Taking Stock Of Cryptid Hominids

[norseman]

Science had a easy explanation....Hey Melba! Your samples are contaminated with Human DNA! The mitochrondrial DNA wasnt even Native American, nor was one "eve". It was a collection of women from all over the world, Eurpean, African and Asian......

Was this rogue Lemur ancestor running around the world collecting human women with a Lear jet and a net? And bringing them back to his North American stronghold to be added to his harem of exotics and bred????? 20,000 years ago or whatever?

Or is the scientific explanation that a Lemur hair was touched by several humans upon collection and got contaminated the more plausible explanation.

Melba was confronted with this and her answer was that Bigfeet are known to travel.......

Manbearpig. Thats what Melba advocates and thats why she should not be taken seriously.

[southernyahoo]

DNA testing doesn't automatically sequence the entire genome. It sequences short segments at a time. With an unknown sample, one has to start with a universal mammalian primer when you have a hair sample. From there, the results steers your investigation further with species specific primers, more tests, further sequencing of the mitochondria for starters. The testing won't suddenly uncover all an animals secrets of it's origin beyond a high similarity to a known, like human, bear, cow etc. Once you have the closest known, then you can compare to that specific data and further sequence the entire mitochondria, provided the scientists haven't called "no joy" and abandoned the project citing contamination when human results arise.

IIRC, this is what Dr. Ketchum initially ran into so she decided to run the entire genome which yielded the mitochondrial DNA as human and the nuclear as unknown species. This work was then sent out for independent analysis to other laboratories with the results validating the initial findings with the body of work being sent to at least two (2) international publications for review. Their scientists reviewed the results and declared them "too controversial" for publication and also refused to conduct their own DNA analysis (IMO) because had they done so and such validated the original findings, they would have been under tremendous pressure to publish. This...is one of the reasons why I have a degree of jaundiced view toward much of the scientific community.

Now, say what you wish about Dr. Ketchum however, the evidence is the evidence and those people cited above know where it led them. IMO, a lot of the vitriol she received, after the fact, was designed as CYA for those that might risk credibility and a lot like the political M.O. of, deny, deny, deny and then make counter accusations.

As I understand it. The majority of samples sent in did not have any nuclear dna done on them because of limited root tissue.

It was because so many of them were producing human mtDNA results after her best effort to eliminate human contamination as a contributor she had to look for samples that held promise for nuclear results. She started trying to get the amelogenin locus containing the x and Y chromosomes to sequence and produce something consistent and unique. I think those procedures failed in a number of different ways.

[Guest Crowlogic]

^No Norse just bigfoot science at it's finest.

[hiflier]

Well I'll say one thing. When no one answers inquiries sent via email it's not at all possible to make any progress, get any info, or find any answers to my research ideas. There's nothing left for me but to simply quit trying. Is that the game that's being played out there now?

[Yuchi1]

 

 

DNA testing doesn't automatically sequence the entire genome. It sequences short segments at a time. With an unknown sample, one has to start with a universal mammalian primer when you have a hair sample. From there, the results steers your investigation further with species specific primers, more tests, further sequencing of the mitochondria for starters. The testing won't suddenly uncover all an animals secrets of it's origin beyond a high similarity to a known, like human, bear, cow etc. Once you have the closest known, then you can compare to that specific data and further sequence the entire mitochondria, provided the scientists haven't called "no joy" and abandoned the project citing contamination when human results arise.

IIRC, this is what Dr. Ketchum initially ran into so she decided to run the entire genome which yielded the mitochondrial DNA as human and the nuclear as unknown species. This work was then sent out for independent analysis to other laboratories with the results validating the initial findings with the body of work being sent to at least two (2) international publications for review. Their scientists reviewed the results and declared them "too controversial" for publication and also refused to conduct their own DNA analysis (IMO) because had they done so and such validated the original findings, they would have been under tremendous pressure to publish. This...is one of the reasons why I have a degree of jaundiced view toward much of the scientific community.

Now, say what you wish about Dr. Ketchum however, the evidence is the evidence and those people cited above know where it led them. IMO, a lot of the vitriol she received, after the fact, was designed as CYA for those that might risk credibility and a lot like the political M.O. of, deny, deny, deny and then make counter accusations.

As I understand it. The majority of samples sent in did not have any nuclear dna done on them because of limited root tissue.

It was because so many of them were producing human mtDNA results after her best effort to eliminate human contamination as a contributor she had to look for samples that held promise for nuclear results. She started trying to get the amelogenin locus containing the x and Y chromosomes to sequence and produce something consistent and unique. I think those procedures failed in a number of different ways.

 

 

There were a small number of the samples that were able to have the full genome ran as (per your comments) many were insufficient for such analysis.

[norseman]

Well I have a idea to bypass all of this DNA confusion. The DNA sample weighs about 800 lbs and its contamination proof.

Any how back on topic, Ive just read that the Hobbit fossils are much older than originally thought. Thats too bad.

60-80,000 years old is the new dates.

https://skeptilogicon.wordpress.com/2016/04/03/2851/

Edited April 6, 2016 by norseman

[bipedalist]

So Flo literally was subject to flooding in Flores, how quaint.  Cool arguments on the horizon. 

[Yuchi1]

IMO, some of the sources quoted are quite possibly as dubious as some of the opinions on the Ketchum event.

[bipedalist]

Sometimes you just gotta go with the Flo(w) Yuch!  

[Yuchi1]

Yessir! Often with huge grains of salt.

[norseman]

IMO, some of the sources quoted are quite possibly as dubious as some of the opinions on the Ketchum event.

Oh yah? Well Yuchi, set us straight. Whats wrong with the hobbit article? How old are those bones?

[Yuchi1]

It isn't the age of the bones but the veracity of the source that can be problematic.

[MIB]

I'm not as familiar with the Hobbit back story and players, but yeah, that's definitely true in Ketchum's case.    

 

MIB

Edited April 7, 2016 by MIB

[norseman]

What is wrong with the source? Im listening...

I would certainly prefer the bones to be younger, but unless you have a cool new source giving a rebuttal? I have nothing else to go on.

And its all over the news wire, not just one source.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/study-indonesia-hobbit-fossils-older-thought-38032322

Edited April 7, 2016 by norseman

[Yuchi1]

^^^ I'm asking you...what is the history of this source with reporting? Are they in the league of something like Nat Geo or the National Enquirer?