The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

DNA has already been used without a body to discover a new hominin — the Denisovans, which may soon be regarded as a new species.

An extinct species. Which would be more easier to accept. DNA evidence would not be enough to prove that a 800 pound man-monkey is running around Americas backyard. IMO

Edited December 30, 2012 by wickie

[Guest]

Unless identical twins are involved. You'd have the correct DNA but may have the wrong body.

RayG

Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing, Ray...

But if you don't have a body to show where the sample came from doesn't that throw questions from it?

No, because DNA comes from biological samples which come from a body. The DNA is self-sufficient evidence of it's that body's existence

Where did the DNA come from? There must have been some sort of specimen from which to extract that DNA from, right? If it's not a body, then it's a part of a body, some part of a body. Remains. Bones. Teeth. Skull. Something, right?

In the case of the Ketchum study, one or more of the following: hair, tissue and blood and/or saliva.

An extinct species. Which would be more easier to accept. DNA evidence would not be enough to prove that a 800 pound man-monkey is running around Americas backyard. IMO

What alternate source do you propose DNA comes from, wickie? It doesn't "spontaneously generate" itself like they used to think maggots did from rotting meat.

[Guest]

No, because DNA comes from biological samples which come from a body. The DNA is self-sufficient evidence of it's that body's existence

What alternate source do you propose DNA comes from, wickie? It doesn't "spontaneously generate" itself like they used to think maggots did from rotting meat.

But from a body of what? That's my point. Unknown doesn't = bigfoot.

If I found some crap on my lawn, I don't know if it was a dog, or if my neighbor couldn't cross the street in time. It's unknown.

It's crap, but unless I see where it came from, it's just crap.

If this dna stuff points to something "unknown", it may stir more interest, but it sure wont be the proof everyone thinks. There will more questions than answers

Edited December 31, 2012 by wickie

[Guest Scout1959]

Food for thought.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/30/oops-5-retracted-science-studies-2012/

[bipedalist]

......Korean scientist Hyung-In Moon took the concept of scientific peer review to a whole new level by reviewing his own papers under various fake names. Not surprising, his imaginary peers were quite impressed with his work.

Uh, we wouldn't know anybody like that in the BF world now would we *COUGH-sylvanic* *COUGH*

[bipedalist]

OK Tim, I think that is a couple spins around the block now. Happy New Year to yah and the rest of the "old dogs" that've been around over the Holidays.

Edited December 31, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

But from a body of what? That's my point. Unknown doesn't = bigfoot.

If I found some crap on my lawn, I don't know if it was a dog, or if my neighbor couldn't cross the street in time. It's unknown.

It's crap, but unless I see where it came from, it's just crap.

If this dna stuff points to something "unknown", it may stir more interest, but it sure wont be the proof everyone thinks. There will more questions than answers

Apparently you don't understand DNA then. A good DNA sample tells us EXACTLY what type of animal it comes from, and where it fits in relation to known species (X% similar to species A, Y% similar to Species B, etc). A body is useful for a physical description, but not needed.

To use your "crap" analogy. If the crap contained intestinal cells (as feces can and often does) one could sequence the DNA from the cells and determine if it were in fact canine or human DNA. With a good enough sample and a comparison, one could even narrow it down to a specific dog or person (as the case may be)

Edited December 31, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

I took a break from this topic for awhile. Seems like a lot has occurred. Can someone give me a real brief synopsis of what has occurred over the past week. I am up to speed on the steak.

Unfortunately, SSDD other than the steak news which has the pro and con Ketchum camps all up in arms.

[Guest]

Apparently you don't understand DNA then. A good DNA sample tells us EXACTLY what type of animal it comes from, and where it fits in relation to known species (X% similar to species A, Y% similar to Species B, etc). A body is useful for a physical description, but not needed.

To use your "crap" analogy. If the crap contained intestinal cells (as feces can and often does) one could sequence the DNA from the cells and determine if it were in fact canine or human DNA. With a good enough sample and a comparison, one could even narrow it down to a specific dog or person (as the case may be)

You are right, I don't understand DNA, but I could fix your water heater.

But you state, " what type of animal it comes from, and where it fits in relation to known species ". That still doesn't say bigfoot. Just an unknown sample.

Wouldn't you need a type speciman to compare to?

[Guest]

But from a body of what? That's my point. Unknown doesn't = bigfoot.

If I found some crap on my lawn, I don't know if it was a dog, or if my neighbor couldn't cross the street in time. It's unknown.

It's crap, but unless I see where it came from, it's just crap.

If this dna stuff points to something "unknown", it may stir more interest, but it sure wont be the proof everyone thinks. There will more questions than answers

I would agree to this notion.

DNA alone isn't as *powerfull* as having a body or definitive body part..like a head......foot...etc, since you have a morphological confirmation in ADDITION to DNA. Body parts will ALWAYS trump DNA alone (using micro components such as tissues..hairs). In my opinion, DNA ALONE will never satisfy the threshold for confirmation. It will take a body or significant portion thereof..along with extracted DNA that it would provide.

Edited December 31, 2012 by ronn1

[Guest COGrizzly]

RRS - Nice to see you old friend!

[Guest COGrizzly]

Yep wickie. Gave you a Plus one for that!

RRS, I know you no longer even consider BF being real and stuff, but I gotta say, it's nice to see you here. As I have stated elsewhere.

[Guest]

You are right, I don't understand DNA, but I could fix your water heater.

But you state, " what type of animal it comes from, and where it fits in relation to known species ". That still doesn't say bigfoot. Just an unknown sample.

Wouldn't you need a type speciman to compare to?

No, and I'll explain why. Keep in mind this is a vastly simplified, non-"technobabble" explanation:

First, what is DNA? In the simplest possible terms, DNA is the "blueprint" or the assembly instructions for a living organism. As a living creature develops in the womb, it tells the dividing cells what kind of cells they should be, and how those cells should be arranged within the developing organism's body, right down to the smallest details.

Every kind of creature has a specific set of DNA, just as every kind of building or device has it's own specific set of blueprints. If you follow the blueprints for a house, the end result is a house. If you follow the blueprints for an office building, you get an office building, and so forth.

You will never get an office building built by following the blueprints for any other type of building, for example.

Now, let us go a level of detail deeper and take the specific case of building a house. What style is the house? Cape Cod? French Colonial? Victorian? Pueblo? Within each style, the general attributes are going to be the same. All Tudor mansions are going to bear a close resemblance to one another, and recognizably be Tudor mansions, and so forth. Some houses may combine elements of more than one style.

Going an additional level deeper, how big is the house? One-room shack or 100 room mansion? Wood or stone construction? Number and placement of windows and doors? How many stories? Interior partitions (if any)? What color is it?

Sequencing DNA is like looking at those blueprints. A degraded sample means that coffee got spilled on the blueprints, making the ink run and the lines blurry. Some of the pages may be missing. The better the quality of the DNA sample, the more "complete" and "readable" the blueprints are.

At the low end of the readability scale, there might be just enough to tell you you're building a building, not a car or a whatever else.

A little better sample, and you can see that it's a house, not a factory or an office building.

Better sample than that, and you can see it's a 3 story house made of wood, 3000 feet by 3100 feet on sides.

Better sample yet, and it's obviously it's a 3 story Victorian house made of wood 3000 feet by 3100 feet on sides with 21 windows and 3 doors (and their exact positions).

Best quality sample, and we find that it's a 3 story Victorian house made of wood 3000 feet by 3100 feet on sides, with 21 Tudor-style windows and 1 Cape Cod front door and 2 utility quality doors.

Thus anyone can see (if the sample/blueprints are good enough) what the house will look like without ever having to actually see the house.

Now, if all you had was a set of blueprints BUT you didn't know anything about construction and architecture, how would you be able to discern all those details? By looking at the blueprints you have, and comparing them to blueprints someone else has already labeled for you as to what they depict. The more closely the labeled blueprints match those you don't know about, the more proper it is to say that the "unknown" blueprints are for a house of the known type. If they match exactly and completely, you have a 100% match. If they do not match completely, but are clear and readable, you describe it as I did above, listing all the various identifiable features.

And that is how DNA analysis works to identify and place an 'unknown' among the 'knowns', by saying it most closely resembles animal type A, but also has features of animal type B. The more A features it has, the closer to A it is. Likewise with B features. DNA analysts do this by comparing the base pairs and gene sequences within the larger genome to those of known life forms.

Sorry this got a little lengthy, but I hope it should be clearer now.

I would agree to this notion.

DNA alone isn't as *powerfull* as having a body or definitive body part..like a head......foot...etc, since you have a morphological confirmation in ADDITION to DNA. Body parts will ALWAYS trump DNA alone (using micro components such as tissues..hairs). In my opinion, DNA ALONE will never satisfy the threshold for confirmation. It will take a body or significant portion thereof..along with extracted DNA that it would provide.

Why? What other source do you posit for the DNA other than ultimately FROM a body? Does it just magically appear out of thin air?

I keep asking that and no one wants to answer it. People seem to be obsessed with "seeing the body" and they are not thinking logically.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

Why? What other source do you posit for the DNA other than ultimately FROM a body? Does it just magically appear out of thin air?

I keep asking that and no one wants to answer it. People seem to be obsessed with "seeing the body" and they are not thinking logically.

We know DNA must come from a body...but to look ONLY at DNA without a morphological reference..is INFERIOR to having both.

Nebulous sources like..*tissue extracts*...are not tantamount to having a body or identifiable body parts (macro like head..foot leg..etc) that were used as a DNA source.

Edited December 31, 2012 by ronn1

[Oonjerah]

OK. As someone who truly does NOT understand DNA, let me have a go at it.

(I DO understand math, BTW.)

A quick search on Google indicates ... Chimp DNA is +/-96% the same as Human DNA.

Gorilla DNA is more than 98% the same as Human DNA.

NOW if the purported Bigfoot DNA is 98% the same as Human DNA, what to do?

Take the parts of Human, Chimp, Gorilla & purported Bigfoot DNA that are different,

and compare them to one another.

We assume that Ketchum's novel nuDNA has numerous sequences that are not human.

We now compare the novel nuDNA to the 4% of chimps' & 1.75% of gorillas' that are not

the same as human.

If you end up with 4 distinctly different sequences of DNA in the same area of your genome

(your DNA blueprint) ... then you have a 4th species! You have a genome that is not quite

human, not quite chimp, not quite gorilla.

So ... what is it?

Well, it's a new, undocumented species of primate that no one in their right mind has ever

actually seen (because whether you have 1 or 100,000 sightings, they aren't scientific data

that we can match to the our novel DNA).

Wow! A true mystery.

The fact that people who donated the sample tissues say they came from a Bigfoot matters not;

what the heck do they know?

Edited December 31, 2012 by Oonjerah