The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest thermalman]

You want proof that someone is an expert and therefore, qualified to make observations about the situation .... but then you use the person's qualifications to insinuate that they are biased because you don't like what they say?

Wow! With that kind of double-standard at work, why should anyone bother exposing themselves publicly by providing names/credentials? Such info won't matter because DENIAL is at play here, NOT logic.

Couldn't agree with you more!......... Imagine!............ Posting an "official" DNA report signed off with "Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy" Phd! Certainly looks like a desperate attempt towards discrediting MK's report. At least Melba uses her real name and has faced her critics by putting her report out there! Nope, not hiding at all.

Most of us know the pdf image that you are referring to here, TMan... gotta ask you (since I was the one posting it) - where abouts, exactly, did the author or I say it was "official"...

It comes down to credibility. So why even post something you're not prepared to stand behind then? What's the point?

Edited April 12, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Actually TMan it comes down to what you can prove.

[Guest]

You misinterpreted that information badly, SY. But I can see how it is easy to get lost in the terminology. That Wikipedia info does not define what it takes to BE a geneticist, but what a geneticist can DO.

First of all, bioinformathematicians and statisticians would heatedly argue the idea that geneticists are "biologists" since genetics is primarily a physical science based in mathematics/statistics, but I digress. The core of your post is career options for geneticists. Geneticists can pursue careers in many fields - just like someone with an English degree can pursue careers in many fields. In fact, an English major could work in some of the fields listed in your post ... but that would not make them a geneticist.

Likewise, being a forensic scientist does not make one a geneticist. Dr. Ketchum came into forensic science AS A VETERINARIAN. As she herself has explained many times to numerous people, it is a common career path for vets to end up in forensic science. But that does not make them geneticists -- unless they go back to school for additional degrees, of course, which she has not done. And again, she has NEVER called herself a geneticist. She clearly KNOWS what she is and is not.

Here is information about what it takes to BE a geneticist, taken from http://education-portal.com/articles/Geneticist_Career_Information_and_Education_Requirements.html

Education Requirements for Geneticists

Research and Academia Requirements

Some high school teaching or laboratory assistant positions might only require the completion of a bachelor's degree program. Research geneticists can complete an undergraduate program in biology or supplement another physical science program with biology courses before accruing research experience through an advanced genetics degree program. Research directors and postgraduate faculty typically complete a doctoral degree program.

Clinical Geneticist Requirements

Aspiring clinical geneticists must complete a bachelor's degree program, as well as earn a Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine at a medical school. After earning a doctoral degree, geneticists participate in a medical residency in genetics to gain specialized training. Optionally, a clinical genetics fellowship can follow a residency in obstetrics and gynecology, internal medicine or pediatrics. A clinical geneticist must also pass the United States Medical Licensing Examination before practicing.

Genetic Counselor Requirements

Genetic counselors typically complete a master's degree program. According to the 2010 NSGC survey, genetics and genetic counseling master's degree programs are most common; however, counselors can enter the field from any number of programs that are supplemented with genetics, psychology and counseling courses.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

You don't need to be a world-renowned scientist to prove a species. Her paper seems to have been looked at pretty fairly by those who are qualified. The simple truth is, it failed on its own merits. Not because scientists have some sort of bias.

Edited April 12, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest thermalman]

Is that what they're saying at JREF, OS?

Actually TMan it comes down to what you can prove.

I agree Bipc. Burden of proof flows both directions. But right now, Melba is still holding the cards and all the answers.

Edited April 12, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

^^^

Too bad she chose not to include any of those cards or answers in her work.

[Guest Tyler H]

OK, then, because I am a rockhound, I now declare myself a professional geologist. I will prepare a paper in which I identify the complete map of the suture zone between the North American and African cratons in the southern Appalachian oragen. But I will only include data points for a couple of locations and I will hold back the rest of the data while still claiming to have accomplished this amazing feat. And no one should ever question my findings because, after all, I am a professional geologist, and I have the rock collection to prove it.

Again, Ketchum herself has NEVER called herself a "geneticist." Other people have put that label on her in error. She is a forensic scientist.

Is she really a forensic scientist? I read what seemed to be well-researched articles that brought into question the degree to which she would even qualify as a "Dr." by normal standards. She seemed to have taken a track to her Phd that was abbreviated by two years of study.

Most of us know the pdf image that you are referring to here, TMan... gotta ask you (since I was the one posting it) - where abouts, exactly, did the author or I say it was "official"...

It comes down to credibility. So why even post something you're not prepared to stand behind then? What's the point?

The PhD stands behind it because he knows what research he did on it, and he knows his stuff. I stand behind it because I can see the logic, and know that ANYONE can repeat his efforts and see it for themselves - but I'm still not sure how that makes it "official" whatever that means. Have you done it for yourself yet Tman? Why not? If you refuse to do that for yourself, yet keep faulting it, then you are no better than a kid in the school yard, plugging their ears and closing their eyes shouting "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" - completely shutting out the truth being shouted at them.

Actually TMan it comes down to what you can prove.

I agree Bipc. Burden of proof flows both directions. But right now, Melba is still holding the cards and all the answers.

There is no burden of proof on MK's naysayers. There is nothing to "naysay" until the original burden of proof is met. If her claims stand up against established laws of genetics, (which met an equally daunting burden of proof as they were defined and established), THEN that same burden of proof falls on those who wish to naysay what could then be called 'credible claims'. But she has not met that burden of proof - she has not even come close... so there is no burden of proof to be able to "naysay" it - it is NOT established... ipso facto, it does not need overturning - she is the one trying to overturn decades (some would say eons) of genetic principals.

*There is no need to knock something over if it has never stood. There is no burden of proof to disprove something that can't prove itself. The burden rests solely on her to prove her claims. She has not been able to do that.

You use an interesting anaolgy when you say she is "holding all the cards"

If this were poker, and SHE called the hand, and everyone shows their cards, except her, and she said "Well, I have the winning cards, trust me" and her opponents said "K, fine, show them to us" and she said "Well, I'm just going to show you one ace, but trust me, I have 3 more" and her opponent said "nope, sorry, you called the hand, you have to show them all" and she said "just trust me, I win" or "Just sit here and wait for a few more months, and I might show you the other aces"... wouldn't the response be "Sorry, you lose, woman! You called the hand. If you can't show us ALL your cards when you call the hand, you lose!" ???

No one wants to keep playing cards with her if she makes up her own rules like this.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest]

It's more like science is playing hold-em, and MK is playing Go-Fish at the same table.

[chelefoot]

Didn't someone quote MK a few pages back saying that all the data IS in the paper?

I am beginning to wonder if MK is not even holding any more cards......

I will look for that post, when I am not getting ready for work.

TGIF!!!!!

[Martin]

Is that what they're saying at JREF, OS?

.................

It doesn't matter where they say it if its the truth.

FYI They are saying it everywhere.

[TimB]

You don't need to be a world-renowned scientist to prove a species. Her paper seems to have been looked at pretty fairly by those who are qualified. The simple truth is, it failed on its own merits. Not because scientists have some sort of bias.

Come now, OS, you have to see that for every scientist quoted saying this paper was a fail there is one that says it wasn't. I'm fine with saying the jury's still out. Anyone that says there's anything conclusive about the validity is listening to a group of people who are repeating themselves over and over hoping their opinion will be taken as fact. I still don't get the agenda for that but I have a hunch based on conversations I've had with people.

[Martin]

..................

Come now, OS, you have to see that for every scientist quoted saying this paper was a fail there is one that says it wasn't.

..................

Could you please provide links to all of these scientists supporting her paper?

[TimB]

Sure right after you provide links to the paper being verified as a failure using scientific processes that have nothing to do with Ketchum as a person.

[Martin]

This thread is full of them.

[Guest]

Tim.There are no cards left to play. The paper was/is a failure. The gig is up. Melba either intentionally hoaxed or was sincere but badly mistaken. Either way, her paper has not done what she said it would do. Far from proving BF via DNA, she has wasted the entire communities time and attention and likely ruined her own career.