southernyahoo Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 You can't use SNP's to identify a unique species simply because every individual entity on the planet has unique SNP variation. It clearly states this if anyone had bothered to look it up, on the GenBank web site and it's affiliated databases. Not every human being is represented in GenBank, what you do have is something like 990,000 pieces of sequences that belong to homo sapiens, this information is also listed on the GenBank website. Those 990,000 sequences represent less than 5% of the earth's population. If she found something unique through the study of SNP's, chances are it simply wasn't listed in the catalog, but it does not necessarily indicate anything unique. Ct, where it concerns human DNA, I think you should review this link and consider her claims. If you think for one second she couldn't tell you ancestry and haplogroups involved in the samples you've got another think coming. http://www.familytreedna.com/snps-r-us.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think you hit the nail on the head as far as why she was asked, still admirable work, but it doesn't make you an expert at identifying a unique species of primate/human/what is it? Please offer a list of "experts" at identifying a unique species of primate/human etc.... At this point only one person is on record as having the proof and one other is seeking that proof after the fact..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Can you supply a link where Ketchum talked about "angel DNA"? No. I am repeating Robert Lindsay et al here. Point well taken, I should have added that as another possibility-she never said it! However I suspect it was said but not in the way the naysayers are stating. Just a guess though, my main point was not to get too excited by these purported quotes at this time. GK Well remember a year back or so Paulides made a comment on one of his blog post about BF DNA or its function, that has never been seen before. It was eventually changed after a bit of a firestorm erupted over it. I'm sure I read it at the time, but only now have a hazy recall of the substance. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 You can't use SNP's to identify a unique species simply because every individual entity on the planet has unique SNP variation. It clearly states this if anyone had bothered to look it up, on the GenBank web site and it's affiliated databases. Not every human being is represented in GenBank, what you do have is something like 990,000 pieces of sequences that belong to homo sapiens, this information is also listed on the GenBank website. Those 990,000 sequences represent less than 5% of the earth's population. If she found something unique through the study of SNP's, chances are it simply wasn't listed in the catalog, but it does not necessarily indicate anything unique. Humans are humans...if the nuDNA is not human then it's not human. No degree needed to understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 The blog "Bizarre Zoology" has posted a lengthy article on the Ketchum press release here. The author emailed Ketchum about the "angel DNA" controversy and got the following response (probably from her publicist): "Thank you so much for emailing to ask these questions. While I cant answer everything until the release of the paper I will try to help where I can. In the paper you will find a explanation as to the great lengths Dr. Ketchum went to make sure no contamination was possible. There were more than three labs that the samples were sent to and yes they showed the same results. All the details on the entire research will be released with this paper. We did the press release due to a leak of information.,This was why we had no choice but to do the press release. The paper will be out hopefully in the next few weeks. We do not have a date yet but feel it is soon. We have not said that it has angel DNA . That was not said by anyone on our team , but someone else on the outside. That is very much a false rumor. I hope you are able to read the paper that will be coming out. I think it will put your mind at ease and give you the answers you desire." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I'm sorry SY , but I have to disagree with you, Dr. Ketchum's study was not the appropriate venue for this methodology, if that is what was used, to draw her conclusions....All I can say is that is not a recommended use for identifying new species and you will find that at the GenBank website if you choose to look there. Here is a snipit that sums it up despite what you inferred from what you were reading. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21088/ Sequence variations exist at defined positions within genomes and are responsible for individual phenotypic characteristics, including a person's propensity toward complex disorders such as heart disease and cancer. As tools for understanding human variation and molecular genetics, sequence variations can be used for gene mapping, definition of population structure, and performance of functional studies. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/11/32 Unfortunately, SNP resources are not readily available in the majority of non-model species lacking genomic resources. With this in mind, we set out to establish a set of SNP markers to identify differences between Fundulus populations and species. http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/citinghapmap.html.en The way that a population is named in studies of genetic variation, such as the HapMap, has important ramifications scientifically, culturally, and ethically. From a scientific standpoint, precision in describing the population from which the samples were collected is an essential component of sound study design; the source of the data must be accurately described in order for the data to be interpreted correctly. From a cultural standpoint, precision in labeling reflects acknowledgement of and respect for the local norms of the communities that have agreed to participate in the research. From an ethical standpoint, precision is part of the obligation of researchers to participants, and helps to ensure that the research findings are neither under-generalized nor over-generalized inappropriately. The use of careless and inconsistent terminology when describing the populations represents a failure in all three of these areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 28, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted November 28, 2012 The blog "Bizarre Zoology" has posted a lengthy article on the Ketchum press release here. The author emailed Ketchum about the "angel DNA" controversy and got the following response (probably from her publicist): Consistent with this: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/35077-david-paulides-clears-recent-dna-misconceptions/#entry659411 on the C2C thread with Paulides Sun. night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted November 28, 2012 Admin Share Posted November 28, 2012 The use of careless and inconsistent terminology when describing the populations represents a failure in all three of these areas. :lol: Let's just establish the darn things exist, first; shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) ^^Now that's interesting. Release imminent? Thanks, Biped. Edited November 28, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Can we get back to speculating on the publication date, now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Guess:So Ketchum is saying in the next few weeks, and Paulides is saying 7-10 days , so I am thinking next week but Ketchum is saying a few weeks in case there is an unexpected delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I'm sorry SY , but I have to disagree with you, Dr. Ketchum's study was not the appropriate venue for this methodology, if that is what was used, to draw her conclusions....All I can say is that is not a recommended use for identifying new species and you will find that at the GenBank website if you choose to look there. Here is a snipit that sums it up despite what you inferred from what you were reading. So you are saying that she spent 5 years, and spent investor money on something that can not be proven with her study ? I don't think anyone, even with only a 5 grade education, would spend 5 yrs work on proving something, and knowing that the way they are doing it would not prove what they wanted it to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Well, sometimes people get a little desperate & say things..... Can you ask your Bigfoot what he thinks of Dr. Meldrum? I am very curious if they share my opinion. Edited November 28, 2012 by Woodswalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I don't think anyone, even with only a 5 grade education, would spend 5 yrs work on proving something, and knowing that the way they are doing it would not prove what they wanted it to prove. I don't know. It seems like THAT summarizes the overall history of bigfoot research in general. Look where we are after... how many years of doing the same thing month to month, year after year...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 For those who care RL has a new posting where he covers a lot of stuff, and rips the crap out of some mainstream science types, epic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts