Jump to content
SwiftWater

"Ghost" DNA in West Africans

Recommended Posts

hiflier
3 hours ago, Twist said:

"Upper level" could be another term for "Qualified".

 

Yep, could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CallyCat
Posted (edited)

Since it isn't directly related to bigfoot, and more along the lines of establishing some kind of evidence for ancient human lineage, it might appeal to his ego to be the first to make the connection. If I had Dr. Sykes background I would have looked out of sheer curiosity, for all I know, maybe he has and didn't find anything. I'm not even certain how comparing DNA results works .In my mind it amounts to George Jetson entering a piece of paper with specific genetic markers on it into a computer and seeing if the those genetic markers line up with something already  in the database. I'm sure it's not that simple. 

Edited by CallyCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, CallyCat said:

I'm not even certain how comparing DNA results works .In my mind it amounts to George Jetson entering a piece of paper with specific genetic markers on it into a computer and seeing if the those genetic markers line up with something already  in the database. I'm sure it's not that simple.

 

It actually IS that simple. There are about three international genetic databases that are free to access. DNA test results come out as digital data which can then be entered into any and all databases. Some sample protocols are designed to detect one species (barcoding) if someone is looking for something rare like a wolverine. Other protocols are more general in order to detect ANY species of any kind in a given area (metabarcoding). The metabarcoding method was what was used on the Olympic Peninsula nesting site. It was probably also the method Dr. Sykes used to detect more than one kind of DNA so he could cast a wider net on his Yeti investigations.

 

As an FYI, so far as we know, there is no Sasquatch DNA in any genbanks unless one subscribes to Dr. Ketchum's  Sasquatch genome study. That said though, there is STILL the method I outlined for determining what I think would be Bigfoot DNA in the environment.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

........As an FYI, so far as we know, there is no Sasquatch DNA in any genbanks unless one subscribes to Dr. Ketchum's  Sasquatch genome study........

 

But whether or not one "subscribes" to Ketchum's theories, she has effectively cataloged a novel dna genome to a genbank that other dna genomes can be compared to, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

No: https://phys.org/news/2013-02-bigfoot-genome-sequenced-skeptics.html

 

"Ketchum claims that her team did not submit the genetic sequences to GenBank, the open access genetic database, because GenBank only accept sequences from officially recognized species. GenBank has no such restriction, according to Leonid Kruglyak, a geneticist at Princeton University."

1197864046_SGP1.thumb.JPG.8672f951c7807bfeeed273e3dd66ade3.JPG

1068363864_SGP2.thumb.JPG.f88938f9beb2119a5175e3841c8417ec.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

But whether or not one "subscribes" to Ketchum's theories, she has effectively cataloged a novel dna genome to a genbank that other dna genomes can be compared to, correct?

At this point in time anyone can be right or wrong about this DNA thing.    History has usually proven the smug science traditionalists to be wrong.   Some like Sykes in my opinion deserve to be found wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
31 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

1197864046_SGP1.thumb.JPG.8672f951c7807bfeeed273e3dd66ade3.JPG

1068363864_SGP2.thumb.JPG.f88938f9beb2119a5175e3841c8417ec.JPG

 

So the lack of a catalogued genome for others to compare other samples to is not because of the Ketchum team failing to provide one. It is the Genbank who refused to accept it. So if Sykes or others wanted to compare Zana's dna to anything Ketchum found, it could be ideologically dismissed by skeptics as meaningless.

 

Is that how this "science" stuff works?

 

Has Sykes catalogued Zana's "sub-Saharan African" ghost dna anywhere? If not, why not? Is it because he knows he'll get the Ketchum effect?

 

Are these scientists, or lawyers?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Scientists at the level of Sykes are puffed up egotists that will go for the jugular of anyone that disputes their theories.     For some reason it is not enough to simply prove your scientific competition wrong, but throughout the history of science,   many want to destroy those with opposing theories.      The common myth of Edison being a jovial inventor belies the fact that he was in a fight with those who advocated for alternating current rather than Edisons direct current electric company.      Alternating current is certainly safer and allows more efficient transmission of electricity,   which Edison probably realized at the time,  but accepting he was wrong could cost him to loose his business.    He killed an elephant by electrocution to prove how dangerous alternating current was.    In reality it is much safer than direct current.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
3 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

The common myth of Edison being a jovial inventor belies the fact that he was in a fight with those who advocated for alternating current rather than Edisons direct current electric company

 

His main adversary at the time was none other than Nikola Tesla, the father of today's alternating current.

 

42 minutes ago, Huntster said:

So the lack of a catalogued genome for others to compare other samples to is not because of the Ketchum team failing to provide one. It is the Genbank who refused to accept it. So if Sykes or others wanted to compare Zana's dna to anything Ketchum found, it could be ideologically dismissed by skeptics as meaningless.

 

Essentially? Yes. The insistence of wanting to first know the species DNA came from was a major Catch-22.

 

45 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Is that how this "science" stuff works?

 

Has Sykes catalogued Zana's "sub-Saharan African" ghost dna anywhere? If not, why not? Is it because he knows he'll get the Ketchum effect?

 

Great question, Huntster. I don't know. I would expect that it is though since the mitochondrial DNA (maternal side), taken from a real person, was mapped to a believed ancient population in West Africa that no longer exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
21 minutes ago, hiflier said:

......The insistence of wanting to first know the species DNA came from was a major Catch-22........

 

That's not a Catch-22. It's a circular argument. As Dr. Watts pointed out, the entire point of the project was to point out a novel species. According to the commonly held belief of everybody, and the basis of your repeated professions that dna alone can identify a novel species, that entire affair between the Sasquatch Genome Project and Genbank essentially proves that proof of the existence of sasquatches is being officially blocked.

 

........

I would expect that it is though since the mitochondrial DNA (maternal side), taken from a real person, was mapped to a believed ancient population in West Africa that no longer exists.

 

I have come to expect all manner of chicanery with regard to all matters sasquatch and/or science (all the way down to the freaking weather), but if it's true that Sykes' Zana results are now "scientifically" validated, similar dna markers discovered in a nest of foliage in a wilderness setting like the middle of a southeast Alaskan island might promise some sort of admission by "scientists", huh?

 

Nah! Just kidding! Of course it wouldn't! 

 

So what's your Maine spring been like? As cold as our Alaskan spring?..........:whistle:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
2 hours ago, hiflier said:

No: https://phys.org/news/2013-02-bigfoot-genome-sequenced-skeptics.html

 

"Ketchum claims that her team did not submit the genetic sequences to GenBank, the open access genetic database, because GenBank only accept sequences from officially recognized species. GenBank has no such restriction, according to Leonid Kruglyak, a geneticist at Princeton University."

1197864046_SGP1.thumb.JPG.8672f951c7807bfeeed273e3dd66ade3.JPG

1068363864_SGP2.thumb.JPG.f88938f9beb2119a5175e3841c8417ec.JPG


Correct. 
 

She used the excuse that Genbank only accepts known species....which is BS.

 

They didn’t accept her work because it was garbage. It didn’t show a biological creature. It was bits and pieces of a bunch of known animals. 
 

I like conspiracy theories as much as the next guy. But in the case of Ketchum? Pure snake oil salesmen!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

^^^ Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Looks to me like the only way to go here, beyond dragging one in, is to somehow hammer the NOTCH2NL idea home as a way to settle things. It's a simple concept really. If the NOTCH2NL pseudogene and it's defective pseudogene copy is detected In the samples then....either a Chimpanzee, a Gorilla, or a novel primate is roaming around out there. If there is suspected Human contamination in the samples, but there's no Human NOTCH2NLA, B, or C present, then the same thing....either a Chimpanzee, a Gorilla, or a novel primate is roaming around out there. Again, simple. Where's Disotell when I need him? Where's Meldrum? Where's Mayor? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I would say test for NOTCH2NL  get a positive test.     Repeat the test on a different sample and get a positive result.   More tests from more locations the better. Then write a paper.  Hopefully you can get a scientific journal to publish it.    You would not even need to mention sasquatch in the paper.      Just say you have positive evidence that chimpanzees,  gorillas or a similar novel primate is roaming the woods of the PNW.    Disotell,  Meldrum, and Major are not going to stick their neck out but you can.   The difficult part is finding a location where you can get the materials to test.   Should you get published the ball will be in the court of the detractors.   So often in science those that pursue to destroy some theory by doing their own testing,  often support the theory with their findings.   People like Disotell, and Sykes are going to need evidence crammed down their throat.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Thank you, my thinking exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...