The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

What would the correct answers be then NC? http://www.newser.co...-different.html

LTBF posted this link in the same post

http://articles.cnn....ease?_s=PM:TECH

Sigh. The actual link would be:http://articles.cnn....ease?_s=PM:TECH

That (old!) article speaks of functional genetic counterparts, not genetic similarity the way we are discussing in this thread.

Try the link again Nuka......

Thanks

Although I did mean for you to click my earlier link to answer your question.

Edited March 5, 2013 by NukaCola

[Guest thermalman]

Expalin to me, the genetic similarity the thread is discussing? Obviously, it seems I've slipped.

Here's a newer article NC, with same results http://genomebiology.com/2012/13/8/418

"The mouse genome has been uniquely useful in annotating the human genome and advancing the understanding of human gene functions. At 2.7 Gb, the mouse genome is of comparable size and structure with the human genome, and 99% of mouse genes have human orthologs."

Edited March 5, 2013 by thermalman

[southernyahoo]

Nope, I don't Capice... because you didn't capice...I was saying that I must be insane, since I exhibit the common definitiion of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results." - I keep posting information wherein actual scientists have parsed the data that she hand-selected to be released to the public. Each of these scientists show what is happening in this data. Yet each Melba Clingon says that these scientists don't have her data to make conclusions upon, and further charge that they have no science to back up their claims that Melba's results don't hold water. I just truly can't wrap my brain around it. Theses scientists are doing the work with the data that she provided - ONLY the data that she provided. How can people then claim that the scientists don't have her data, and that no scientific work has been performed on her data? I keep posting what seems to me to be the irrefutable logic of this, and the Clingons keep using magic shields to block the logic. I don't know why I keep expecting 'different results'... the only logical answer is that I am going insane. lol.

Well, where all else fails, start over. Go get you some real bigfoot samples, know what you are looking for, use your own criteria as to what would qualify as primate and apply the same methods you've done to that evidence. When you get the same result "human" and something other, your insanity will be official.

[Guest]

@thermalman

We have been discussing genetic homolgy in this thread -genetic similarity between species.

The CNN article discusses functional equivalence on a genetic level, not homology.

Here's a newer article NC, with same results http://genomebiology.com/2012/13/8/418

"The mouse genome has been uniquely useful in annotating the human genome and advancing the understanding of human gene functions. At 2.7 Gb, the mouse genome is of comparable size and structure with the human genome, and 99% of mouse genes have human orthologs."

Orthologs vs Homologs. Not the same thing.

http://homepage.usask.ca/~ctl271/857/def_homolog.shtml

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/Molbio/MolStudents/spring2010/Rydberg/Orthologs.html

(sorry if this editing in replies back and forth gets confusing)

Edited March 5, 2013 by WV FOOTER

[Guest thermalman]

Thank you. Homology it is. All good.

Edited March 5, 2013 by thermalman

[southernyahoo]

Sigh. The actual link would be:http://articles.cnn....ease?_s=PM:TECH

That (old!) article speaks of functional genetic counterparts, not genetic similarity the way we are discussing in this thread.

Thanks

Although I did mean for you to click my earlier link to answer your question.

Why not use the term alignable? 95% of the chimp genome aligns with human according to Katherine Pollard Phd. She was one of the first to compare the chimp and human genome. The other couple percent are still homologous but doesn't align to my understanding.

http://fora.tv/2009/..._Makes_Us_Human

Edited March 5, 2013 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

I keep posting information wherein actual scientists have parsed the data that she hand-selected to be released to the public. Each of these scientists show what is happening in this data.

It frustrates me to see some people seemingly totally ignore the cold hard breakdown you have posted, I can't imagine how it must make you feel.

I wonder if some of those people are under the mistaken assumption that it came from the results of the sample you and Bart had, and don't realize that it is the sequence data that MK released in the paper.

[Guest FootDude]

@ cath..."I will wait to see more information from Melba and the other people reviewing it and giving it a full review not some small blog post but a complete break down of the paper and the data. She sent them."

I totally agree. Time will tell, we just gotta be patient.

The community has been patient.

Time to hold MK accountable for her work as well as the hundreds of thousands of dollars she seems to have wasted.

I, for one, find it hard to derive any conclusion from the insufficient data that's been released thus far, and find it amusing that so many other's have come to a critical conclusion, (mostly personal of Melba and not so much the data) in their minds. Seriously, how can anyone come to a conclusion of any sort, based on the minimal information that's been released? It's mostly hypothetical and presumptuous thinking at best, by the general public.

TM I believe you are genuinely misunderstanding Ridgerunner's, Theagenes's and Genesrus's analysis of the conclusions contained in the Ketchum report.

Ridegerunner suggests that the conclusions Ketchum reached based on the data released (though limited as it is) does not most strongly support a verifiable Sasquatch genome but contaminated DNA.

See Ridgerunner's analysis below. Page 13 of this thread:

The new nuDNA is so unique that it is not showing up in the genbanks databases. This is odd. I have been spending a good portion of my free time blasting the sequences provided with the manuscript, and the homology to human is rather minor over the whole sequences. I believe it is well less than say 10% (perhaps as low as 2%). Furthermore, the three samples do not appear to be related to each other - they are not highly homologous. So they are not the same species - perhaps 3 different species though. Do you know which of these three samples MK clames as HSC? It is not clear what samples in the study did not pass the test of being BF. I have this evening picked ups some homology to Streptococcus sanguinis (a bacteria), and Acremonium sp (mold) from sample 31. Given where these samples have been retrieved from, this is not surprising. You can call the non-human nuDNA a discovery, but I don't know where it came from! But I doubt it was from a mammal and hence BF. Imo, of course!

I am just going to keep putting data out there to hammer down the point. One blog challenged the "critics" to blast the data. I only wish the supporters would do likewise.

Ok, so I just did an alignment of sample 26 vs 31. Again there is alignment over the length of the full contigs (one being 2.7Mbp the other being 0.53Mbp). Again, if they were the same species (and the contigs legitimate) they should not be broken up into so many pieces and the two contigs should be the same length. This demonstrates they are not related - or the contigs were not assembled correctly, or had contaminating (NOT HUMAN) dna integrated into the contig.

one last piece of analysis from me for tonight. just did an alignment between sample 26 and 140 over the entire length of the contig, and there is a fair bit of homology - 47%. Left panel. Still low homology, but when you look at the plot, it looks a lot smoother. With the recent discussion of the origin of sample 26, I don't know what to make of this, but I put it out there.

Ok, this is the last bit to round out the set. Alignment of 31 and 140 looks quite low (7%) and again broken up. Right panel.

Take home is that 26 and 140 appear more similar to each other than to 31.

Now analysis of the report could change with further raw DNA data being released but based on other fundamental mistakes noted in the report, IMO that does not seem likely. See Theagenes post below.

This passage really says it all. She doesn't even know what the word "hominin" means. She's just saying words at this point.

The paternal lineage found in the nuclear DNA of Sasquatch suggests a distantly related hominin that evolved separately from humans, apes and other primates but evolved to the point where it could interbred with humans.

Very sloppy and amateurish work by Ketchum.

If believers are to remain credible, then they have to stop posting assumptions, presumptions, and hypothetical thinking about issues they don't know anything about? It's that type of quesswork that promotes retalitation from others who are requesting and sticking to the facts, as they become available. Melba took this testing on, and has come under attack from both believers and non-believers, 99.5% of whom know nothing about the facts, but unfortunately, still feel they have a right for an opinion on the event.

Quite the contrary.

If the Bigfoot research community is to remain credible then we must be our own fiercest critics. Sound reasoning and astute critical analysis of the facts as well as following fundamental sound scientific method and theory must be adhered to religiously.

This is contamination at its worst, IMHO

No.

It's sound scientific criticism of her conclusions based on the data she has made publicly available.

Edited March 5, 2013 by FootDude

[Oonjerah]

There must be a legal way for Dr. Ketchum to register the study and all the data

that goes with it as hers. Upload it to a data bank, and have it copyrighted, notarized

and registered as hers.

I am not at all familiar with the laws on intellectual property, but I know they exist.

Therefore, there is a standard process for claiming authorship and ownership of said

property.

If she would just do that part of it, the full data could be released and reviewed

by others. I feel this would benefit her as much as all the people who are interested

in seeing what's in the Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study.

This is so obvious, I can't be the first person to suggest it!

Edited March 5, 2013 by Oonjerah

[Guest]

Thermalman said:

At this point, it's all the public has. You're right about the "How do you (or any of us know) her "science" is right - when she has not released the Raw Data." But it would have to be considered the most concrete evidence we have until it is rightly refute. It can't be called wrong, because there is nothing else to compare to at this point. I'm giving MK the benefit of the doubt because she has taken the BF subject to the next level, regardless of the results.

No, it's all Melba has. We as a community, have nothing, because Melba has (to this point) dropped the ball. Thermalman - I completely appreciate your desire to defend this paper, but if this is what you intend to hold up as the most "concrete evidence we have" -- I hope you're not building a house on that concrete. Right now, all we have is what Melba has released but she didn't release the part that actually proved her point. Funny how the "beautiful science" is just as mysterious as the animal itself..

People who know a lot more than me are saying - what she has released so far just won't cut it. Melba can be as upset, or angry as she wants - but until she impresses the scientific community she has proven nothing. Those are the people she needs to impress. I gave Melba the benefit of the doubt for the last 4 of the 5 years. I hoped along with everyone else she would finally break the mystery.. But, I have to say - to date - she has not done it. Her "beautiful science" turned into a bunch of drama that has taken us no where. I would be okay with the drama so far - if it was leading somewhere with "beautiful science" at the end.. But so far - nada and not just nada - but no end in sight.

Did you ask her if she will be releasing the raw data?

because there is nothing else to compare to at this point.

I'm not so sure that's a bad thing... Sorry.

[Guest Steve Byrne]

First, I just want to thank everyone for the discussions here.

I'm still stuck on the 16 mtDNA haplotypes out of 20 samples. Does this mean 16 races of squatch or a blend of all 16? It seems like this would be a smoking gun for puzzlingly random contaminations (16 races of bf researchers?), or more likely I just don't understand it.

Is there a scenario where it makes sense? Please help me!

[Arrowhead]

Here you go-my summary piece addresses pretty much all of your questions:

Just read carefully because it can be confusing... even to "non"-brainwashed persons

http://www.sierrasit...tissue.html?m=1

Thanks for responding to my post - I have heard snipits of the story, but your link tied it all together.

[Martin]

In fact - here is ridgerunners quote from this thread I copied it March 1st - and I believe he posted it the same day.

"And yes, I do have publications in PubMed (Nature, EMBOJ, MCB, PNAS, NAR, JCB, NSMB, JI, and a couple others). So I feel I am qualified."

I also hope you continue to post ridgerunner.

[Guest]

Fbfb commented on someone else｀s post that dr. Ketchum was no expert on bigfoot. And they think they are？ what a joke.

[Guest TwilightZone]

I just don't understand the loyalty of the Ketchum supporters. I'm assuming many were hoping this paper would provide vindication from the scoffing and outright mockery they've endured from friends and family. Now comes this paper with a stated goal of proving Sasquatch exists in order to give the creatures protection ...

...But the raw data that is supposed to really prove their existence is kept secret. Was proving them really the goal? Seriously?

You should feel really let down rather than defensive, IMO. Ketchum left you out there on a limb, she piled more opprobrium on the topic than ever. What earthly reason could there be for her to keep the "beautiful science" secret except it doesn't exist?