Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/groups-and-submitters/ I think this might be over. Mary Green and Janice Carter. The latter is tied to the Erickson documentary as well. Good night, my belief in bigfoot. Ever hear the one about the baby and the bathwater? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) No wonder she was "laughed" at by legitimate journals. Yep, if I were a reviewer I wouldn't know where to begin as far as advising her. Her whole premise is flawed because it assumes a priori the existence of BF rather than trying to estabish the existence of BF. Her hypothesis is "Bigfoot is Human" when it should be "an unknown primate lives in North America." Her chain of logic is: 1. These samples came from BF 2. These samples have human DNA 3. Therefore BF is Human The problem is that #1 is never established unless you count a couple of paragraphs summarizing wildman legend, a picture of a footprint and a still pic of the breathing carpet. So the real interpretation should be: 1. These samples have human DNA 2. Therefore these samples came from humans On the three nuDNA genomes from what I'm reading, most of the sequences were consistent with human, some were novel (meaning they just aren't in GenBank), and some didn't amplify. Some of those who have a better knowledge of the technical aspects would be better equiped to elaborate on this, but I believe this would all be consistent with partially degraded human DNA. For what it's worth she says the "steak" was haplogroup H1a. This is a common European type which originated around 13,000 BP in Europe and is common today in those of European descent. It looks like she just looked in the Wikipedia entry for Haplogroup H and copied the references without actually reading the article that is cited. She assumed that this meant that her DNA sample was from a Cro-Magnon from 13,000 BP (hence the Solutrian stuff), but it just means it came from person of European descent. What was Justin's haplogroup---I forget? Sorry guys, but it is what is. Edited February 13, 2013 by Theagenes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) I understand Ketchum has the pic of Erikson's Matilda (this is also in a video) in her study just published? Edited February 13, 2013 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I did notice in the artist section of the SGP she acknowledges Knuck and a small picture he drew of a sasquatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Theagenes, thank's for your thoughts. Can I ask, and please don't take this as anything but a straight question. Do you have a scientific background? As in DNA sequencing etc? Where can I obtain the paper? I'd like to take a gander I went to the denovo website and it didn't immediately slap me in the face?!? I've been working all day and I'm tired lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Yes, I have a scientific background, but not a background in genetics. The mtDNA haplogroup data interpretation is within my area of expertise. The sequencing of the nuDNA is not, which is why I indicated I would defer to those more knowledgeable than me on that issue. To be clear, though MK herself indicates that degradation is a possible interpretation. She gets around it by comparing her results to an intentionally degraded control sample. But it's a false comparison because she doesn't know what conditions the actual samples endured. There's no smoking gun here. It's weak. Very weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 It would be great if Dr. Ketchum would come here now that the report is out and answer some questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I think your interpretation could be off. The mitochondrial DNA did come back human. The mDna is what was used to trace back the time table of where the family tree started. The nuDna came back unknown. That's what's used to determine species. The AmelX dropoff you described rarely happens in normal human DNA, but happened in most of the unknown samples. The pristine electropherograms proved the samples were pristine, not degraded DNA like you suggested. I'm definitely no DNA expert, so someone else can chime in on the the details there. I just see that what's described can't be interpreted as pure human. I do agree that some of the interpretations might not the best way to go about it, but that's where science comes in. Retest the data and try to debunk it and make your own interpretations. DNA itself doesn't lie. They can only dispute the interpretations, which I think is legitimate in this and all cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Thanks for that... Great explanation my friend, for a layperson like myself this really helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Theagenes, https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2_Ab-LKXZlNS1pGT3pnWDZYWTg/edit?pli=1 See page 2 of the link below, toward the bottom of the page. This is the study of the DNA samples for Justin and the unknown sample sent to Trent University. The results indicated European Halotype - East Europe and Caucasus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 "One thing I want to make ABUNDANTLY clear. I did not self publish, but acquired the other journal. I have had and still have NOTHING to do with any publishing, editing or peer reviewing for Denovo. That was all completed prior to the acquisition of Denovo." https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/568099926535461 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I think your interpretation could be off. The mitochondrial DNA did come back human. The mDna is what was used to trace back the time table of where the family tree started. The nuDna came back unknown. That's what's used to determine species. The AmelX dropoff you described rarely happens in normal human DNA, but happened in most of the unknown samples. The pristine electropherograms proved the samples were pristine, not degraded DNA like you suggested. I'm definitely no DNA expert, so someone else can chime in on the the details there. I just see that what's described can't be interpreted as pure human. I do agree that some of the interpretations might not the best way to go about it, but that's where science comes in. Retest the data and try to debunk it and make your own interpretations. DNA itself doesn't lie. They can only dispute the interpretations, which I think is legitimate in this and all cases. My interpretation could certainly be wrong with regard to the nuDNA sequencing as I indicated, but I think you're misunderstanding part of what I was saying. The mtDNA certainly came 100% percent human. I understand that it is how she came to the conclusion that the hybridization event took place 13,000 years ago but her conclusion makes no sense at all. The haplotypes she has are all modern types that first appeared 13,000 years ago in Europe. She has mtDNA from modern white people living in North America today, not remnant Cro-Magnon DNA from a hybrization event 13,000 years ago. She has demonstrated here her complete and utter lack of knowledge of paleogenetics. Seriously, she wikipedied it, saw 13,000 BP and jumped to conclusions (probably prompted by Stubstad based on his reports from a couple of years ago). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Useful information to know about the paper: The editor of the Denovo journal is listed as Dr. Rayford Wallace. The taxon name applied for is as a species with ZooBank, Homo sapiens cognatus, LSID:40E2FA1F-10A1-4D42-8B02-A007347F1B43 Until a taxon name is accepted by ZooBank , GenBank® will not accept an upload of the DNA data. The number of Denovo journal is ISSN: 2326-2869 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The website is a joke. The matilda snippet is inconclusive. The report might be a farce. Have we been much ado about nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Video has been released....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khHSX3ZYaKI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts