The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

Melissa: He put this up as "required viewing"

I haven't been able to watch it all yet, but the first 7 min or so is nothing but snickering and jeering and the FB comments are mostly more of the same.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Mulder

[Martin]

^ you are mentioned at about 14 minutes.

[Guest]

Getting back on topic (and apologies if this is old news, as I just came across it), it looks like Dr Meldrum has thrown in with the "sneer and jeer" crowd, based on some of his recent FB postings. I see no indication that he or anyone he cites has actually accessed and evaluated the terrabytes of data behind the study, but they are confidently crapping all over the findings.

I am a little disappointed with Dr Meldrum, who has suffered the same sort of unprofessional behavior himself in the past.

MK has not put out the terrabytes of data - but less than 0.1% of the genome (she published about 3 million bp of a presumed genome size of 3 billion). There is no indication she will publish more with this current manuscript - we will have to pony up another $30 for the next installment! We can only analyze that data that we have access to (and purchased).

While the grad student video is mocking (and mostly brought upon by MK herself), I put as much of that on the fact that they are young. But the basis of their criticism was valid. Yes, they could have been more constructive in their evaluation. But the paper was bad and the method of publication was, let's say, unique. And while science is not yet buying into Bigfoot, it is becoming much more main stream. So it was more interesting to them than a bad paper based on some new species of slug. And I got the feeling that they were really more mocking of the paper and its conclusions, than the topic of BF. I only viewed it once, but that was my recollection.

Edited February 28, 2013 by ridgerunner

[Guest dxm2]

Regarding the video, aside from the snickering, which is to be expected with graduate students, there is a lot of good info. And I agree with RR in that they were mocking the paper more than the subject. Give them a good paper with good data, then see what they say.

Thanks for posting!

[Guest]

Yeah - and Mulder? What did they say - that hasn't been said here - by GenesRus, Ridgerunner or Theagenes? Yeah - there was a bit of "laughing at us" - but we do that to ourselves.

I'm not sure why we expect others to treat us better than we treat ourselves and each other?? Maybe instead of being angry with what they said ----- maybe we could learn something from it.

Ridgerunner said:

While the grad student video is mocking (and mostly brought upon by MK herself), I put as much of that on the fact that they are young. But the basis of their criticism was valid. Yes, they could have been more constructive in their evaluation. But the paper was bad and the method of publication was, let's say, unique. And while science is not yet buying into Bigfoot, it is becoming much more main stream. So it was more interesting to them than a bad paper based on some new species of slug. And I got the feeling that they were really more mocking of the paper and its conclusions, than the topic of BF. I only viewed it once, but that was my recollection.

Pluses.

[Cotter]

What did the guy say about Mulder?

[Guest]

I don't know Cotter - I didn't catch it.. give me a sec I will listen.

Edited to add:

They were not talking about our Mulder - they were discussing Mulder - of X-Files fame

Edited February 28, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest dxm2]

It was just a reference to X-Files and the character Mulder. Not "our" Mulder.

[Guest Scout1959]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/27/programming-life-with-click-mouse/

A very interesting article.

Biochemical engineers can now download a piece of software and, with a few simple clicks, assemble the DNA for new life forms through their laptops.

“With the proper computer tools, biologists can write their own genetic code -- and then turn that code into life,†said biochemist Omri Amirav-Drory, who founded Genome Compiler Corp., the company that built the software.

He demonstrated for FoxNews.com at a Starbucks early one morning by manipulating a bacteria's genes on his MacBook.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/27/programming-life-with-click-mouse/#ixzz2MEUCk8BL

[Guest]

Not for me... But I think the Sykes report will be a watershed moment in my ability to entertain the idea there could be a real beast out there. I never believed the Ketchum report would prove anything and once all the red flags started popping up like thermometers in the carcass of some charred turkey, I mainly watched out of interest to see how it would play out.

The real tragedy in all this is that many samples are possibly gone forever, and can not be sent to Dr Sykes. I read recently that someone said he only has 20 samples o work with. I wish it was 111 samples.

If I had submitted a sample which was destroyed and could not be used for future study, I would be devistated.

[Sunflower]

Gathering dna is very tricky. Hairs with a follicle are better than hairs without one. Unless you have an unlimited supply of the very same hair with follicles which is difficult to insure, then yes it's probable that all the hairs with follicles will be destroyed. It's the nature of the process.

So be sure to collect all of the hair you suspect if you decide to send it for dna and then store some for future testing.

Bryan Sykes only started asking for samples last year so if he wanted more he could put the word out. I'm betting that there are people sending him samples as we speak. Does anyone know for sure?

Blood, saliva and even skin cells have dna.

[Guest VioletX]

From Dr K's F/B; don't know what it means, have given up any stab at understanding this whole thing-just passing it on

V

Dr. Melba Ketchum

· 1,472 like this

10 minutes ago

·

• 
  This was posted on Melbas fb Wall by Timothy Collins. My question is this. If he can figure this out why cant so many others.
  This is what I have found so far and I'm just looking for answers to some basic questions like everyone else from your 5 year study and press release.
  Prior to Dr. Ketchum's release of the 5 year study, people on both sides of the issue "Is Sasquatch / Bigfoot Real",were unloading opinions before the ink on the paper was dry.
  People were jumping to conclusions because they had made up there collective minds without giving the study a chance to present the "FACTS" and "RESULTS" found.
  I was looking for any information I could find on the study once released. I'm still looking for a free copy or any real researchers review of the study and will welcome any reference to that data as we all are.
  Melba did give a press review of some of the content from that study out of self defense because the paper was being held up by main stream peer-reviewed journals and the reason for that was "The Subject Content" .... I did talk personally with Melba about this (in FB). My understanding was that the paper was not analyzed, and not reviewed because of the subject matter and tossed in the round file without proper consideration and usually without even reading the document a few pages let alone cover to cover.
  So far not much information available, so I checked into what Melba said in the press release about the "Next Generation Sequencing capabilities "and the "Quality Scores" provided by the Illumina HiSeq 2000 sequencing platforms... because any one can check into that and get quality answers to some questions.
  I used "FACTS" gleaned from a few people such as Melba Ketchum, Beckman Coulter, Illumina, Scott Carpenter, GenBank, NCBI and others.
  I'm NOT qualified as a lay person to discuss the implications of the tests or procedures but I can give information about the instruments used for the results.
  This is what I found: 110 samples (tested) were collected from 14 States & 2 Provinces and accepted for the DNA study.
  Tests were run on Illumina HiSeq 2000 sequencing platforms and these are "Whole Genome Tests" using extracted DNA.
  This sequencing experiment consists of a series of discrete steps that uniquely contribute to the overall quality of a data set.
  Sequencing quality provides important information about the accuracy of each step in the process such as "Base Calling".
  "Bass Calling" accuracy, measured by the Phred Quality Score ("Q Score" and this is extremely important to remember), is the most common measure used to access the "ACCURAY OF A SEQUENCING PLATFORM" making it the quality SCORING STANDARD for commercial sequencing technologies.
  "Q Scores" are defined as a property that is related to the "ERROR PROBILITIES" (logarithmically based) .
  In other words "how good is your data" was there any errors, any contamination?
  These statements are directly from the manufacturer and any one can check my accuracy by going to the Illumina web site.
  For example, if Phred assigns a Q Score of 30 (Q30) to a base, this is equivalent to the probability of an incorrect base call 1 in 1000 times or the accuracy of 99.9%.
  AND guess what this is the exact data base, Q30 that Melba was referring to in her study in the press release....THERE WAS NO CONTANAMATION PEOPLE.
  OK so how do we know that? Illumina states and I quote "When sequencing quality reaches Q30, virtually all of the reads will be perfect, having zero errors and ambiguities. This is why Q30 is considered a benchmark for quality in next-generation sequencing" end of quote!!!!
  The Q30 for the three genomes MK tested were 88.6, 88.4 & 88.7 and according to Illumina a pure sample will have a Q30 score of 80 or more with a average of 85 AND if contamination is present in the sample, the Q30 decreases dramatically as they compete against one another causing the contaminated sample to register a Q30 score of 40 to 50 and considered poor.
  With the Q30 scores for the MK genomes sequenced & tested bosted Q30 scores of 88.6, 88.4 & 88.7 therefore rank far above the average using the Illumina HiSeq 2000 Next Generation Sequencing Platform and again I will state there was no contanamation in the MK sampels tested.
  OK so there you have it THERE WAS NO ERRORS OR CONTANAMATION so all the critics have it totally wrong PERIOD...they ether didn't read the study or didn't know the quality of the data and expressed an opinion attempting to influence people based on personal bias (this is called conspiring against someone).
  In my opinion there seems to be a "conspiracy" against Melba and the research of "undocumented forest people" for some reason. Someone or a group of people do not want this information out and will do any thing to stop it from happening or maybe they are just having fun at someone else's expense because there is no bigfoot.
  The question is why, is this for personal gain from another professional who wants the credit for themselves, why are the "peer-reviewed scholarly journals not even reading the document when Q30 proves the science is correct and exact, is the mystique of the "undocumented forest person" too controversial to consider even for GenBank or NCBI? Is the government behind a cover up of some kind or maybe there is no conspiracy at all, just people doing there collective jobs...you decide that one for your self.
  Just remember this...Q30 proves the science is correct and exact... a slam dunk for Melba Ketchum.
  
  Like · · Share
  

[Sunflower]

Thanks Timothy Collins, whoever you are.

[Guest]

My understanding of Phred scores is that they measure the possibility of artifacts or errors in sequencing, not the possibility of contamination. In other words, it looks at the likelihood that your dataset has things like missing bases or incorrect base pairs, e.g. AC or TG pairings. At least, that's what I remember from scientific evidence.

Could someone with more knowledge of the area please clarify?

Edited February 28, 2013 by leisureclass

[Guest]

A link someone put in the page....

Really cool

http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.html