Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

Woodwose Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:59 pm

CMcMillan wrote:You can't seem to grasp that can you.

Can't you appreciate that ID falls under various fields (as specified in one of my previous posts) and must be peer reviewed by scientists from those fields?

All this talk of peer review is getting us nowhere and your bias and misconceptions regarding science it preventing us from having a civil discussion.

Peer review is an important part of science but it isn't the be all and end all. Some of the most important scientific discoveries were not peer reviewed and some have even been rejected by the peer review process before going on to be accepted.

All anyone is saying is that Ketchums failures regarding peer review are somewhat suspicious and the way she has handled the release of her data leaves a lot to be desired. She may have some valid data but has possibly corrupted it through her bungling, and her paper may yet turn out to reach some valid conclusions. It's hard to call at the moment and we will have to wait and see what the experts have to say on the matter - just don't hold your breath expecting Ketchum to be vindicated.

Even if the paper holds water that isn't the end of the story. Her findings must be verified and repeated by other researchers - including the independant retreval of DNA samples and documentary evidence.

Squatchmaster G Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:06 pm

CMcMillan wrote:So when are you going to give your definitions which Pinkerton asked for?
Why can't you simply define your idea of what the terms mean?

It took me a while to figure out what on earth you were talking about here since DPinkerton hadn't asked me to define anything in this thread. Are you talking about the discussion in the "My two cents" thread?? I answered that immediately and defined the parameters for evidence that are required in the context of a scientific investigation. I gave a really in depth answer. Why did you ignore my answer?

CMcMillan wrote:Yes I know that.
But they aren't sending a Plastic Surgeon Paper to a foot doctor.
PEERs in the field of study
You can't seem to grasp that can you.

An evolutionary biologist is a valid peer for a paper on ID. We've already established several times that you don't have a good grasp on what the peer review process actually involves and the significance of the process. In any case the question of what a peer review for an ID paper might be is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Why do you keep trying to sidetrack these discussions by trying to start irrelevant arguments like this?

CMcMillan Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:08 pm

An evolutionary biologist is a valid peer for a paper on ID. We've already established several times that you don't have a good grasp on what the peer review process actually involves and the significance of the process. In any case the question of what a peer review for an ID paper might be is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Why do you keep trying to sidetrack these discussions by trying to start irrelevant arguments like this?

No they aren't
1.) They do not believe in ID. They are not peers of ID theory.

No you keep thinking Peer Review means we throw reviews out to whomever.
You don't
Get over it.

I am not Sidetracking it.
I have explained time and time again.
that Peer Review is only good when its acceptable. Once something has had a peer review that goes against the norm its considered well Peer review isn't good science.
So to sit and keep saying Melba needs Peer Review is just BS.
Her paper is out people can read it and research it. They can even contact her for more information.

Squatchmaster G Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:20 pm

CMcMillan wrote:No they aren't
1.) They do not believe in ID. They are not peers of ID theory.

That is not what 'peer' refers to in this case. Peer does not mean "sympathetic believer". There is no requirement that the peers previously believes the claims presented by the paper, they are checking to see that proper scientific methodology has been applied, that the arguments are logical and thorough and that the data sufficiently supports the conclusions. The people reviewing the papers just don't get to say "yes" or "no" without any reason, they have to present actual explanations to the editor and the editor gets to decide if their evaluation is sufficient or not. The peer review process isn't some scam to keep unwanted elements out of the Science club.

CMcMillan wrote: Once something has had a peer review that goes against the norm its considered well Peer review isn't

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

CMcMillan wrote:
So to sit and keep saying Melba needs Peer Review is just BS.

Ketchum didn't go through the proper peer review process and now everyone is laughing at her and writing off her paper as junk science. She really, really did need to have it properly peer reviewed before anyone would take it seriously.

Woodwose Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:25 pm

Looks like I was right about Ketchum not disclosing data in the paper and she has been caught out in lie with regard to GenBank (see Leonid Kruglyak's comment):

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/geneticists-ketchum-sasquatch-dna-study/

CMcMillan Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:49 pm

Squatchmaster G wrote:
CMcMillan wrote:No they aren't
1.) They do not believe in ID. They are not peers of ID theory.

That is not what 'peer' refers to in this case. Peer does not mean "sympathetic believer". There is no requirement that the peers previously believes the claims presented by the paper, they are checking to see that proper scientific methodology has been applied, that the arguments are logical and thorough and that the data sufficiently supports the conclusions. The people reviewing the papers just don't get to say "yes" or "no" without any reason, they have to present actual explanations to the editor and the editor gets to decide if their evaluation is sufficient or not. The peer review process isn't some scam to keep unwanted elements out of the Science club.

CMcMillan wrote: Once something has had a peer review that goes against the norm its considered well Peer review isn't
That sentence doesn't even make sense.

CMcMillan wrote:
So to sit and keep saying Melba needs Peer Review is just BS.
Ketchum didn't go through the proper peer review process and now everyone is laughing at her and writing off her paper as junk science. She really, really did need to have it properly peer reviewed before anyone would take it seriously.

Please site a source of where you are getting your Definition of Peer Review. Because its not what any Science Site or Dictionary is saying.

CMcMillan Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:52 pm

Woodwose wrote:Looks like I was right about Ketchum not disclosing data in the paper and she has been caught out in lie with regard to GenBank (see Leonid Kruglyak's comment):

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/geneticists-ketchum-sasquatch-dna-study/

Running the data

Normally, publishers require genetic sequences to be submitted to a public database before a paper's publication, but there's a slight hitch here: the big public database requires a species identification, and sasquatch isn't officially a species. While the research team works on sorting out the species issues, it has provisionally settled on Homo sapiens cognatus. Some of the sequence data from the alleged bigfoot is available as downloadable supplements.

Please follow completely the sources and read them

Woodwose Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:07 pm

That doesn't change the fact that Ketchum lied about the reason for not submitting the DNA to GenBank.

Also the article you lifted your quote from explains what a mess the paper is:

As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess. Sometimes the tests picked up human DNA. Other times, they didn't. Sometimes the tests failed entirely. The products of the DNA amplifications performed on the samples look about like what you'd expect when the reaction didn't amplify the intended sequence. And electron micrographs of the DNA isolated from these samples show patches of double- and single-stranded DNA intermixed. This is what you might expect if two distantly related species had their DNA mixed—the protein-coding sequences would hybridize, and the intervening sections wouldn't. All of this suggests modern human DNA intermingled with some other contaminant.

The authors' description of the sequence suggests that it's human DNA interspersed with sequence from some other primate—hence the interbreeding idea. But the best way to analyze this would be to isolate the individual segments of non-human DNA and see what species those best align with. If the authors have done that, they don't say. They also don't mention how long the typical segment of non-human DNA is. Assuming interbreeding took place as the authors surmise, these segments should be quite long, since there hasn't been that much time to recombine. The fact that the authors don't mention this at all is pretty problematic.

Source: http://tiny.cc/pwnksw

CMcMillan Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:18 pm

Wait,
So several people have stated that she may have difficulty uploading to the GeneBank.. Backing up her statement.
And she is caught in a Lie?

Maybe she is working with the place to figure out how to upload it?

Look I get you and others don't like Ketchum and think everything she does is to further her Hoax.

CMcMillan Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:50 pm

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/02/ketchum-is-now-all-in-with-her-bigfoot.html

I have independent analysis of our data going on. If the outcome of what we are doing supports our analysis, then we are vindicated. If not, then I will announce that also. It involves top level scientists that have volunteered after I released the paper. If their findings are the same, they will go public. So, please be patient. They also will assure upload to GenBank and they can make that happen. - Dr. Melba Ketchum

Woodwose Sat Feb 16, 2013 5:52 am

CMcMillan wrote:Wait,
So several people have stated that she may have difficulty uploading to the GeneBank.. Backing up her statement.
And she is caught in a Lie?

There are others who state that she shouldn't have a problem. That makes her a liar or incompetent - which is mind boggling since DNA analysis is supposed to be ger area if expertise.

Of course now claims to be getting help with the upload, so we will just have to wait and see.

[quoteLook I get you and others don't like Ketchum and think everything she does is to further her Hoax.[/quote]

I haven't said any such thing.

I just happen to think that her conduct makes her look incompetent and unreliable and she had undoubtedly flip flopped in ways that make her seem to be dishonest.

Despite all this I have repeatedly said that her paper may yet be vindicated. It's just not looking good at the moment, especially with this nonsense about bogus legal advice, excuses regarding GenBank and science being closed minded.

CMcMillan Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:22 am

There are others who state that she shouldn't have a problem. That makes her a liar or incompetent - which is mind boggling since DNA analysis is supposed to be ger area if expertise.

So how can she be claimed to be a liar. When people are debating if she can or can't upload.
If their is experts debating over it it can't make her a liar.

CMcMillan Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:28 am

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/bigfoot-news-february-15-2013/

Woodwose Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:36 am

CMcMillan wrote:So how can she be claimed to be a liar. When people are debating if she can or can't upload.
If their is experts debating over it it can't make her a liar.

Given the calibre of those who state that there shouldn't be an issue with GenBank there is nothing to debate. You can add DNA from a new/unknown species, end of story.

Obviously that means that she was either lying about GenBank and making excuses for not sharing her data, or she doesn't know how to use GenBank - which could mean that she lacks the skills needed to carry out this kind of research.

As I said above, we will have to wait for independent verification. I don't understand what you are arguing about this.

CMcMillan Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:20 am

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Three-Bigfoot-Genomes-Sequenced-In-5-Year-DNA-4276720.php

After extensive forensic controls to prevent contamination, mtDNA testing of the Sasquatch samples yielded fully modern human profiles. Sixteen haplotypes indicating 100% homology with modern human mtDNA sequences were observed from 20 completed whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes. The human mtDNA results are consistent with previous, unrelated mtDNA tests of purported Sasquatch samples from other laboratories.

Next-generation whole genome sequencing with the HiSeq 2000 platform by Illumina was performed at the University of Texas, Southwestern on one tissue sample, a saliva sample and one blood sample to produce 3 whole genomes. In contrast to the mtDNA which was unambiguously modern human, the Sasquatch nuDNA results were a mosaic of novel primate and human sequence.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/press-releases/article/Three-Bigfoot-Genomes-Sequenced-In-5-Year-DNA-4276720.php#ixzz2L4HRMHXV

Woodwose Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:37 pm

Oh, but relict hominid DNA is present from species for which we have no previous record and mingled in ways that make no sense.

Just saying Rolling Eyes

DPinkerton Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:38 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:If the mtDNA is 100% modern human then youve got a human. She doesnt even try to hide that fact... amazing!

Huh?

DPinkerton Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:48 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:The paper states the mtDNA is 100% modern human. Therefore weve got ourselves a bigfoot!!!!!! oh wait.

If another species of homo mates with a female homo sapien...what is the result? The female passed down the mtDNA....so yes it would be 100% "modern human". I fail to see your point? It was clearly explained...

Woodwose Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:52 pm

I believe that he's referring to the fact that no hybrid species should features nuclear and mitochondrial DNA that appear to come from different species. I don't think that hybridisation works like that.

From what I have read (and I could be wrong) vastly different NDNA and MTDNA is indicative of contamination.*

I'm no expert, so I might be wrong.

*Edit: I was wrong. See my later post.

Woodwose Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:00 pm

I think it would be pretty clear cut if it was only Homo Sapiens Sapiens DNA.

Surely there woud be no ambiguity otherwise?

CMcMillan Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:02 pm

And Burden said he isn't a scientist. So he obviously can not make any conclusions since he said he would rely on what other wrote and reviewed.

Lindsay has a nice write up for you both go read it.

DPinkerton Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:02 pm

Woodwose wrote:I believe that he's referring to the fact that no hybrid species should features nuclear and mitochondrial DNA that appear to come from different species. I don't think that hybridisation works like that.

From what I have read (and I could be wrong) vastly different NDNA and MTDNA is indicative of contamination.

I'm no expert, so I might be wrong.

Where has it claimed "vastly different"? It has been established that homo neanderthalsis and other relic homo have interbreed with homo sapien. And as stated...the mtDNA is not different.

BurdenOfProof Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:04 pm

DPinkerton wrote:
Woodwose wrote:I believe that he's referring to the fact that no hybrid species should features nuclear and mitochondrial DNA that appear to come from different species. I don't think that hybridisation works like that.

From what I have read (and I could be wrong) vastly different NDNA and MTDNA is indicative of contamination.

I'm no expert, so I might be wrong.

Where has it claimed "vastly different"? It has been established that homo neanderthalsis and other relic homo have interbreed with homo sapien. And as stated...the mtDNA is not different.

so is patty one of ketchums human bigfoots? compliant gait and all?

DPinkerton Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:06 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:so is patty one of ketchums human bigfoots? compliant gait and all?

Huh? "human bigfoot"?

CMcMillan Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:09 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:
DPinkerton wrote:
Woodwose wrote:I believe that he's referring to the fact that no hybrid species should features nuclear and mitochondrial DNA that appear to come from different species. I don't think that hybridisation works like that.

From what I have read (and I could be wrong) vastly different NDNA and MTDNA is indicative of contamination.

I'm no expert, so I might be wrong.

Where has it claimed "vastly different"? It has been established that homo neanderthalsis and other relic homo have interbreed with homo sapien. And as stated...the mtDNA is not different.

so is patty one of ketchums human bigfoots? compliant gait and all?

Human Bigfoot?
See you think Bigfoot is a Generic APE like creature.
Until you think otherwise you won't accept anything.

If your going complaint Gait . Hasn't it been proven that a person can walk that way. All the films I have seen with people trying to debunk the Patti film show that the walk can be done.

Sponsored content