Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Just some recent discussion On Ketcham from the Bigfoot Lunch Club: http://www.bigfootlu...bel/Bigfoot dna From that..here is a sample of the type of topics and questions that a peer review would be looking into: Dr. Kokjohn had a series of fascinating questions that I would hope the Melba camp could answer. What method was employed to sequence the DNA? Some have interesting quirks. Which gene(s) were sequenced, i.e., which genes did you use to decide the Bigfoot relationship to humans? The statement was made that the mitochondrial genome is identical to human, but the nuclear DNA is distinct. Moreover, a 15,000 year divergence point is estimated. This is quite contrary to expectations. Usually, the genes in a mitochondrion will yield a ‘faster’ evolutionary clock than the nuclear genes (higher mutation rate), that is partially why mitochondrial genes are used for the rapid identification of species. It seems odd that the mitochondria sequence would be invariant. This requires an explanation. How deep was the sequencing of the genes in question? To get at infrequent mutations, one must have gone over the same DNA multiple times to reach an accurate consensus. A single pass sequence will have many errors in it and comparisons based on it may inflate the apparent evolutionary distances. This is vital because Bigfoot and human sequences will be (apparently) VERY closely related. To get a feel for the challenges of working with closely-related species, search the work of Svante Paabo with Neanderthal DNA on PubMed. Are the gene(s) you used for the Bigfoot-human comparisons protein coding? Would the sequence changes you found in the homologous genes yield amino acid codons that are synonymous (no amino acid change), substitutions (new amino acids) or nonsense (protein chain terminated)? This can help one decide whether or not the new sequence makes sense or contains deletions/insertions and other errors. What was the nature of the sample from which DNA was obtained? Had it been exposed to the elements? How do you know it is from Bigfoot? If the sample is degraded, DNA sequences will likely exhibit alterations. How did they avoid contamination with authentic human DNA? Edited December 8, 2012 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted December 8, 2012 Admin Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) I guess I don't understand DNA analysis because I don't see the difficulty. It's just a process of elimination, I would: 1) get all BF samples and compare them against each other. If they are of the same species, they should be very close together. If they are not, there's a problem with the samples, set aside the ones that don't match. 2) Compare the samples that match to known human DNA and if they differ sufficiently to exclude modern humans, then you might have something. 3) Compare the samples to other known primates and if they differ significantly, then you probably have something. What's the problem? Edited December 8, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Just my 2 cents worth, but one reason i am hesitant to think she's pulling a con is that she's really gone out on a limb here publicly, and if it all prove to be false, she may as well kiss good-by her career in veteranary medicine and animal dna studies, and enroll in a cosmetology school so she can start a new career doing bikini waxing to make a living, because if it's a con, she's finished in the work she has spent her career doing. Would she gamble her career for this? She may not be doing the best job of it, PR-wise or science-protocol-wise, but it seems she's playing to win, not playing to lose. Just my impression. Bill Edited December 8, 2012 by Bill 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I guess I don't understand DNA analysis because I don't see the difficulty. It's just a process of elimination, I would: 1) get all BF samples and compare them against each other. If they are of the same species, they should be very close together. If they are not, there's a problem with the samples, set aside the ones that don't match. 2) Compare the samples that match to known human DNA and if they differ sufficiently to exclude modern humans, then you might have something. 3) Compare the samples to other known primates and if they differ significantly, then you probably have something. What's the problem? As they say>>> The Devil is always in the details Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Just my 2 cents worth, but one reason i am hesitant to think she's pulling a con is that she's really gone out on a limb here publicly, and if it all prove to be false, she may as well kiss good-by her career in veteranary medicine and animal dna studies, and enroll in a cosmetology school so she can start a new career doing bikini waxing to make a living, because if it's a con, she's finished in the work she has spent her career doing. Would she gamble her career for this? She may not be doing the best job of it, PR-wise or science-protocol-wise, but it seems she's playing to win, not playing to lose. Just my impression. Bill that makes the most sense,and that seems to be her position. Maybe she made some bad choices along the way, but look at the mountain that she has to climb,she is taking a subject matter that has been taboo for science. she didn't believe in bigfoot before the study, so she absolutely wanted to make sure her analysis was correct, so she went overboard with the data. the reviewers are going to go through this with a fine tooth comb, Dr.K new all of this before hand, and would not bet the farm if she was unsure of what the data shows. Edited December 8, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) You know what they say, " The road to hell is paved with good intentions". She might be wrong in her interpretation and still have something unique, or she might be hoaxing, I don't know. I am not convinced one way or the other on that aspect but I am positive that the scenario she describes couldn't happen naturally. Edited December 8, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 And yet she still feels the need to address rumors that should mean NOTHING to her, thus perpetuating the rumor mill, and causing herself more drama. When will she ever learn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 You really think so Mulder? I was always under the impression he was fairly open minded to its existence. I remember back during the big dust up over Snelgrove Lake that he said publically that he would not even bother to look at "bigfoot samples" any further because his investigations had turned up nothing he considered significant. It's possible I have him confused with someone else, but I don't think so. I didn't really want my first post on BFF.2, to be a negative one, but with regards to post 11074, by Ronnie Bass, which apparently quotes Melba - Does she really think that the identification using DNA analysis, of a known primate,(Cercopithecus lomamiensis), which is used for bushmeat and had been kept in captivity, is analogous to the situation we have with bigfoot?. It is not the same, or even remotely similar. Hello to you all, and nice to see some of the folks from BFF.1 still around. DNA is DNA Ain't gonna be the 21st either.... Nope. Not going to be until sometime in January. Hoping before February. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 DNA is DNA but there is a world of difference in how you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I disagree with your assessment here, there is overwhelming evidence proving that science was skewed for an agenda. That in fact it has been pushed along a desired curve. Heres a link to over 500 other links relating to global climate change refuting the claims you say are so hugely in the majority. So In relation to this discussion I believe we are seeing the same thing. Opinions reached before the science has played out and character assassinations ad nausium rather than discussions of facts and truth. Other wise thought of as reputable researchers acting like children...please The reason this whole DNA study is so hugely contested is that it doesn't play nice with the convenient box this species has been placed in.. A... It either doesn't exist or B.... If it does exist it must be an ape. Wrong wrong and wrong... to be intellectually honest we go where the science leads us, no more no less. We don't destroy the individuals credibility to refute the science. No no no, if that was the criteria then nothing could pass muster..everyone has some skeleton in their closets or even out on display. http://www.schnittsh...balwarming.html plus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 this is not the same as a new Pan or Troglodytes. *snip for space* I want the phenomenon to be real, but we won't get anywhere by referencing past discoveries, because this may not be an entirely real thing. If we are being objective about and in our science it IS the same thing. DNA is DNA. The processes for extracting and sequencing DNA are the same whether it's for a person, a dog, a chimp or BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 If we ever see the paper how many of you are going to understand what you are reading to know whether it's sound science or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I still fail to understand why the American Scientific Community would fear this. Seems to me they would be falling over each other to find out more I always remember this quote: ""My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film (Patterson Gimlin Film) would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."" - Dr Donald W. Grieve, London 1972. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 If we are being objective about and in our science it IS the same thing. DNA is DNA. The processes for extracting and sequencing DNA are the same whether it's for a person, a dog, a chimp or BF. But it makes a world of difference when you are looking at A,C, T, and G in determining what it is the DNA says. See, I don't equate this study, right or wrong, as being the final word about anything. I think you are making a mistake if you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) If we ever see the paper how many of you are going to understand what you are reading to know whether it's sound science or not? 99% of us are not. Which baffles me to why some posters here are so certain that MK is has nothing, when they, themselves, couldn't decipher the results if it hit them in the face. Edited December 8, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts