Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drewbot said:
This has to make the Ketchum DNA Project go away for good, right?
Click to expand...


Just found this on a local blog.

Its a couple of months old, but if you haven't seen it, then it is worth a read.

MELBA IS TOAST!

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.nz/2013/09/melba-is-toast-biochemist-with-phd-from.html

"It appears almost certain that the team was dealing with mixed samples of DNA, including contamination from team members or other people who may have handled the samples, and that they grasped at the least plausible answers to their results over and over again. They wanted to prove the existence of Sasquatch. Moreover, they were willing to go to very strange "places" in their interpretation of data that again and again most likely reflected contaminated DNA samples. They kept looking at the data and saying how can this prove that Sasquatch exists, reaching the least likely conclusions to support a more and more outlandish Sasquatch. This creature is as unlikely as the proverbial little green men."


That is pretty damning any way you slice it
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
So, why is Sykes reporting on mtDNA with the hairs?

IIRC, mtDNA is all you can get from a hair sans follicle or follicle cells.
Click to expand...

Well, I imagine that reporting on mtDNA is standard because running the full genome of nuDNA still costs a small fortune and takes rather a lot of time. The mtDNA, despite the bashing it gets from Ketchum supporters, holds all the information you need to distinguish a species, and of course, much else besides.

You may well be right that only mtDNA survives in hair, but I don't think this makes it any less useful, and nor do I know this to be the truth. As I said, I think we need Calwaterbear or another geneticist to confirm what can be extracted from hair. All of which is moot....Syles' results were absolutely clear and presumably incontrovertible.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Just found this on a local blog.

Its a couple of months old, but if you haven't seen it, then it is worth a read.

MELBA IS TOAST!.....


That is pretty damning any way you slice it
Click to expand...

Just be a little careful with any annonymous "I have a friend who has a PhD who says this......" blog on the internet. Ketchum is dead in the water without unattributed comment like this.
 
MikeG said:
Well, I imagine that reporting on mtDNA is standard because running the full genome of nuDNA still costs a small fortune and takes rather a lot of time. The mtDNA, despite the bashing it gets from Ketchum supporters, holds all the information you need to distinguish a species, and of course, much else besides.

You may well be right that only mtDNA survives in hair, but I don't think this makes it any less useful, and nor do I know this to be the truth. As I said, I think we need Calwaterbear or another geneticist to confirm what can be extracted from hair. All of which is moot....Syles' results were absolutely clear and presumably incontrovertible.
Click to expand...

All the source I am looking conclude at the same thing : only mtDNA in hair. And it is MUCH less useful than nuDNA, for example you can only follow matriarchal pathway , that way, not patriarchal (for obvious reason) also the rate of mutation is not the same, but we can certainly follow "human population" historical movement using mtDNA. But otherwise there are quite a few studies stating you can identifies species using mtDNA. I am not seeing it very useful though, or widely used. I am not a specialist anyway so maybe somebody has better info or is an expert.
 
So does this new revelation negate the alleged reviews from Nature?


The Shrike said:
That is interesting. It's the best evidence I have seen that Ketchum actually submitted her manuscript to Nature and that they actually sent it out for review!

I cannot tell if Ketchum's response to the 4 referees' comments is a complete representation of their comments, but I can tell this (assuming this document is really what it purports to be):

1) Nature, the premiere scientific publication for a potential discovery like this, took Ketchum seriously and actually allowed her manuscript to go through the peer-review process. That's huge. Actually getting your manuscript considered for review is a big deal because most submitted manuscripts get returned without review - they never make it through the first panel of editors. This should be an enormous kick in the gut for every woo-slinging bigfooter who whines that "science won't consider the evidence". BOOM. DONE. We are completely DONE with that conspiracy, Ivory-tower crap. Please never forget this fact in your dealings with such people.

2) Read the actual referees' comments (again, assuming that's what these are). These people are quite open to this paper and the idea of describing the new taxon based on genetic analysis of putative tissue samples. Their primary beef is that Ketchum & Co. didn't know what the heck they were doing and misinterpreted the results they obtained. There was no "there is no bigfoot so this is poppycock"; these people really evaluated that paper.

From referee #1: "I would definitely like to see this paper 'salvaged', but it would need a thorough revision and re-organisation. I wish the authors the best of luck in their continuing efforts."

Yep, that sure sounds like a classic Ivory-tower blow-off to me!
Click to expand...
 
MikeG said:
Well, I imagine that reporting on mtDNA is standard because running the full genome of nuDNA still costs a small fortune and takes rather a lot of time. The mtDNA, despite the bashing it gets from Ketchum supporters, holds all the information you need to distinguish a species, and of course, much else besides.

You may well be right that only mtDNA survives in hair, but I don't think this makes it any less useful, and nor do I know this to be the truth. As I said, I think we need Calwaterbear or another geneticist to confirm what can be extracted from hair. All of which is moot....Syles' results were absolutely clear and presumably incontrovertible.
Click to expand...

Not sure what the cheerleading is about, but we will learn soon enough if Sykes' results are correct, and more importantly, whether his theories hold water.

I think the provenance of the bear hairs makes the results there nearly useless.

I also don't see what we learned new about Kvit.
 
LTC8K6 said:
.........we will learn soon enough if Sykes' results are correct, and more importantly, whether his theories hold water.

I think the provenance of the bear hairs makes the results there nearly useless.

I also don't see what we learned new about Kvit.
Click to expand...

You don't see that these points are a side-show? The central result from Sykes was that none of the very best evidence produced by bigfootery came from an unknown hominid. In other words, they have nothing. Whatever Sykes comes up with regarding a new (or otherwise) bear, or an out-of-place African, is irrelevant with regards to the non-existence of yeti, bigfoot, almasty and the rest of the gang.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I also don't see what we learned new about Kvit.
Click to expand...
It was the DNA analysis of Kvit's molar which told Sykes his mother was sub-Saharan African. He then went back to the DNA analysis of Zana's descendants (which he had previously used only to establish that she was not Neanderthal) and confirmed they each had the right amount of sub-Saharan African DNA to establish that Zana was fully sub-Saharan African. I'm not a big follower of this stuff but it was my understanding that this was a new finding.

Incidentally I have seen several mentions on these threads of one or more papers that Sykes is planning to produce. Is there a source for this? My impression from the programmes is that this was an interest of Sykes that the funding by the Channel 4 documentary team allowed him to pursue, rather than a part of his professional career, and nothing he said led me to expect that scientific papers would be forthcoming.
 
Last edited:
I have access to an email direct from Sykes somewhere, if I can find it, in which he timetables his research and his publication plans. He missed those dates by a year, BTW, so I don't know whether his position on publication has changed since. I'll see if I can find it.
 
MikeG said:
You don't see that these points are a side-show? The central result from Sykes was that none of the very best evidence produced by bigfootery came from an unknown hominid. In other words, they have nothing. Whatever Sykes comes up with regarding a new (or otherwise) bear, or an out-of-place African, is irrelevant with regards to the non-existence of yeti, bigfoot, almasty and the rest of the gang.
Click to expand...

I already knew they had nothing, so Sykes' results were not all that much of a draw for me. So much so that I have yet to watch any of the episodes, and I have now lost interest in seeing the reports.

Heck, we already knew that if Smeja shot anything, it was a bear. Spending even $2K to test his fairy story out is galling to me.

I question your term "very best evidence", as will footers, but probably for different reasons. :)
 
MikeG said:
You don't see that these points are a side-show? The central result from Sykes was that none of the very best evidence produced by bigfootery came from an unknown hominid. In other words, they have nothing. Whatever Sykes comes up with regarding a new (or otherwise) bear, or an out-of-place African, is irrelevant with regards to the non-existence of yeti, bigfoot, almasty and the rest of the gang.
Click to expand...

Except some enthusiasts imagine the monkey is going to be revealed in "the paper."
 
Oh, really, Mr. Scoffic?

Sykes' study has debunked PGF? Has it? HAS IT? He even cared to look at it?

We ain't need Sykes. We got PGF - the undebunked best piece of evidence for bigfoots. We've got Munns report.

And the bell-shaped distribution curve for bigfoot footprints? Sykes dealt with that? We've got Farenbach.

We also have Meldrum and Krantz.

Oh, and the incoming Les Stroud show.

And I KNOW they exist cus' I SAW them.

Take that Mr. Scoffic.
 
Drewbot said:
Oh, really, Mr. Scoffic?

And I KNOW they exist cus' I SEEN 'em.

Take that Mr. Scoffic.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
Gotta learnt to write like a 'footer!
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
I have access to an email direct from Sykes somewhere, if I can find it, in which he timetables his research and his publication plans. He missed those dates by a year, BTW, so I don't know whether his position on publication has changed since. I'll see if I can find it.
Click to expand...
I must have quoted this in a different footthread.
Link to the Wolfson site.
The project is divided into three phases.

SAMPLE SUBMISSION PHASE May – September 2012
DNA ANALYSIS PHASE September – November 2012
PUBLICATION PHASE November – December 2012

​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom