Guest thermalman Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Plussed Mulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Good read Mulder, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 The article gave her way too much credit. But don't take the article's word that there was contamination, it's in the sequences she provided. I think it's pretty clear who's seeing what they want to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 I think you're overstating the expertise of forensic DNA experts. They specialize in looking at two samples and computing the probability of a match, not at sequencing novel genomes. I think Timmer's article did a rather good job of explaining why Ketchum was a poor choice for the study. TWO different labs independently made the SAME repeated errors in procedure resulting in improper analysis of "contaminated" samples? I find that very hard to believe. I finally read through the whole thing, and it reads like an exercise in circular reasoning and selective application of standards. On the one hand, the author acknowledges the validity of forensic dna testing and the expertise of forensic dna analyists. Their practices, after all, are time-tested and court approved. Yet here comes a novel dna sequence and suddenly those time-tested, court-approved methods are complete bunk? And the analysts who previously were said to be very good at spotting and eliminating contamination are mysteriously incompetent? TWO LABS worth of analysts? That doesn't pass the "sniff test". Apples and oranges. Forensic DNA testing is a whole different world from sequencing novel genomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 The equine genome was novel until the the equine genome project sequenced it, which Ketchum participated in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Was proof of that published in a made-up Journal too ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Horsemap/hgplinks.html click on Horse Genomics 1995 to 2007 http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Horsemap/Maps/ 2003 publication. Guérin, G.; Bailey, E.; Bernoco, D.; Anderson, I.; Antczak, D.F.; Bell, K.; Biros, I.; Bjørnstad, G.; Bowling, A.T.; Brandon, R.; Caetano, A.R.; Cholewinski, G.; Colling, D.; Eggleson, M.; Ellis, N.; Flynn, J.; Gralak, B.; Hasegawa, T.; Ketchum, M.; Lindgren, G.; Lyons, L.A.; Millon, L.V.; Mariat, D.; Murray, J.; Neau, A.; Røed, K.; Sandberg, K.; Skow, L.C.; Tammen, I.; Tozaki, T.; VanDyk, E.; Weiss, B.; Young, A.; Ziegle, J. (2003) The second generation of the International Equine Gene Mapping Workshop half-sibling linkage map. Animal Genetics 34:161-168 Edited July 24, 2013 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Admin Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 To continue discussion/debate on this topic, Please do so in the new thread: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/40487-the-ketchum-report-part-3/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts