Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 this was one of the best chances of proving they exist, but the way the paper keeps getting torn apart, it's just making anyone who came foward with any kind of sample are getting thrown under the bus. feel bad for those people, sound like they put a lot of work in, only to be slammed, If i had a sample I'd never tell anyone, who needs a beating like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 theagenes - is it possible that if the hybridization was ongoing or still happening, that could explain the various haplogroups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 To summarize my wall of text above for those who don't want to read it. Ketchum's theory of a hybridization event 15,000 years ago comes from her misunderstanding Stubstad's misinterpretation four years ago of a Wikipedia article on a haplogroup that has nothing to do with any of the haplogroups in her study! (with a pseudo-archaeology hypothesis thrown in unnecessarily just for fun) To be fair, Ketchum said in her C2C interview that Stubstad didn't know what he was doing. He wasn't named but the context was very clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 To be fair, Ketchum said in her C2C interview that Stubstad didn't know what he was doing. He wasn't named but the context was very clear. Yes, and that's I continued to give her the benefit of the doubt until her paper came out and her explanation until her paper came out and I saw that she just used a summarized version of Stubstad's Wikipedia nonsense to explain the origins of her hybridization event: With the wide variety of haplotypes in the study and especially with the majority of the haplotypes being European or Middle Eastern in origin, migration into North America by these hominins may have occurred previous to the migration across the Bering land bridge. This previous migration is supported by the Solutrean Theory​41-42​​. this was one of the best chances of proving they exist, but the way the paper keeps getting torn apart, it's just making anyone who came foward with any kind of sample are getting thrown under the bus. feel bad for those people, sound like they put a lot of work in, only to be slammed, If i had a sample I'd never tell anyone, who needs a beating like this. People should send their samples to someone reputable let Sykes. It sucks because she seemed reputable four or five years ago. But honestly the red flags have been there for the last year or so. theagenes - is it possible that if the hybridization was ongoing or still happening, that could explain the various haplogroups? I've addressed this several times already so I guess I'm not explaining it well. These haplogroups are not a result of the mtDNA evolving and mutating over time. mtDNA does do that. But these haplogroups are known types that have been mapped already and they're mostly from Europe. As I tried to make clear above the whole notion that there was a hybridzation event that took place 15kya is based on a misunderstanding of what haplogroups are and how they work. Her whole hybridization theory rests on that and it's a phantom. All of the haplogroups she has are common modern types that represent a nice cross-section of modern North America. Could it be explained by massive ongoing breeding between BF and human women the last few hundred years of European colonization? Yeah I guess. If female rarely reproduce. Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 theagenes - forgive me if I keep bringing this up, but it's still bugging me. You say IF females rarely reproduce. If the Solutrean theory is true (even if timeline is completely off) and there were women of that decent here and they something brought about by massive breeding where the resulting offspring obtained those haloptypes and something occurred that wiped out the original species, and the only breeding options were new females or other hybrid offspring, would that explain it? You keep jumping back to the assertion that BF mtDNA would still be around because they'd still mate with BF females, but what if something had made them extinct? I'm only asking because Ketchum does say they have no idea what happened to the original species, or what happened to cause the breeding to happen and that it would take further studies. I'm just asking if that could explain it. I'm trying to rule out any possibilities that jump in my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 njjohn, please go back one page and read my wall of text post. Click on the links. Read Stubstad's reports from the early days of MK's study. You will see where this whole 15,000 years ago Solutrean thing originated. It's not real. It comes from Stubstad not understanding what a haplogroup is. And she accepted it uncritically and never dumped it even after she dumped him. Even though she got many more samples with many new haplogroups that have nothing to do with the original premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Thank you Theagenes for that explanation. You're right - it is quite the rabbit hole. But a very good example of why I don't like to stray too far out of my comfort zone.. So many people? The sample was collected by the Justin Smeja, Jack Evans and a dog. You're right, my bad. I always get this part of the story confused.. They had the steak first, then went back with a big group to look for more. Hey, nobody's perfect But contamination of this sample, that was sent to both Ketchum and Trent is not something we shouldn't consider or even be concerned about. We have no idea how many people touched the original steak before being divided up and sent to various people. Maybe Bart or Justin has a list? But I know from talking to Bart over the course of the large majority of this event - neither Justin, his wife, Jack or anyone else was asked to submit their own DNA sample - to test for contamination - UNTIL the Trent Study. I know others have looked at this sample, other than Bart, Justin, his wife, and Jack. This has made me nervous for a very long time and I have expressed this to Bart -- so he knows this and I don't feel like I am saying anything bad or insulting him, Justin or anyone else. Which begs the question did any others, who submitted samples to Ketchums study, receive a request by Melba to do a DNA swab themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Thank you Theagenes for that explanation. You're right - it is quite the rabbit hole. But a very good example of why I don't like to stray too far out of my comfort zone.. I'm sorry, if it was confusing, but it's complicated mess. The takeaway is the whole idea of hybridization taking place thousands of years ago was based on a completely flawed premise. And I find it hard to believe she didn't know this. You're right, my bad. I always get this part of the story confused.. They had the steak first, then went back with a big group to look for more. Hey, nobody's perfect But contamination of this sample, that was sent to both Ketchum and Trent is not something we shouldn't consider or even be concerned about. We have no idea how many people touched the original steak before being divided up and sent to various people. Maybe Bart or Justin has a list? But I know from talking to Bart over the course of the large majority of this event - neither Justin, his wife, Jack or anyone else was asked to submit their own DNA sample - to test for contamination - UNTIL the Trent Study. I know others have looked at this sample, other than Bart, Justin, his wife, and Jack. This has made me nervous for a very long time and I have expressed this to Bart -- so he knows this and I don't feel like I am saying anything bad or insulting him, Justin or anyone else. This is a huge red flag! Which begs the question did any others, who submitted samples to Ketchums study, receive a request by Melba to do a DNA swab themselves? This is critical to get an answer to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Southernyahoo said: Maybe she didn't have Trent's data. You won't convince me she didn't or could not have had access to this data - or that she did not know about it. There is no way. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. this was one of the best chances of proving they exist, but the way the paper keeps getting torn apart, it's just making anyone who came foward with any kind of sample are getting thrown under the bus. feel bad for those people, sound like they put a lot of work in, only to be slammed, If i had a sample I'd never tell anyone, who needs a beating like this. I don't think any of the criticism has anything to do with those who submitted samples. This is Melba's work - her study - and it's her responsibility to know the chain of evidence, and be prepared for the questions about that and maintain the integrity of the study that she (admittedly) is in charge of. None of this is on the people who submitted samples. They trusted she knew what she was doing - and had no reason to doubt her when they sent in their samples. This is on her. No one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 I'm sorry, if it was confusing, but it's complicated mess. The takeaway is the whole idea of hybridization taking place thousands of years ago was based on a completely flawed premise. And I find it hard to believe she didn't know this. Yeah, it is a little, but I was able to follow - so thank you for the time you took in explaining it. The only understanding of DNA I have is in finding the DNA expert to examine a sample and say, "You are the father" or "You are not the father", and limited trials that included DNA evidence.. I have never been privy to conversations like this before. LOL. But I do enjoy learning things above my pay scale. So, thank you. This is a huge red flag! I think so too. When Bart first told me Melba never requested a DNA sample from Justin or anyone close to this event - I cringed. I don't see that as Justin's fault or anyone else's. That is her job to make sure her work is 100% accurate.. In fact when the request came in from the Trent lab - requesting Justins DNA, Bart called me that day and asked what measures he might take to ensure their are no later questions about this being Justins DNA. He asked me if he should video the swabbing and everything. I told him - yeah. I would. I told him to video from the time the open the package containing the DNA kit - until the time they put the completed kit into an envelope and its addressed and stamped. Maybe it's over kill - but I also know how this community works and in my world - documentation of the chain of evidence is critical - not just a cool thing to do. I believe he did just that too. This is critical to get an answer to. I agree - but how many of these people will come forward to answer this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Suesquach Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Theagenes, thank you for explaining how DNA works to those of us who don't have a PhD in Genetics. I sure hope Dr. Ketchum answers some of these questions and "red flags" that seem to dominate this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 "Clearly non-human hair (morphologically), washed thoroughly as is accepted procedure in forensic science to remove contaminates by two laboratories with two techniques" http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112784054/bigfoot-dna-sequenced-homo-sapiens-cognatus-021413/ Perhaps this is why she felt like she didn't need their DNA. The only collecting for DNA I can recall is she mentioned testing against lab techs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 That is a procedure I know nothing about. I have also never heard of it until Melba brought it up. Anytime I have been involved with DNA in this way - and their was a fear of contamination - everyone involved had to submit a sample of their own and the evidence was tested against those samples. So, I am not saying this is a bogus procedure - just saying I have no information about it. But if she is willing to test her lab techs - why not test those who were in direct contact with the samples? I am also assuming there was more than one sample that had been in the custody of the submitter for a period of time. Why? I would assume these people did not run out that day (upon hearing about the study) to collect the sample(s).. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 this was one of the best chances of proving they exist, but the way the paper keeps getting torn apart, it's just making anyone who came foward with any kind of sample are getting thrown under the bus. feel bad for those people, sound like they put a lot of work in, only to be slammed, If i had a sample I'd never tell anyone, who needs a beating like this. Just like the many who claim to have proof but will not present it to others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 "Clearly non-human hair (morphologically), washed thoroughly as is accepted procedure in forensic science to remove contaminates by two laboratories with two techniques" http://www.redorbit....ognatus-021413/ Perhaps this is why she felt like she didn't need their DNA. The only collecting for DNA I can recall is she mentioned testing against lab techs. LOL!! I was just coming here to post a link to the same article! Curses, foiled again! http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112784054/bigfoot-dna-sequenced-homo-sapiens-cognatus-021413/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts