The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest Tyler H]

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).

Thanks RR - to be fair, I think Thermalman's questions go a bit beyond just that fact. The pdf I posted deals basically with just the sequences in sample 26. I don't have time at the moment, but I'll work on a layman's interpretation of the data in that PDF. In the meantime, Genes, RR, etc - would love to hear your more qualified explanation of it.

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

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.
  

Questions for you:

Who are the people that "unanimously" repudiate her conclusions?

Who is your qualified Phd?

Surely you can suppport those 2 allegations of yours, correct? Thanks.

[Guest]

Every person with any basic scientific understanding has repudiated he conclusions.

[Guest]

Questions for you:

Who are the people that "unanimously" repudiate her conclusions?

Who is your qualified Phd?

Surely you can suppport those 2 allegations of yours, correct? Thanks.

When the DATA cannot be defended the next step is always to try and discredit the person.

[Oonjerah]

Is Ketchum's Bigfoot Even Possible?

Setting the (missing) data aside ... what about her theory of Bigfoot's origin?

15,000 years ago, aprox, a human female mated with an unknown hominid. The result

was a new species, Bigfoot, or homo sapiens cognatus.

The very first time I read that, I thought, "That's Nuts!"

(My qualifications: I read up some on anthropology in the 50's, books for lay

persons, not too scientific. Also read about Bigfoot then in Sanderson's book.

I have 0 education in biology, chemistry, DNA.

In math, my reasoning ability has been shown to be very high.)

If the hybridization was ongoing, as if humans and Bf agreed, "Yes, for the next

100 years or so, we humans & Bf type hominid will always interbreed, and our half-

breed offspring will always breed with each other until we have created a new race

of man," ... then maybe a slim chance that such new race is now extant. But an oc-

cassional hybrid event would not set a new race ... the offspring would have been

diluted, reabsorbed by either/both of the parent races. (This was already stated

way back before the thread got split.)

Subsequently, it's reported there were 16 different haplotypes in the mtDNA. And if

(possibly) I understand her theory, there should only be One haplotye?

Wouldn't I have to be seriously naive & unaware of anthropology & the formation of

divergent races of man to believe that what she said is possible?

=======

Tossing out the Ketchum study and doing a new one ...

Does Race show up in DNA?

Given people of relatively pure race: On the left, I have someone who is 99% pure

Caucasian, and on the right, someone 99% pure Oriental. Is there a specific place

in the genome where an geneticist can look and tell what race someone is? Or can we

only tell by looking directly at the gene donor?

Is it possible that Bigfoot is mtDNA human/nuDNA human?

Midtarsal break, sagittal crest, extreme hirsuitiness, super strength ... would be

minor, obscure details in the whole DNA, right? But when the scientist looks at that

specific spot to identify the race, and it doesn't match up with any known race of man

... Scientist would say, "Hmmm. What have we here?" or "Gee, that's Different!"

[Guest]

Questions for you:

Who are the people that "unanimously" repudiate her conclusions?

Who is your qualified Phd?

Surely you can suppport those 2 allegations of yours, correct? Thanks.

Dr. Anna Nekaris, Dr. Leonid Kruglyak, and Dr. David Winter, for starters.

[Guest]

MK might as well lived in 1862 during the Salem witch trials. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the verdict here.

Ketchum would actually have fit right in at the Salem Witch Trials. The judges actually were willing to accept spectral evidence (evidence that no one but the accuser could see) in support of extraordinary accusations.

[Guest]

Dr. Anna Nekaris, Dr. Leonid Kruglyak, and Dr. David Winter, for starters.

Dr. Anna Nekaris, All she did was agree with the Dr. David Winters on the video with the students. witch they said they didn't take a serious look at it.

Edited March 11, 2013 by zigoapex

[Guest]

Dr. Leonid Kruglyak Direct quote from him

"I have read the paper. Because I have no specialized training in genomics or forensics, I can not comment on its validity. But I can say it begins with the premise that Sasquatch exists and this study helps to confirm that suspected idea. I await experts to comment on what we are seeing here."

I'd love to see your source for that Kruglyak quote, considering that Kruglyak's the William R. Harman ’63 and Mary-Love Harman Professor in Genomics at Princeton University.

Not to mention that he gave this quote to the science reporter for the Houston Chronicle:

To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid. Instead, analyses either come back as 100% human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts. They make the bizarre claim that the failures might be caused by novel, nonstandard structure of the DNA (“Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR.â€) which would mean this DNA was different from DNA in all other known species. There’s also the strange statement they couldn’t deposit sequences in GenBank because it’s a new/unknown taxon — GenBank does that no problem.

The tree in Fig 16 is inconsistent with known primate phylogeny and generally makes no sense.

Edited March 11, 2013 by leisureclass

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

Every person with any basic scientific understanding has repudiated he conclusions.

But your boy Tyler mentioned it was unanimous in this forum. I missed that vote. Perhaps he could point that out to me, or if you are pinch hitting for him now then maybe you could point that out. Thanks.

When the DATA cannot be defended the next step is always to try and discredit the person.

When the DATA is released we will see what the next step is indeed.

In the meantime, I'll wait for Tyler to tell us who his Phd person is.

[Guest]

In the meantime, I'll wait for Tyler to tell us who his Phd person is.

I just pointed to three of them: Dr. Anna Sekaris, Dr. Leonid Kruglyak, and Dr. David Winters.

[Guest]

I'd love to see your source for that Kruglyak quote, considering that Kruglyak's the William R. Harman ’63 and Mary-Love Harman Professor in Genomics at Princeton University.

Not to mention that he gave this quote to the science reporter for the Houston Chronicle:

It was from his twitter, I went back and it was from an article he referenced, and it was not him who said it, My mistake.

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

I just pointed to three of them: Dr. Anna Sekaris, Dr. Leonid Kruglyak, and Dr. David Winters.

I think I'll just wait for Tyler to answer the questions put to him. He should be able to answer them correctly. Thanks for a valiant attempt at filling in for him though. He will understand the question.

[Guest thermalman]

Ketchum would actually have fit right in at the Salem Witch Trials. The judges actually were willing to accept spectral evidence (evidence that no one but the accuser could see) in support of extraordinary accusations.

You mean......YOU would fit right in as an accuser...........right?

[southernyahoo]

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? :-)

Well I've heard the 1% data was actually not data, so I guess that negates any independent analysis at this point.