 |
| Richard Stubstad continues to use statistical mathematics to understand Bigfoot DNA |
In case you missed it, Richard Stubstad is quite an active commentor on this blog. Especially on posts that are about him and his research. You can read our previous coverage of Richard Stubstad.
Recently we have become more familiar with his role and perhaps his opinion on the ongoing Bigfoot DNA research; Melba Ketchum's and his own parallel research.
Richard has taken the opportunity to clarify his support for Dr Melba Ketchum and further explain his statistical approach to the DNA data. Below are his own words:
Richard has taken the opportunity to clarify his support for Dr Melba Ketchum and further explain his statistical approach to the DNA data. Below are his own words:
1) Actually, I worked with Ms. Ketchum for almost a year. I did not make any "genetic" conclusions whatsoever; essentially, I connected the dots (the first four samples) and examined, statistically, the relationships between these using GenBank.
2) No, I do support Ms. Ketchum's work 100%. I hope she gets her paper published sooner rather than later. My point was and still is: at least two parallel studies (regardless of who is first) will be needed due to the highly controversial nature of the subject matter.
3) Really, the only thing I don't like about how she works is her secrecy throughout. I think this secrecy hurts our "industry" as it were. In fact, since she has 20-some fresh samples (relics are not yet included in her work), of course she knows a whole lot more than I do about results.
4) Secrecy to that degree, I maintain, is detrimental to our search for both the existence and nature of sasquatch.
5) I worked with Melba through the first four of her 20-some samples.
6) In the event, Sample 1's mito dna (all 16,569 pairs) came out within modern human ranges.
7) Melba and I, while being somewhat disappointed in this result agreed to test Sample 2 as well (whole mito genome again), and lo and behold Samples 1 and 2 both indicated that their mitochondrial "Eve" lived in the sub-glacial region of Europe some 15,000 or more years ago.
8) The odds of this happening using the modern human population in GenBank were less than 2%. Meaning the odds of us happening to identify a new hominid were some 98% or better. Ms Ketchum didn't notice this connection, but rather she took each sample on its own and surmised they could have been hoaxes or misidentifications.
9) Both Adrian Erickson and I pointed out to her that by connecting the dots between Samples 1 and 2 (mito only), it was definitely worth pursuing further, so Sample 3 was tested for the mito genome (full loop) next.
10) This sample indicated a sub-Saharan mito Eve from perhaps 50,000 years ago more or less; totally at the opposite ends of the human family tree, although still within modern human ranges.
11) THe number of differences between Samples 1 & 2 vs Sample 3 was about 90 pairs (almost the maximum that exist in the modern human database).
12) Still, the statistics changed by virtue of having three mito sequences instead of two, so the odds of a hoax or misidentification changed from less than 2% to 3 or 4%.
13) Erickson then funded a nuclear DNA study, which began in earnest. The first gene tested was MC1R, and the results were equally or even more astounding. Samples 1, 2 and 4 all showed the MC1R sequences to be outside of human ranges (in the database), with two of three (2 and 4) as 100% identical.
14) Sample 1 was also not within modern human ranges, but it differed from 2 and 4 by two pairs (out of 950 or so).
15) Bottom line: I am 97% certain that SASQUATCH EXISTS. I am not at all certain what its genesis is, but IT EXISTS. I am not positive of this conclusion, only 97% certain. This is evidence but not proof. Proof requires 100% certainty.
Maybe I am missing something.
ReplyDeleteThe first sample simply "came out within modern human ranges."
So she tests a second DNA sample and the first and second "both indicated that their mitochondrial "Eve" lived in the sub-glacial region of Europe some 15,000 or more years ago.
From this you conclude "The odds of this happening using the modern human population in GenBank were less than 2%. Meaning the odds of us happening to identify a new hominid were some 98% or better."
That is quite an illogical leap from evidence to belief. If the odds of a common mitochondrial ancestor in modern human populations is 2%, then the 98% chance is that it would not happen, and in no way an indication of identifying any new species, much less a "mew hominid." All it would mean is that the two samples are likely to have a common ancestor.
This science smells like that hairy body in that old freezer from a few years back...
The Bigfoot folk are an argumentative bunch. We have been hoaxed, scammed and fooled so often we fight with each other out of habit. We don't believe easily, except for the few 'true believers' who grasp onto things and hope it's real. It will take something big and real to convince both the world and the Bigfoot folk, like a skeleton or a live Bigfoot. I look forward to the DNA analysis being revealed and it's impact on things. I just don't know if it will be enough.
ReplyDelete