Guest Stubstad Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 You are right Dr. Boogie, they can't. That's why they need some kind of body, body part that is undeniably not animal or human, or some really crystal clear video to go along with all of this, otherwise, the DNA results are just something unusual, maybe. There must be more to it than what Richard knows, obviously, or no one would have gone through all of the expense, time, or trouble to do the sequencing, but based on the leaks so far, it just isn't really convincing to me. Richard, did you by any chance run statistics on the likely hood that what you were seeing in the samples you worked with were possibly sequencing errors? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20019143 Subsequently, it estimates the posterior error probability for each substitution through a Bayesian formula that integrates prior knowledge of the overall sequencing error probability and the estimated SNP rate with the results from the logistic regression model for the given substitutions. The estimated posterior SNP probability can be used to distinguish true SNPs from sequencing errors. Validation results show that Atlas-SNP2 achieves a false-positive rate of lower than 10%, with an approximately 5% or lower false-negative rate. Yes, for the mito I considered sequencing errors in my analysis, but not "dozens" of errors here, there and everywhere. As long as the outside lab got it more or less correct, my conclusions remain the same on the three mito sequences (evidence, but no proof). For the nuclear MC1R, while sequencing errors are possible, I would think that the lab who ran the tests would have taken a second look at such odd polymorphic sites (all three of them). Yes indeed, if you go way out on a limb and declare that all six sequences were "permeated" with sequencing errors, this could explain that all four were hoaxes or misidentifications. I believe that the likelihood of this scenario is far less than the likelihood of all four being from real live sasquatch. Still, all I'm saying is that we need to do more sequencing of the nuclear genome. Someone in this thread entered such sequencing information (as far as I understand it), which is VERY interesting as well. I haven't had time to study this, though. While I doubt that sasquatch (if it indeed exists) will turn out to be some kind of hominin-ape cross, without a whole lot more nuclear data, I wouldn't venture so far as to declare "it" (sasquatch) is either mainly ape or mainly hominin (human lineage). I believe the latter based on the data, but the former could still be correct. I just don't know. Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 as I have implied elsewhere, DNA is a refuge for bigfoot believers because science doesnt know the biological meaning of most mutations/SNPs. When in my previous post I asked if these SNPs denoted bigfoot, I was predicting the believer's response, which would be "yes" or "we can't be sure, it's possible". I fully expect that believers will attempt to make modern human DNA into "bigfoot" DNA. The consensus characteristics of bigfoot (glowing eyes, 9 feet tall, abnormal proportions, 4-6 toes, non opposable thumb, midtarsal break, 4x4 mode, conical head, no tool use or fire) that have been compiled from reports over the years, but are incompatible with modern human, will be forgotten. "Bigfoot is Human!" will be the cry. "Bigfoot is hiding in the DNA." It would be nonsense, and to use the words of one of the famous posters here, "intellectually dishonest", but that's what will happen. Science will find this utterly silly. I don't know what Meldrum will do....rewrite Legend Meets Science? It is the SNP's that Paabo uses in his comparisons of modern human , neanderthal and denisova to distinguish the species genetically and track how they interbred and contributed SNP's to various modern human populations. If it is possible to know that these archaic genomes are not modern humans based on the data then the same can be done with an extant non modern sapiens today. To say bigfoot can't be hiding in the DNA "would" be intellectually dishonest. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 10, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 10, 2011 Science will find this utterly silly. I don't know what Meldrum will do....rewrite Legend Meets Science? Nope, he's on to Project Sasquatch now, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Project-Sasquatch/154403947987615?sk=wall http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Jeff-Meldrum-Project-Sasquatch/175415572550750 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Actually the premise that sasquatches have modern human DNA IS a testable hypothesis, but to test it you WOULD have to obtain a fresh specimen to complete the logic--"this sample comes from this creature, this sample is human, therefore this creature (no matter how hairy, big, apelike or whatever) IS HUMAN." That does not work if you do not know from what creature the sample came from. It just proves that the sample comes from a modern human of which there are 7 billion on this planet. If you have a body, you can say: see this hairy 8 foot tall bipedal body laying on this table. We ran a dna analysis and this is a modern human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 That's why in his post it says, "but to test it you WOULD have to obtain a fresh specimen to complete the logic". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) Yes, for the mito I considered sequencing errors in my analysis, but not "dozens" of errors here, there and everywhere. As long as the outside lab got it more or less correct, my conclusions remain the same on the three mito sequences (evidence, but no proof). For the nuclear MC1R, while sequencing errors are possible, I would think that the lab who ran the tests would have taken a second look at such odd polymorphic sites (all three of them). Yes indeed, if you go way out on a limb and declare that all six sequences were "permeated" with sequencing errors, this could explain that all four were hoaxes or misidentifications. I believe that the likelihood of this scenario is far less than the likelihood of all four being from real live sasquatch. Still, all I'm saying is that we need to do more sequencing of the nuclear genome. Someone in this thread entered such sequencing information (as far as I understand it), which is VERY interesting as well. I haven't had time to study this, though. While I doubt that sasquatch (if it indeed exists) will turn out to be some kind of hominin-ape cross, without a whole lot more nuclear data, I wouldn't venture so far as to declare "it" (sasquatch) is either mainly ape or mainly hominin (human lineage). I believe the latter based on the data, but the former could still be correct. I just don't know. Richard Richard......... wadr, you have no evidence from your DNA of any of those alternatives. What you have is just modern human DNA. Hunter/hiker/hoaxer human. I don't see why you feel the need or think you have evidence to suggest anything else. p. Edited December 10, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 May I say (sarcastically) thank you very much for that entirely unwarranted backhand to the face of every proponent on this board and in "the community" at large? We may not have half the alphabet appended to our names, but we are not stupid either. Great minds throughout history have often believed things that were not true. It is not a question of stupidity. It is an issue of the seduction of willful belief vs. impersonal objectivity. We will see if the DNA paper rises above the seduction of willful belief, will we not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) Yes, for the mito I considered sequencing errors in my analysis, but not "dozens" of errors here, there and everywhere. As long as the outside lab got it more or less correct, my conclusions remain the same on the three mito sequences (evidence, but no proof). For the nuclear MC1R, while sequencing errors are possible, I would think that the lab who ran the tests would have taken a second look at such odd polymorphic sites (all three of them). Yes indeed, if you go way out on a limb and declare that all six sequences were "permeated" with sequencing errors, this could explain that all four were hoaxes or misidentifications. I believe that the likelihood of this scenario is far less than the likelihood of all four being from real live sasquatch. Still, all I'm saying is that we need to do more sequencing of the nuclear genome. Someone in this thread entered such sequencing information (as far as I understand it), which is VERY interesting as well. I haven't had time to study this, though. While I doubt that sasquatch (if it indeed exists) will turn out to be some kind of hominin-ape cross, without a whole lot more nuclear data, I wouldn't venture so far as to declare "it" (sasquatch) is either mainly ape or mainly hominin (human lineage). I believe the latter based on the data, but the former could still be correct. I just don't know. Richard Ok, so what you looked at must have already been partially sequenced by the referral labs. Did the referral labs declare the samples human? Did they use human primers to sequence? I don't know either Richard, but if the referral lab did send the sample back as human why did you not accept that? Edited December 10, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) Does this mean someone needs to get a lawyer? Domain ID:D36971841-LRMS Domain Name:FERALHUMANPROJECT.INFO Created On:27-Feb-2011 19:58:45 UTC Last Updated On:14-Jun-2011 19:50:39 UTC Expiration Date:27-Feb-2012 19:58:45 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions, LLC (R122-LRMS) Status:OK Registrant ID:20445354-NSI Registrant Name:Dr. Melba S Ketchum Registrant Organization: Registrant Street1:PO Box 455 Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Timpson Registrant State/Province:TX Registrant Postal Code:75975 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.9362542228 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX:+1.9362549286 Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email: Admin ID:20445354-NSI Admin Name:Dr. Melba S Ketchum Admin Organization: Admin Street1:PO Box 455 Admin Street2: Admin Street3: Admin City:Timpson Admin State/Province:TX Admin Postal Code:75975 Admin Country:US Admin Phone:+1.9362542228 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX:+1.9362549286 Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email: Edited to remove extraneous information. Edited December 10, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Slim Could you explain a bit more, Ya lost me with that post. Thanks Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) Melba Ketchum registered the domain name feralhumanproject.info. She probably also registered the .com and .net variations but those two domains were registered via an anonymous proxy service so we can't tell for sure. Is it possible she was just covering her bases? Obviously she doesn't think we're dealing with an ape (in the Jeff Meldrum sense). Edited December 10, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) Why does the hypothesis need to be sold into the public domain as feral human ? The Sasquatch were never domesticated in the first place, does this make their existence easier to accept to the layman ? I really don't get that part at all. Relict stone age caveman from the past survived, because thats what they have been doing for longer than homo sapiens have been in existence. At least thats my take on it. I suppose we will have even more to argue about after the publish date, especially when the oh so reviled, habituators and experiencers lurking here on BFF are vindicated, and bolstered by real proof, start coming out of the woodwork with their stories. It must be a matter of days now to the main event .... I'm really excited !!! Edited December 10, 2011 by Alpinist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 10, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 10, 2011 Does this mean someone needs to get a lawyer? Domain ID:D36971841-LRMS Domain Name:FERALHUMANPROJECT.INFO Created On:27-Feb-2011 19:58:45 UTC Last Updated On:14-Jun-2011 19:50:39 UTC Expiration Date:27-Feb-2012 19:58:45 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions, LLC (R122-LRMS) Status:OK Registrant ID:20445354-NSI Registrant Name:Dr. Melba S Ketchum .... Registrant Country:US .... Registrant Email: Admin ID:20445354-NSI Admin Name:Dr. Melba S Ketchum Admin Organization: Edited to remove extraneous information. Dang, good timing we still got time to change the name of the forum before VPS transfer, The Feral Human Forum (FHF) Wonder if the Sasquatch Project of Meldrum will be changing names soon too......or maybe........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Why didn't she buy one and name it "Wild Thang"? Is that one still up for grabs? I'm not sure I even know how to buy a domain. I vote we rename the BFF the "Wild Thang Forums" , WTF for short. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 He doesn't look a thing like Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts