southernyahoo Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 10, 2011 BFF Patron 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. I agree, that spells it out in no uncertain terms, and you don't have to be a scientist to ponder that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 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 !!! Proof of a Bigfoot doesn't vindicate any "habituators". Only they can do that by presenting their evidence. I can prove that moose exist right now, that doesn't mean I can prove that a herd of them live in the woods near my house here in Mississippi without taking a picture or video of them and posting it online. Remember, I'm not even a 100% Bigfoot skeptic. I find much of the sighting and footprint evidence compelling, but I don't take anyones word for it when they make statements I find somewhat unbelievable.... I understand if someone doesn't wanna show their evidence (though I don't agree with it), but it removes their statements from having any merit.... You may find that unfair, but that's kinda the way it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stubstad Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 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? The referral labs sent back the sequencing, not an analysis of the data. Ketchum and I did that, and we got to where we got as of the fall of 2010. Normal human primers did not work well for all regions of either the mito or the MC1R; new primers had to be designed, and/or the samples had to run "backwards", which reverses the C/G and the A/T sequencing. All three mito sequences were done by sending out the samples to other labs; MC1R was done, I believe, by Melba and she DID check the polymorphisms quite thoroughly. She had some difficulty with human primers as well and had to design new primers. I don't think I can say anything else of use on this particular thread. I'm trying to be objective, and all you are doing is declaring what you can't possibly know because you haven't seen the DATA ! You talk as if you have also seen the DNA data and know exactly what a human sequence is. Was the Denisovan a human sequence? Yes, well, sort of. But not quite. I can tell you are guessing, Jodie. How can one declare that all six sequences were human DNA without seeing and analyzing the data? Are you conclusions, Jodie, some kind of right-brained clairvoyance that the rest of us are not blessed with? Are you trolling, or what are you up to, Jodie? Am I totally wasting my time on this thread too? Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 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. Well now, did they really believe it, or did they form a hypothesis based on observations and understanding at the time, tested it, then falsified it? 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. Here's a better one. Now we're getting somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 The referral labs sent back the sequencing, not an analysis of the data. Ketchum and I did that, and we got to where we got as of the fall of 2010. Normal human primers did not work well for all regions of either the mito or the MC1R; new primers had to be designed, and/or the samples had to run "backwards", which reverses the C/G and the A/T sequencing. All three mito sequences were done by sending out the samples to other labs; MC1R was done, I believe, by Melba and she DID check the polymorphisms quite thoroughly. She had some difficulty with human primers as well and had to design new primers. I don't think I can say anything else of use on this particular thread. I'm trying to be objective, and all you are doing is declaring what you can't possibly know because you haven't seen the DATA ! You talk as if you have also seen the DNA data and know exactly what a human sequence is. Was the Denisovan a human sequence? Yes, well, sort of. But not quite. I can tell you are guessing, Jodie. How can one declare that all six sequences were human DNA without seeing and analyzing the data? Are you conclusions, Jodie, some kind of right-brained clairvoyance that the rest of us are not blessed with? Are you trolling, or what are you up to, Jodie? Am I totally wasting my time on this thread too? Richard You could have said the same to Parn Richard. I guess we could say that it is a good thing this isn't an objective peer review here because some would have shot their credibility all to "the hot place" for making absolute statements without the raw data in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Here's a better one. Now we're getting somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted December 10, 2011 Admin Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) Stubstad, Thank you for your willingness to give us information about this. I don't know much about DNA analysis other than the basics... it is a statistical comparison to known samples (i.e. GenBank). I would appreciate a straight forward answer to the question below, I don't know the correct terms to use, but I do understand the principles, I think; and please correct me if I'm wrong. The samples were sequenced, and the results are being described in terms of the closeness to human DNA. Is there semantic play involved? can the result description be adjusted to suit a particular bias? for example, could the results be described in terms of how far away from human DNA the sample tested? perhaps giving a different perception to the lay man? or is the result description "ironclad"? Thanks. Edited December 10, 2011 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I vote we rename the BFF the "Wild Thang Forums" , WTF for short. OMG ~ Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 The referral labs sent back the sequencing, not an analysis of the data. Ketchum and I did that, and we got to where we got as of the fall of 2010. Normal human primers did not work well for all regions of either the mito or the MC1R; new primers had to be designed, and/or the samples had to run "backwards", which reverses the C/G and the A/T sequencing. All three mito sequences were done by sending out the samples to other labs; MC1R was done, I believe, by Melba and she DID check the polymorphisms quite thoroughly. She had some difficulty with human primers as well and had to design new primers. I don't think I can say anything else of use on this particular thread. I'm trying to be objective, and all you are doing is declaring what you can't possibly know because you haven't seen the DATA ! You talk as if you have also seen the DNA data and know exactly what a human sequence is. Was the Denisovan a human sequence? Yes, well, sort of. But not quite. I can tell you are guessing, Jodie. How can one declare that all six sequences were human DNA without seeing and analyzing the data? Are you conclusions, Jodie, some kind of right-brained clairvoyance that the rest of us are not blessed with? Are you trolling, or what are you up to, Jodie? Am I totally wasting my time on this thread too? Richard I'm just trying to figure what you and the others did, Richard, for everyone to have arrived at these conclusions. In order to piece the story together I wanted to know exactly who did what and how. Is that OK? I don't consider my questions provocative or trolling, nosey maybe......I am no expert on this but I can learn anything. Based on what I have read here, I go back and do a lot of background reading on genetics to try to figure out if what you and some of the others have said is actually sound. I don't think anyone is deliberately lying about anything anymore. I just think a lot of those that have leaked the info don't have a full understanding of what they are reading, being told, or what have you....I'm not referring to just you in that. I already figured out a lot of what you have just said. So my next question is technical, how do you decide whether the non human primer that was used is giving you an accurate sequence? I am guessing, but I'm making the best educated guess I can and asking what I think are pertinent questions. You don't have to answer them if they make you uncomfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) Bipeds with a dearth of the appropriate letters following their names may be interested in reading this primer on genetic testing. I'll put on the coffee. http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html Edited December 10, 2011 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) Here is an interesting article on how to design primers that I found several weeks ago. I was wondering what was done to develop the primer, Richard, if you can answer that question. You might not know if you weren't doing that part of the work, I was just wondering. http://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/doc/dnaseq/primers.html Choosing among candidate primers. If at this point you have several candidate primers, you might select one or a few that are more A-T rich at the 3' end. These tend to be slightly more specific in action, according to some investigators. You may want to use more than one primer, maximizing the likelihood of success. If you have no candidates that survived the criteria above, then you may be forced to relax the stringency of the selection requirements. Ultimately, the test of a good primer is only in its use, and cannot be accurately predicted by these simplistic rules-of-thumb. With luck, though, you have plenty of options for primers. For a sequence assembly project, design more primers than you think you really need, so that if the sequence isn't as long as you hoped, you might still obtain sufficient overlapping data to assure you of a good sequence consensus. We recommend that you sequence both strands, for better confirmation. On one strand, space the primers 500 to 700 nt part (shorter spacing is safer!). On the opposite strand, place the primers in staggered fashion away from the first strand primers, as depicted below: Edited December 10, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 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 Aha, so it looks like Meldrum is gonna play along with the "Bigfoot is Human" idea, or at least abandon the "Ape" meme (recall the North American Ape Project???) that he has used until now). I would describe that as intellectual cowardice/dishonesty but definitely a good marketing move. So yes, he will have to re-write Legend Meets Science. It would hype sales, to boot. 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. Shorter version: WeGotDNAfromRandomPeopleWhoWanderedThroughTheWoodsOrGotTheirButtsCaughtonBarbWire.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 "Feral Human" eh? I don't know what anyone ELSE is seeing out there, but that's no human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts