The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

Who are the scientists that are reviewing it? This man should be told I think he is in the field and is making a big fuss over it.

http;//www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY29c1wDvKs

Edited December 8, 2012 by Tim Kota

[bipedalist]

I think this process is commonly referred to as "critical thinking".....

More like thinking that reaches criticality!

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?

and

Assuming the study has sequenced all that has been claimed then the study will either be technically accurate and acceptable, technically inaccurate and unacceptable, technically accurate and unacceptable or technically inaccurate and junk.

To put it another way (if acceptable) it will be able to answer every one of Dr. Kokjohn's questions unfailingly and shine like a star or it will answer everyone of Dr. Kokjohn's questions to the T and still be considered a fail.

Then again, there is always that Russian option which I hope does not become a bail option.

Edited December 8, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

I agree....But with that, it baffles me that the 99% seems to keep battling this semantical debate armed with Wiki, and Google knowledge to state their points on either side. It's comedy seeing carpenters, cops, small business owners, etc, arguing DNA, and Anthropolgy.

(And this wasn't directed towards you, therm)

I think anyone can learn, if motivated to do so, and I don't think you need a masters or PhD to figure these things out. All you need is the basics, and this won't be the last time someone attempts a DNA study of a cryptid. It's nice to be able to differentiate the bad from the good science. Look at Southern Yahoo, I wouldn't say his understanding is perfect but I applaude him, Bob Zenor, Violet, and a few others for their effort to try to understand. If nothing else, those links lead to more indepth reading on the topic. I don't see anything wrong with that.

CT, either DNA science is accurate and valid, or it isn't. There isn't a special "science of billy goat DNA", "science of cat DNA", etc. It's all the same genetic science, conducted in the same ways.

Science (the institution) has no trouble at all accepting DNA results when discussing billy goats, or cats (or people). Neither do courts, who use it to sentence people to death on the basis of it. If DNA science were so unreliable, we would not do that.

To suddenly turn around and start looking for flaws in DNA science when it may be telling us there's a previously undocumented higher primate/hominid running around out there is massive special pleading.

Nope. You look at it, compare it to known samples, and it either matches or it doesn't. The basic process isn't all that difficult to understand

Now Mulder you have been shown articles and encouraged to read up on how that is not that simple. Identifying a known is easy because there is a match in Gen Bank, if you don't have a match, and in this case you are talking about 4 billion base pairs in a genome, you have to use statistics to see how close different significant sections are to different known classifications. We are talking about 3 complete genomes, if I understand what Melba says correctly, there is a whole lot of room for error when you go from identifying people and pedigrees through forensic methods and an indepth evaluation for identification like that.

Here is an example, 15% of our genome matches chimp, another percentage matches gorilla, etc...it depends on what section of the genome you are looking at as to whether we are more "like" another species, but overall we share about 98% of the same sequences. The difference lies in how they operate so even if Melba finds something she thinks is a hybrid there is still plenty more to learn other than just drawing conclusions based on a pattern alone. I don't have much hope for it, we will have to wait and see what she did, but there is the option that she actually has something unique but misinterpreted what she has, because what she describes really doesn't make sense from a genetic or biological perspective even if you believe bigfoot exists. That's what I hear scientists who have even bothered to comment on this story say, "Show me the data and then I can really weigh in on it."

[Guest]

No, they're pressured by the "environmentalist" lobby that considers Man to be the source of all the world's ills.

Just like FDA scientists are pressured to sign off on new drug studies by big pharmaceutical companies wanting to make a profit off of drugs of questionable effect and safety.

Just like Egyptologists are pressured by the Egyptian government (in the form of Zahi Hawass) not to ask uncomfortable questions about the age of Egyptian civilization.

That's just naming TWO areas where pressure groups seek to shape what is supposed to be an objective process to suit non-scientific purposes.

I could name other areas easily if it weren't for the rules of this sub-forum.

Don't you mean "pull out of thin air"?

Edited December 8, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest slimwitless]

^I don't know the details either. If you sat me down in a lab and said "Sequence this DNA" I wouldn't begin to know how to do it.

That doesn't mean I can't be reasonably well-informed on what the general process of DNA sequencing and comparison entails.

Of course.

I'm talking about the nitty gritty. For instance, there's still controversy on whether Neanderthal hybridized with modern humans. I don't expect (without devoting more time than I have) to be able to look at the raw data from the various camps and decide the issue for myself. Most of us have to rely on the experts. It's all about consensus...and yeah, a little trust.

That also doesn't mean I only want to see the Cliffs Notes.

[Guest]

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.

There are some valid arguments, hoaxing is not one of them.

[Guest SquatchinNY]

Could someone give me a quick update on the whole situation?

[Guest]

Disotell coments here:

http://doubtfulnews....foot-dna-claim/

A team of scientists can verify that their 5-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called “Bigfoot†or “Sasquatch,†living in North America. Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species.

The fact that this extraordinary claim was not accompanied by a paper and supporting data was a giant red flag for Disotell:

The positing of an unknown primate existing 15,000 years ago is not plausible. 15,000 years ago, humans were “usâ€. This is a very short span of time, evolutionarily. There is no evidence that another primate that we have not discovered was living at the time in order to mate with human females. In addition, the mention of a “non-human sequence†is confusing. If it’s non-human or unknown, what does it most closely match? If it matches close to bear, bacteria, plants, whatever, that would give us a better idea about a reasonable interpretation. The use of “unknown†does not make sense in terms of science. Its use sparked the mention of so-called “angel†DNA further decreasing the capacity of onlookers to take this seriously

Disotell's comments make no sense. Yes, 15,000 years ago humans were us. The pre-hybrid sasquatch/yeti, however, was not, but was "another primate." The fact that we have not yet "discovered" it in such a way as to satisfy the demands of science does not mean it did not exist 15,000 years ago (and in fact existed for hundreds of thousands of years beyond that). By "non-human" sequence, Ketchum is referring to the non-homo-sapiens sequence she found in her data -- i.e., the "unknown" primate. Finally, the reference to "angel" DNA is not worth responding to. Ketchum never said anything about angel DNA.

Disotell is either dense, or is intentionally misreading the press release.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Oak

[Guest]

Disotell's comments make no sense. Yes, 15,000 years ago humans were us. The pre-hybrid sasquatch/yeti, however, was not, but was "another primate." The fact that we have not yet "discovered" it in such a way as to satisfy the demands of science does not mean it did not exist 15,000 years ago (and in fact existed for hundreds of thousands of years beyond that). By "non-human" sequence, Ketchum is referring to the non-homo-sapiens sequence she found in her data -- i.e., the "unknown" primate. Finally, the reference to "angel" DNA is not worth responding to. Ketchum never said anything about angel DNA.

Disotell is either dense, or is intentionally misreading the press release.

Apparently you didn't listen to all of Disotell's statements. He acknowledged the hybrid hypothesis and said (paraphase) "That would make more sense".

[Guest Cervelo]

There are some valid arguments, hoaxing is not one of them.

Ummm who better to manipulate DNA before it goes out for independent testing than a veterinarian that specializes in DNA testing?

Oh and before you guys go bonkers it's not an accusation but it is a possibility

Edited December 8, 2012 by Cervelo

[southernyahoo]

Apparently you didn't listen to all of Disotell's statements. He acknowledged the hybrid hypothesis and said (paraphase) "That would make more sense".

The positing of an unknown primate existing 15,000 years ago is not plausible.

Well that wouldn't make any sense with this statement since "something" would have to exist to hybridize with humans. If the mtDNA traces back to a maximum of 15 k years ago then thats the only conclusion you can make.

[Ronnie Bass]

I dunno Cervelo, if we are to believe she has sent them to the number of labs we keep hearing - as few as four and as many as a dozen - then she has to be down right brilliant to pull off a hoax and balls of brass to even consider it. Yes its a possibility but with the same odds as we hooking up with Kate Upton tonight.

[Guest Cervelo]

RB,

It's hard to say what people will do and say sometimes....what were these three thinking when they went on national television?

How on earth did they think it would end?

Edited December 8, 2012 by Cervelo

[kbhunter]

Cervelo. I have thought about this many times. Why in the world would they would have done that? They gave us "GA boys" a bad name.

KB

[Ronnie Bass]

Oh any hoax is a possibilty, but to put in it context don't you think pulling a hoax those yahoos from Georgia pulled is a 100x easier than to pull on with DNA involved?