Guest njjohn Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 The other 99% of the data is lacking. You can never be definitive when you're looking at 1% of anything. To me, she's almost handled this like a forensics expert would handle a defense case... create reasonable doubt. It doesn't prove anything, but it keep it up in the air. Unfortunately, that's not enough in the scientific world. There's two other DNA studies now that refute the claims made by Ketchum. The only way to disprove is to release he full report on that sample from all the labs that tested it. She doesn't have to release everything for the other samples. Just that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Yeah njjohn - but you don't want your side to be doubted. Melba created reasonable doubt - that points directly at her - by not releasing all the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 If the proof contained what would normally be considered identity markers in humans , then it would be prudent to not publish that publicly. Is there raw data from Bart's lab DNA Solutions, that would show to the public Justin's Identity markers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) I think we may be getting distracted by sample 26. The two other samples, 31 and 140, do not make biological sense either. MK has not released any raw data, just her processed contigs compiled from the raw data. From this processed data, it is clear it is not from anything related to any biological species on this planet. If people want to believe this creature is from another planet or due to an act of God, that is fine. I think the contigs were assembled incorrectly, and have contaminant DNA in them. Without the raw data, no one can prove this scientifically. MK knows this. Normally when a scientific paper is published, the raw data from study is made available, so the claims in the paper can be verified. Honestly, I don't need the raw data to know this is biologically wrong (in claiming this creature exists with this type of sequence, and being able to hybridize with human in the recent past)- I want the raw data so someone can give a accurate assessment of what it actually is. I think njjohn is correct that she is trying to create reasonable doubt by not being forthcoming with all of her data. Edited March 8, 2013 by ridgerunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I fail to understand why some folks either don't comprehend - or are in denial of - the fact that most of the data has not been provided. You can't print TERABYTES of data in a paper! That is WHY the lack of a GenBank upload is an issue, and this is WHY she made a big deal over the offer of other folks to help her get it uploaded. Without the complete data, the paper has no basis. It's like sending the IRS your tax payment --- without all of the forms, interest statements, W-2s, property tax statements, receipts, charitable contributions, etc., showing the calculations to back up the amount you put on the check. Melba's given us the "check," but we don't know how she arrived at the amount. This IS a simplistic explanation, but perhaps it will help some folks understand why the paper CANNOT stand on its own. The data MUST be provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 See- those arguments make sense. Is it normal protocol to release all your data when you release a paper to the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Sharing of such data is a REQUIREMENT of publishing in a journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted March 8, 2013 Admin Share Posted March 8, 2013 How about if you own the journal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 If you want to be taken seriously, you would have to uphold standard professional practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 See- those arguments make sense. Is it normal protocol to release all your data when you release a paper to the public? It is standard scientific protocol to release or make available the data relevant to what is published - which would at a minimum be the data used to generate the chromosome 11 sequences as stated below. "In depth analysis of all three genomic sequences (samples 26, 31 and 140) was performed at the University of Texas, Southwestern and alignment confirmed by the University of North Texas Health Science Center. Using CLC Bio Genomic Workbench version 5.1, a subsample of extracted reads were assembled to create a consensus sequence using the human chromosome 11 as a reference. A set of 379 genes was analyzed among three different samples (26, 31, and 140). The coverage of a subset of 159 genes was compared among these samples, and a consensus sequence was generated. For each sample, the subsets of genes were concatenated to produce a long, single sequence used to generate a supertree. The length of the concatenated sequences was 656,048 (26), 541,435 (140), and 74,589 (31). These concatemers (supercontigs) were used to find sequence homologs and generate phylogenetic trees. The genes represented in the selective supercontig were DLG2, NTM, ODZ4, FAT3, CADM1, SOX6, DSCAML1, NCAM1, GRM5, MPPED2, PKNOX2, KIAA0999, ZBTB16, and SHANK2. The lengths of the selective supercontigs were 293,249 (26), 235,738 (140), and 39,582 (31). The size-filtering generated supercontigs that only included genomic regions with long sequences, and created phylogenetic trees similar for all three samples, where the average branch length to Primates is 0.02 for all three samples. The Sasquatch consensus-selective supercontigs were used to create a set of phylogeny trees utilizing BLAST pairwise alignments (Supplementary Figures 4-6)." Moderators, please edit out quote if too much is quoted. What has been provided is the entire consensus sequences for samples 26, 31, and 140, not the above sequences. I would also like to see access to the mtDNA sequences, and other sequences generated from the nuDNA, that is only presented in table form. It would be great to have the whole genome made available, but I can understand that she wants to publish these findings independently. But then, the data she has in this paper MUST fully substantiate her finding without reference of this unknown, unreleased data. In my opinion, they do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) is it possible she released what she did to get her project out there so they have an idea where she was headed with this, then scientist with credentials would contact her directly and release the remaining data on a one to one basis, where she can explain any questions they have, instead of just throwing it all out there like a bunch of bones in a dog kennel, causing total disarray. She has said it hasn't been easy, was threatened , personally attacked, called a fraud,hoaxer, con artist, etc... people have been beyond vicious to her, and the best part is, she has not did anything to them. she didn't steal from them, hurt them, damage there property, etc... and if she did, do the right thing and file a lawsuit against her,instead of belittling yourself by practicing playground justice, witch most have learned, it doesn't solve anything. Edited March 8, 2013 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Those are good things to know, Shboom 2. Do the academics on here concur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Those are good things to know, Shboom 2. Do the academics on here concur? I think that given the nature of how the paper came out, and given the subject material, it is doubly important to follow the standard professional practices to be taken seriously. is it possible she released what she did to get her project out there so they have an idea where she was headed with this, then scientist with credentials would contact her directly and release the remaining data on a one to one basis, where she can explain any questions they have, instead of just throwing it all out there like a bunch of bones in a dog kennel, causing total disarray. Maybe - time will tell. But again, this is not the standard way of doing things - to release a controversial paper to elicit feedback. I guess if MK listens and would modify the conclusions if proven incorrect, then it may, in the end, be effective. She has stated she will do this with regard to her experts reanalyzing her findings. Again, time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Those are good things to know, Shboom 2. Do the academics on here concur? Academics have been saying this for the entire thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Chew on this for a while. http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17ir8w9zoenjmjpg/original.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts