Guest Tyler H Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) I believe you say wrong. BFF does not represent the public. Here, some opinions, plural, have formed, but there is no consensus. If/when the story hits major news, all that has been said here is ... nothing. "Dust in the wind." We delude ourselves with assumptions of relevance in the larger picture. MIB Of note: the ONLY people on this forum who support Melba's data and/or results are people who make NO claims as to advanced genetic understanding or credentials. the ONLY people on this forum who DO claim advanced genetic understanding or credentials unanimously repudiate her conclusions. None of the people on this forum who still support Melba has made any sort of coherent effort to refute the implications of the .pdf I have posted from a qualified PhD. visual representation of contamination Genbank results.pdf Edited March 10, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Good post Tyler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Snuffleupagus Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) While I'm usually content to keep my two cents to myself, I just wanted to comment on the argument that it's impossible to draw conclusions based on 1% of the data. In certain instances that's true, but it's not the case when the 1% being discussed is (presumably) an unbiased/representative sample of the other 99%. The field of statistics allows us to make exactly those kinds of inferences with high degrees of accuracy. Take, for example, presidential polls: http://blog.lib.umn....ng_eligible.php While it's true that only a small percentage of the DNA sequences were released, that tiny percentage still constitutes a lot of data upon which other geneticists can draw conclusions. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't have been any point to releasing those data to begin with, right? :-) Edited March 10, 2013 by Snuffleupagus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Indeed Tim. Mind boggling isn't it, if that's all they're hanging onto as a rebuttal. @ RR, We know for certain there is more. The conclusion I've come to is....wait and see, not whether it's right or wrong. In other words, your using the Rick Dyer defence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clubbedfoot Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I'm tempted to engage one of my best friends on this genetics stuff...I'd ask some basic questions but since I am a Johnny come lately to this thread, I don't want to alienate the people who've been there done that....so perhaps some rudimentary searches can get me up to speed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Of note: the ONLY people on this forum who support Melba's data and/or results are people who make NO claims as to advanced genetic understanding or credentials. the ONLY people on this forum who DO claim advanced genetic understanding or credentials unanimously repudiate her conclusions. None of the people on this forum who still support Melba has made any sort of coherent effort to refute the implications of the .pdf I have posted from a qualified PhD. Would you please interpret the PDF you've posted so that many others here might understand what it is you've posted? Thank you. Edited March 10, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 In other words, your using the Rick Dyer defence? You could say there is some similarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 @thermalman The pdf perfectly illustrates the adage: Garbage in Garbage out. The Illumina system looks at very small portions of dna at a time, (tries to) match them to known and then moves on to the next small segment. It then assembles these according to the chosen model. The contig data released by Ketchum when investigated in those small segments that illumina would have used to put them together one at a time is what the pdf shows. Some segments match known human. Some match known Bear. Some don't match any thing. If you look at all the segments as put together it matches nothing known, but comes closest to lemur. The 3 contigs for chromosome 11 that Ketchum has released don't even look related to each other by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 @thermalman The pdf perfectly illustrates the adage: Garbage in Garbage out. The Illumina system looks at very small portions of dna at a time, (tries to) match them to known and then moves on to the next small segment. It then assembles these according to the chosen model. The contig data released by Ketchum when investigated in those small segments that illumina would have used to put them together one at a time is what the pdf shows. Some segments match known human. Some match known Bear. Some don't match any thing. If you look at all the segments as put together it matches nothing known, but comes closest to lemur. The 3 contigs for chromosome 11 that Ketchum has released don't even look related to each other by the way. Would it be possible to point out the area of the 3 contigs for chromosome 11 and how they aren't related? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Would you please interpret the PDF you've posted so that many others here might understand what it is you've posted? Thank you. What is it specifically that needs interpretation or is not being understood? Maybe if you asked specific questions about what is not being understood, you could get an answer that would make sense to those that don't understand it. It is pretty black and white ( or in this case, red and blue). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) What is it specifically that needs interpretation or is not being understood? Maybe if you asked specific questions about what is not being understood, you could get an answer that would make sense to those that don't understand it. It is pretty black and white ( or in this case, red and blue). For real? I, for one, and likely a large number of other members here, need and would like an interpretation. How can a specific question be asked without a generic understanding of what's presented? Edited March 10, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 @thermalman The pdf perfectly illustrates the adage: Garbage in Garbage out. The Illumina system looks at very small portions of dna at a time, (tries to) match them to known and then moves on to the next small segment. It then assembles these according to the chosen model. The contig data released by Ketchum when investigated in those small segments that illumina would have used to put them together one at a time is what the pdf shows. Some segments match known human. Some match known Bear. Some don't match any thing. If you look at all the segments as put together it matches nothing known, but comes closest to lemur. The 3 contigs for chromosome 11 that Ketchum has released don't even look related to each other by the way. Doesn't the illumina platform have several different modes it uses in the assembly of the sequences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I would highly recommend going back and reading the entire thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) 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. Thermalman, unfortunately the graphs did not show up in the quotes, but I hope it demonstrates how these sequences are not of the same species - they would be smooth lines, with contigs of the same size. You can go back to these posts and look at the graphs (page 13, posts #252, #253). Edited March 10, 2013 by ridgerunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Doesn't the illumina platform have several different modes it uses in the assembly of the sequences? Yes. The dial goes up to 11. I recall Ketchum stating in an interview that it goes to 11 rather than 10 just because sometimes you need that little bit extra to get the sequences correct. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts