Guest Thepattywagon Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Only excellent if one assumes that DNA test results can be fabricated, manipulated or otherwise skewed to accommodate a bias. I want to believe that any results of DNA testing from any lab are going to be on the level. Otherwise, this entire thread is worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 As far as anyone actually "knows" at this point, the only DNA results offered have been bear and Justin's. So I kind of don't see the point behind whether DNA can be manipulated or not. Also, the long treatises about DNA being as easily read as house plans, comparing the ability of a house plan reader to clearly define what a house wpuld look like, its size and shape, to a DNA researcher's ability to discern what some mysterious DNA would produce, seems like a bad comparison. Comparing two types of DNA is nowhere near the same as being able to attribute characteristics to that DNA. I have yet to ever hear of anyone being able to read DNA and pointing to this particular sequence as producing large size, or type of hair, or a tail, or a long muzzle or short one. So while the analogy to carpenters reading a house plan and being able to extract physical dimensions and characteristics sounds awesome, I suspect that it is way off the mark when trying to figure out what a mystery DNA sample would produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 @Tontar It was an oversimplified analogy for those of us/me who are DNA ignorant. Thanks, Mulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I don't see how she could ever influence tests from other labs that are not her's. Wouldn't you have to be some kind of monster creating mad scientist to pull that stunt off? One thing I don't know is which lab tested Justin's sample, since we don't have the data we won't know unless its volunteered. Or has been volunteered and I missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Ketchum in my opinion is assuming sources of the samples or taking peoples words for it. She did not collect any of the samples, and cannot provide provenance for each of those samples. It might be different if you had video of a bigfoot getting hit by a car, and then taking a blood or tissue sample from that car. Does everyone who does DNA testing collect their own samples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 As far as anyone actually "knows" at this point, the only DNA results offered have been bear and Justin's. So I kind of don't see the point behind whether DNA can be manipulated or not. Also, the long treatises about DNA being as easily read as house plans, comparing the ability of a house plan reader to clearly define what a house wpuld look like, its size and shape, to a DNA researcher's ability to discern what some mysterious DNA would produce, seems like a bad comparison. Comparing two types of DNA is nowhere near the same as being able to attribute characteristics to that DNA. I have yet to ever hear of anyone being able to read DNA and pointing to this particular sequence as producing large size, or type of hair, or a tail, or a long muzzle or short one. So while the analogy to carpenters reading a house plan and being able to extract physical dimensions and characteristics sounds awesome, I suspect that it is way off the mark when trying to figure out what a mystery DNA sample would produce. Well, since that's how DNA analysis works, taking an unknown and comparing it to knowns to determine what it is, whether you like the analogy or not, it's accurate, if simplified. @Tontar It was an oversimplified analogy for those of us/me who are DNA ignorant. Thanks, Mulder. No problem! HNY everybody! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 It seems like to me a lot of people are assuming these samples came from bigfoot/sasquatch without any confirmation other than someones word, or someone thought the sample might be from one. The problem is this: There is no way to verify WHERE the sample came from. With results that include modern human DNA some might insist that the samples simply came from a human donor that was not in genbank. With no way to verify each samples provenance, there is no way to say this "unidentified" sample came from a bigfoot. Especially so when the samples contain what has been claimed to be modern human DNA. Just because a sample is "unidentified primate" does not equate into bigfoot. It just means the sample could not be positively identified. Ketchum in my opinion is assuming sources of the samples or taking peoples words for it. She did not collect any of the samples, and cannot provide provenance for each of those samples. It might be different if you had video of a bigfoot getting hit by a car, and then taking a blood or tissue sample from that car. However, Ketchum has not provided any of the samples or any of the data to be analysed. She keeps claiming peer review, and other excuses as to why her data and samples cannot be released. It looks to me like a big media draw attempt, without providing any proof of the claims. How many years are you willing to wait to see "ketchums data/samples". In my opinion, she has nothing to gain by doing so, and likely the data and samples will never be released. If it ever is, it's game over for her claims. There has been statements made that there is accompanying video of the sample providers in question. Stand by, let me go through my files. Oh wait. . . um yeah. . . I don't have any. Does everyone who does DNA testing collect their own samples? Again, I am back to vetting the samples. I want to see the remaining vetting documents. Science is ruled by review and replicability....investigation is ruled by review and vetting the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 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? If the DNA points to an uncatalogued large primate in North America... I guess it may not receive the official latin name of "Bigfoot"... but what difference would that make? It exists, and would sure seem to corroborate "bigfoot sightings" Mulder, me and you have banged heads in the past, but I have to tell you, your drive to make your point is fasinating. That, I admire. Even though, I may not agree with you on stuff most of the time. What I'm trying to say is, if there is no confirmed, BF dna on record, how can MK's study prove the existance of BF? Hope you and your loved ones have a safe/happy New Year my friend! All it can say is that we now have the unique signature of a novel primate, and that ipso facto, some animal must have made that unique signature. It seems like to me a lot of people are assuming these samples came from bigfoot/sasquatch without any confirmation other than someones word, or someone thought the sample might be from one. The problem is this: There is no way to verify WHERE the sample came from. With results that include modern human DNA some might insist that the samples simply came from a human donor that was not in genbank. With no way to verify each samples provenance, there is no way to say this "unidentified" sample came from a bigfoot. Especially so when the samples contain what has been claimed to be modern human DNA. Just because a sample is "unidentified primate" does not equate into bigfoot. It just means the sample could not be positively identified. Ketchum in my opinion is assuming sources of the samples or taking peoples words for it. She did not collect any of the samples, and cannot provide provenance for each of those samples. It might be different if you had video of a bigfoot getting hit by a car, and then taking a blood or tissue sample from that car. However, Ketchum has not provided any of the samples or any of the data to be analysed. She keeps claiming peer review, and other excuses as to why her data and samples cannot be released. I'm realizing the irony that it looks like I'm defending Melba here, but I'm defending any process which legitimately proves this endeavor : It doesn't matter WHERE the samples came from. If the sample yields DNA that is primate in nature, yet matches no primates in Genbank, then we state suggest emphatically that there is an unknown primate which generated that DNA. If there is abundant DNA, enough for a whole genome to be mapped, then we can have near 100% confidence that an animal that was 'built' by that DNA exists (or only very recently went extinct.) Now, saying "the results are inconclusive" because there was not enough DNA to try to match sequences with, or something like that, is different. But obtaining viable DNA and declaring it comes from an 'as yet uncatalogued primate', pretty much declares said primate exists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I don't see how she could ever influence tests from other labs that are not her's. Wouldn't you have to be some kind of monster creating mad scientist to pull that stunt off? Actually no, from what I read the other day it is very easy to create DNA to look like a chimera, which is what Dr. Ketchum claims she has. I don't see the point in her doing it though, honestly, I was just spinning a "what if" when I posted my links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Can you link to that claim, please, CT? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) Actually no, from what I read the other day it is very easy to create DNA to look like a chimera, which is what Dr. Ketchum claims she has. I don't see the point in her doing it though, honestly, I was just spinning a "what if" when I posted my links. Actually, if Im not mistaken, if she in fact has the amount of data she claims she has (ie multiple genomes sequenced and terabytes of data), then I dont believe it would be possible to "fake it" like your implying. We arent technologically at the point where we could fabricate that much data and make it passable. I think what your referring to is on a much smaller scale. Edited January 1, 2013 by Samsquanch85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) No, she could amplify enough to get the complete genomic material from a cell culture. The only thing about that is that it is easy to tell artificially created DNA from naturally occurring DNA so there really would be no point in doing it. When I say chimera, I'm referring to the mtDNA in conjunction with the "other" nuclear DNA. Chimera a. An organism, organ, or part consisting of two or more tissues of different genetic composition, produced as a result of organ transplant, grafting, or genetic engineering. http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/Chimera http://www.nytimes.c...8dna.html?_r=1 http://www.scientifi...osed-for-animal Edited January 1, 2013 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 If the DNA points to an uncatalogued large primate in North America... I guess it may not receive the official latin name of "Bigfoot"... but what difference would that make? It exists, and would sure seem to corroborate "bigfoot sightings" All it can say is that we now have the unique signature of a novel primate, and that ipso facto, some animal must have made that unique signature. I'm realizing the irony that it looks like I'm defending Melba here, but I'm defending any process which legitimately proves this endeavor : It doesn't matter WHERE the samples came from. If the sample yields DNA that is primate in nature, yet matches no primates in Genbank, then we state suggest emphatically that there is an unknown primate which generated that DNA. If there is abundant DNA, enough for a whole genome to be mapped, then we can have near 100% confidence that an animal that was 'built' by that DNA exists (or only very recently went extinct.) Now, saying "the results are inconclusive" because there was not enough DNA to try to match sequences with, or something like that, is different. But obtaining viable DNA and declaring it comes from an 'as yet uncatalogued primate', pretty much declares said primate exists! It doesn't mean that in the slightest. All it means is that it doesn't match a sample from the GenBank. My DNA probably won't be in the GenBank, nor will yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 It doesn't mean that in the slightest. All it means is that it doesn't match a sample from the GenBank. My DNA probably won't be in the GenBank, nor will yours. Well most likely a good portion if not all of your DNA is in the GenBank. We're all pretty much just various mixes of the standard issue. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 ^ Good perspective, Scout1959. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts