trust any conclusion I drew from reading for my questions...again thanks for spelling it out for me..if you do! Edited July 2, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 A thought. If this sample was one that she used for her paper, the data should be included in the paper. I forget, did any of the members here, when doing their own BLAST's, come up with possum for any of them? The results should correllate, no? Wondering if any of our in-house BLASTers had come up with possum. I don't recall hearing that, but wanted to double check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Does anyone have the sequences in Fasta or whatever for download. Or is there somewhere to access them without paying for her journal? I would like to play around with it a bit I have only really worked with viral sequences but it shouldn't be much different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 The sequences have shown a wide variety of animals now, except nothing that can be attributed to an unknown primate. That proves the samples were actually contaminated, which is in contrast to what she has claimed so adamantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Has everyone heard that Melba broke her silence today and placed a series of posts on her facebook about the study? Melba Ketchum: Melba Ketchum 18 hours ago via mobile In response to the latest round of criticism. 1. We did give these folks access to the genomes. 2. They only pulled random sequences and did not look at the whole genomes. The person from UT that did our analysis told me that he never got all of the raw data uploaded to the second lab due to computer problems on the receiving lab's end. 2. I offered raw DNA to this lab so they could extract and sequence themselves. They would not even give the courtesy of a reply. 3. They refused to even speak with me on the phone. The entire thing was completely and totally unprofessional. 4. They never tried to check the analysis done at the University of Texas even though the bioinformatics person put himself at their disposal.What findings they gave were impossible since both of our labs would have had to extract feces to obtain these results. If it had been feces, we would not have been able to obtain the preliminary results that we got prior to the genomes. After all, they were the same extractions. You can't get feces from tissue, blood and saliva. If we did extract feces, the quality scores would not have been this high. That is in the literature. This leads to a couple of possibilities. One, there is a conspiracy to suppress our findings. Two, they just didn't care and didn't believe that there is even the possibility that Sasquatch exists and therefore just wanted to be done with it because they had other projects. Three, they themselves suppressed it for fear that their careers would be damaged. The things that I know for sure are that it was not an adequate analysis, they did not even try to double check or recreate our findings. If they really had an interest, they would have jumped at the chance to resequence the raw samples. Funny thing, I offered the samples to three other places also and nobody was willing to test. Something is just not right. I also offered several people an opportunity to visit a habituation site including this reporter and his lab people so they could have a sighting. Of course they didn't want that either. Bottom line, nobody except a few of you here even care about the truth. Most would rather perpetuate that BF is a myth or an ape. Melba Ketchum 8 hours ago via mobile A couple of answers to some of the comments: 1. Nobody wants to touch this. I even contacted Paabo and he wouldn't answer my email. I thought that they, of all people would be interested what with published work on other novel hominins. Even if they want to work on it, oftentimes the higher ups will not allow it. 2. As far as media. They do not care. It will take somebody with a connection to main stream media to get any interest. I do not have those connections. If anyone should have those types of connections, feel free to approach them on behalf of the study. I emailed Fox after they made a huge deal on primetime about a blobsquatch. Of course there was no response. https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum?fref=ts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted July 3, 2013 Admin Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) Journalist tests purported Bigfoot DNA sample and finds it contains mostly opossum Houston Chronicle reporter Eric Berger had the reputed Sasquatch DNA tested by a top geneticist Melba Ketchum had claimed that she used DNA tests to prove the existence of the mythical creatures The sample actually contains opossum DNA, along with traces from other forest animals Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2353596/Bigfoot-DNA-evidence-turns-opossum-DNA.html#ixzz2XxDQAWpHFollow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Edited July 3, 2013 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Science by Facebook, killin' me. Totally aside my problem with proof being alleged in the complete absence of a type specimen, this has been sloppily handled since Day One. Not the thing to up confidence in conclusions. Note, however, one of the biggest imediments in the field. Kinda, you know, subtle in this case. The "top genetecist" can't even tell us who he is. And read why. The proponents' difficulties are tripled and the result cubed as long as the mainstream's attitude is "practice science on this and we put you in the stocks." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) How long did you work on the denisovan sample, slow? Tim, not sure what you are driving at here? the response I made was to apehumans post, which I copy below (in part) Since we haven't erectus DNA (well I guess Denisova or Hidelbergensis count..do we have DNA from them? I have forgotten..)... stuff edited ... I thought that we shared a great deal of mtDNA with Neanderthal I was using the We as a direct response to this question, we as the coloquial. Now my response could also be read as We refering to the fact that researchers all over the world currently have access to the complete genome of denisovan woman. So , no I did not work on isolating and interpritting the genome! if you want an excellent summary of where WE (the scientific community ) is on this, just take a look at the July 2013 National Geographic. There is an excellent summary article. After yoju read that , and see how WE have gotten a complete genome of high quality from a bone the size of a pea, and then look at how that information has been "mined" to make all sorts of conclusions, you see the real value of DNA, and making it available to qualified educated well trained professionals. Contrast that to Melbas "I have 3 complete genomes - no one can see em" "all of the data are in the paper" etc ad infinitum. pretty stark contrast! BTW, just to keep you updated. several months ago Wally Hermson requested that he be given files containing the "3 complete genomes" that Ketchum claims to have. Melba demanded a significant amount of money for a "special hard drive" capable of holding those data (as an aside a 4 terrabite drive from seagate is about 170 bucks) Wally provided the money, and has still not recieved the data or anything else he has requested from Melba. All of this after he provided $450,000 dollars to Melba! and got stuck paying tax and penalty on that after it turns out Melbas tax deduxtable organization was not tax deductable at all! Edited July 3, 2013 by slowstepper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Based on your stove analogy, it sure seems as though you have made up your mind definitively on the subject. But perhaps I am wrong. Do you allow for a chance of the existence of BF? Do you allow for the chance that DNA samples will indeed test as an unknown primate? As I have stated repeatedly here, as reacently as the last page of this thread, I would be estatic if anyone produced sound evidence that BF existed. I would not be wasting time and money doing DNA tests, and microscopic analysis etc, if i did not hold open the chance that this thing exists in some form. But it's getting harder and harder to convince me as time after time adfter time - purportely good evidence turns out to be not that at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Thanks for answer and in advance ... Right SS, so if similar to modern genomes it would be tricky to find a BF via mtDNA as typically tested? I suppose in wildlife ID protocol there is some short version/analysis to compare with human? What in Denisnova mtDNA was unique compared to modern humans? If any, is it something that would be picked up by typical comparative wildlife testing that might conclude sample was human? Or would there be some different protocol to find that difference if BFs were Denisova..or similar...? I know new genome articles are open access, but really I would not trust any conclusion I drew from reading for my questions...again thanks for spelling it out for me..if you do! Slowstepper, apehuman is asking , what if you took a small sample of mtDNA from Denisova, like in barcode analysis using the CO1 gene. Would Denisova be distinguishable from modern human? We could ask the same for Neanderthal in this scenario. I've never got a straight answer on this in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 OH The hits just keep on coming http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/bigfoot-dna-test-results_n_3541431.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 If the evidence backed up Ketchum’s claims, I had a blockbuster story. My geneticist source would have a hand in making the scientific discovery of the decade, or perhaps the century. Ketchum would be vindicated ... Alas, I met my geneticist friend this past week and I asked about the Bigfoot DNA. It was, he told me, a mix of opossum and other species. No find of the century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 ^Little late to the party drew. But I may as well ask, does this geneticist have a name? Where can one review his findings? Additionally, I'd like to pull this excerpt from the article you linked. I think we can all put to rest the 'theory' that scientists are concerned of backlash in their industry for even ATTEMPTING to prove this species. "That said, Berger wouldn't reveal his geneticist over worries that the man would catch heat for giving time to a mythical creature." Here's an eye-opener: ALL creatures are mythical until they are proven....this basically states that scientists that are attempting to discover new creatures are being held back by the institution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) Well yeah. I mean, look at how 'skeptics' jump all over this non-review by a nonexistent geneticist. Why, it's the Bob Hieronymous of Genetics! A little less runaway credulity, 'skeptics.' [snort] Edited July 3, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts