TimB Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I caught your meaning, Mike:). I don't think it was your post that made me think that. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I respect Stubstad's enthusiasm and intelligence, but the man is an engineer, not a geneticist. When I asked about how the seqiences were verified he could not tell me, either he didn't ask, or just assumed, I don't know. He got aggravated with me and left the conversation. Stubstad has said that the samples he reviewed were not used in the study. I don't know why, and neither does he, since he left the project before those decisions were made. I recall mention of the MC1R by him but not specifically what he said, however, I'm not sure that it was related to the same samples that were discussed in regards to the mDNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 He may be an engineer, Jodie (I didn't know that), but wasn't he employed as a statistician by the Ketchum team? DNA analyses produce huge amounts of data, and so statisticians are required for data-handling and analysis purposes, as far as I understand it. That role wouldn't need an understanding of the testing process, just the ability to do a lot of number crunching with the results. Am I somewhere near right with that? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Mike wrote Stubstad wrote:All three mito sequences WERE within modern human ranges —It was the nuclear MC1R DNA sequences that sealed the deal. None were within human ranges. Each of the three had a particular mutation that no human on earth has been shown to have.This is exactly the same result that was found for Neanderthal within MC1R, but Neanderthal’s mutation site was different from the three purported sasquatch mutation sites.Based on this, all three MC1R sequences were not within known modern human ranges. So either sasquatch is a hoax and Neanderthals were hoaxes, or both subspecies are the real deal....Richard I hope you'll now adjust your position regarding Stubstat's evaluation of the data . To declare, as you often do, that Stubstad says "sasquatch = modern human" is clearly, clearly erroneous. Mike Thanks for posting that Mike. I think you are misquoting me by putting something in quotes and stating that I often declare it. Paraphrase me if you wish, but using quotes carries a responsibility to get it right. That is beyond putting up a straw man. If you can't back up that quote/statement, I wish you would ask the mods to edit it. Fair? Furthermore, Stubstad has changed his tune over the months. So if you wish to accuse me of misrepresenting the facts, you will have to show a timeline of when he said what and when I said what. To get to the Stubstad quote: This is substantially what Ketchum seems to be saying in her copyright posting, and I don't think that Stubstad has any later information that. Where I believe Stubstad errs, (and probably Ketchum did also, at least initially) is to believe that 1) all modern human polymorphisms are in GenBank, and related, 2) that one defines what is human by a single polymorphism. Neither one of these is true. So I don't adjust my position on what Stubstad is describing. As far as what he calls it, he now is calling the nuclear DNA not human; that is his interpretation of what Ketchum has said about the data, I believe....I will be sure to mention that. However, he may call it x, y, or z, but I have seen nothing to show that it isn't Hss. (H. sapiens sapiens). p. Edited March 9, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) 1/.Yes completely fair. Apologies. 2//. Not all human sequences are in GenBank. I haven't got a clue what percentage are, but lots more people get their DNA sequenced these days, and I doubt whether all the info ends up in one central collecting point. 3/. No-one has seen the data, other than those involved with the project. So it is self-evident that you can have seen nothing to show that it isn't Hss. However, if one of those who was involved describes one section of the results as clearly as Stubstad has done here regarding the nuclear DNA, then I think most reasonable people would say that he has a better idea of which bracket to put the results in than someone who hasn't seen them. Apologies again for the quotation marks. Mike Edited March 9, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 More rumors and mis-reporting : This paper has not and will not go to a cryptozoology "journal" of any type including Relict Hominoid Inquiry whatever that is. Allegedly, some reporter has stated something to that effect. It is NOT true. This study is one of pure science and is once again subject to publication in main stream scientific journals. If I had just wanted all of this data out there without caring if it was respected as a good study or not, I could have had it published last year in a lesser journal with less stringent review. Other peer reviewed papers I was involved with went to well-respected journals and it is the same with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 9, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) As I remember Stubstad was lining up data in an Excel matrix...... A/T/G/C.....and making comparisons. How complicated his analyses were beyond that and whether he used computers and genBank beyond that I guess you'd have to ask him. I would not take his armchair description of nuDNA found in somebody else's study using his translation of that information as anything to heavily rely on at this stage (or his earlier stage of understanding, either one). Edited March 9, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 No, agreed, but I'd give it higher creedence than the analysis/ opinion of someone who hasn't seen the data. I'm not seeking to suggest that Stubstad knows all the answers, I'm just seeking to correct a misrepresentation of his views. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) He may be an engineer, Jodie (I didn't know that), but wasn't he employed as a statistician by the Ketchum team? DNA analyses produce huge amounts of data, and so statisticians are required for data-handling and analysis purposes, as far as I understand it. That role wouldn't need an understanding of the testing process, just the ability to do a lot of number crunching with the results. Am I somewhere near right with that? Mike He has denied that he was employed by Ketchum. Statistical analysis of DNA results is quite specialized and complex. My son, who is the brightest person I know, took a course in this subject and it was the hardest course he ever took. The only data Stubstad (apparently) had access to was the mtDNA of the three samples, which are not (apparently) being used in the "paper." His conclusions about the mtDNA data appear to me to be naive, and just wrong. He may be a fine engineer (what type I don't know), but how he comes to call himself a statistician of any type I don't know, and he was out of his depth in this situation, imho. Does Stubstad know more about what makes DNA non human than I do? I would say no, and I am not just relying on my own background on this. I know people... p. Edited March 9, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 If Stubstat were intelligent (which I assume he is), I would be willing to be he is making statements based on input from several resources, not flying solo making claims in areas he isn't familiar with. Imagine you are on the A-Team. Though Murdock is the pilot, and flies the gang everywhere, even the Face-Man may know enough about pilot controls to get the plane rolling while Murdock is still in the back trying to get BA Baracus's seat belt secured. P- @ parn - the mathematics involved in engineering puts graduates very close to a math minor (1 or 2 classes away) upon graduation. If he was an Industrial Engineer, advance to MS degree, it would have been very easy for him to gain enough statistical knowledge to gain employment in the statistician field. I've no idea either what his degree is in, but in my mind, it's not a far stretch to cross over. FWIW. p- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Does Stubstad know more about what makes DNA non human than I do? I would say no, and I am not just relying on my own background on this. I know people... Just the tiniest of straw men, with all due respect. No-one claims that he knows more about what makes DNA non-human than you do. All I claim is that he is in a better position to comment on a project he has worked on than you are. He has seen some results. You haven't. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Human DNA is human DNA, I don't think anyone would want to replicate that result, because it is meaningless. As has been noted here, the provenance can't be established. Why would any co-author sign on to such a paper? Why would she include a sample from a specimin she's been told was shot dead? Why hasn't a single sample provider come forward with doubts about her findings? (Many, if not all, have been told the results). Do you think they're all happy with a finding of modern human? What contortions would Derek Randles have to make to remain involved after hearing that information? It seems no one working closely with Ketchum has cast any doubts on her motives or credibility. Given the scale of this thing, don't you think that's pretty unlikely? I just don't see how you reconcile these questions with your hypothesis. Edited March 9, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 If I was in the position of being certain of the impossibility of Bigfoots existence (and I don't meant to put you in the boat Parnassus if the shoe doesn't fit!) then I could see myself making such statements as well. If the basic premise that Bigfoot is a possibility can't be entertained, It would be impossible to believe there was anything but fabrication or bad science in such a possible paper it would seem to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) He may be an engineer, Jodie (I didn't know that), but wasn't he employed as a statistician by the Ketchum team? DNA analyses produce huge amounts of data, and so statisticians are required for data-handling and analysis purposes, as far as I understand it. That role wouldn't need an understanding of the testing process, just the ability to do a lot of number crunching with the results. Am I somewhere near right with that? Mike No what Stubstad did was voluntary. He actually owned an asphalt company and used the same process for statistical analysis that he used in his business. As Bipedalist said, he used an excel spread sheet. He compared that to sequences in BLAST but did not find a match initially. Supposedly he ran the data through BLAST in a different way, I can't remember specifically what he said about that. When he did that, he picked up on a SNP in the mDNA that hasn't been seen since the ice age and drew his own conclusions. It was not an exact match, but the closest one in the reference samples. In his opinion, the statistical probability of that appearing in a modern day human was remote. As Parn says, he left a lot of variables out of that analysis. As Parn, says, I know people too, and I also think Stubstad was in over his head. But I have a different opinion about what the rest of the study/paper might indicate, because at this point, we really don't know anything. I am reserving my opinion until I read it, mull it over, talk to my friends about it, etc....I want second, third, and fourth opinions. Edited March 9, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 How do we know what he left out of his analyses? Or what he included, for that matter? I'm not making a point..........I just don't know the answer. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts