The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

The science has been attacked all through this thread. Did you somehow not notice those posts?

[Guest]

mangled post...reposted below with additions

Edited April 13, 2013 by Mulder

[Martin]

Have you considered how believers respond to skeptics in general? How is Thermalmans' responses to Tyler or Bart very different from any other here when responding to someone like Saskeptic? Do you not recognize it is the same behavioral pattern or do you ignore it when it fits your personal agenda and/or belief system?

I have been thinking of posting on this for topic for some time. I agree with your point Nukacola.

Tyler as I see it it's not about the existence of bigfoot. It's about framing the debate in away that allows the bigfoot proponent to win an argument from a grossly manageable position. Unless someone has personally seen one then there is simply nothing but a bunch of stories and interesting possibilities.

The proponents on this board let other proponents get away with crazy rules of evidence regarding proving negatives etc. Mulder said : "Please present evidence said journal's peer review does not pass muster." How can he even pose this question when there was no journal? This information was provided in the first day or two with a paper trail.

Bart was right when he said we have to do a better job and raise our level to science and not expect science to drop to us. The first step could be to stop feeding the proponent fringe.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Martin

[Guest]

The burden of proof lies with people making extraordinary claims that go against all the strictures of science and genetics. If you think otherwise, you are of an intellect that I cannot comment on here, for fear of being banned.

Aside from the fact that the "extraordinary claims" fallacy has been debunked right to death, I would ask you to please specify what 'extaordinary claim" you are referring to? That bipedal hominids exist? Plenty of proof that they have for millions of years. That bipedal hominids exist contemporaneously? The simple fact that you and I (both bipdeal hominids) are having this conversation proves that they do. Please show me what fact of science or nature precludes there being additional specie and populations of bipedal hominids as yet undocumented.

Keep in mind that on top of recent finds of heretofore undocumented populations that DOUBLED the numbers of lowland gorilla, it has been recently found that there is an entirely up to now undocumented additional population of orangutan. They may not be hominids proper, but they are fellow greater apes, and if they can exist, so can undocumented hominids.

So, even if the "extraordinary claims" dogma is valid, how does it apply in this case?

You mean the 3 science journals that rejected it yeah that would qualify as people be outside of Bigfoot

Which ones? The ones that refused outright to look at it based on topic or the ones whose reviewers spent their reviews making snide remarks about Melba and not addressing her paper? Both of which happened in this case.

From the guy who has posted multiple times throughout the thread about how Science works it is pretty shocking you have no understanding of how important a "testable hypothesis" is. It is the basis of all Scientific claims.

Here is a refresher for you on the Scientific Method:

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
  
• Do Background Research
  
• Construct a Hypothesis
  
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  
• Communicate Your Results
  

That is not needed in desriptive or documentary science, which dna analysis is. In this sort of science the researcher:

• Gathers data
  
• Tests the data
  
• Reports the data
  

No "hypothesis" needed. A simple declaration "We gathered x samples, made y tests and got z results.

The science has been attacked all through this thread. Did you somehow not notice those posts?

Again, please show me the multi-year, multi-laboratory, multi-disciplinary peer-reviewed study that debunks the paper.

[Guest]

Mulder at this point I think you really ought to back up with your own scientific credentials what exactly gives you the credibility to lay claims on all of these aspects of the scientific process, journals, and the review process. You have been preaching Pretorian from the mount for some time now.

So either you have the scientific background and credentials to backup what you are saying or you are just another guy pretending to have these credentials.

It's getting old how every time your points are challenged you invent some new part of the Scientific process that is clearly an invention of your own making.

[Guest thermalman]

You mean the 3 science journals that rejected it yeah that would qualify as people be outside of Bigfoot

Prove it?

[Guest Cervelo]

Something's never change.....well they get moved

[Guest]

Denovo proof enough !

[Guest thermalman]

The science has been attacked all through this thread. Did you somehow not notice those posts?

Right down to her extra commas, edited names, and claims that a certain Dr. named, turned out to be a minister (does anyone know how many people might have the same name)? Lots of finger pointing, but no due diligence........all of it not really science. BTW, how can one declare a scientific fact of findings without having seen the total report?

Denovo proof enough !

You said 3! Where's the other evidence supporting your claim? Anything written by the editors proclaiming the refusal? And in supporting the critics, your scientific credentials are?????

Edited April 13, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

You must have RidgeRunners posts blocked because you obviously haven't seen any of that science

[Guest]

This is all just silly. I'm a skeptic who said I would welcome MK's DNA results proving BF with open arms. I agreed with Mulder's general point that DNA = critter. But come on you guys. She has simply failed to establish re-testable, replicable DNA results that establish a new species of anything. I wanted her to succeed. She has not. She has failed. There is no reason for a multi-year study debunking that which has not been established.

[Guest]

Here's a review of Ketchum's paper by a guy with a PhD in molecular and cell biology.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bigfoot-genome-paper-conclusively-proves-that-sasquatch-is-real/

John Timmer

http://www.sciencewriters2010.org/speakers/john-timmer.html

http://www.nobelweekdialogue.org/john-timmer/

A small interview with him:

http://figureoneblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/aaasmtg-2012-flashback-with-john-timmer/

And another interview:

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2010/02/18/scienceonline2010-interview-7/

Edited April 13, 2013 by squatting squatch

[Guest]

Notice the date on that review....Feburary 14, 2013 and the other links do not seem to show he has seen the additional data he needs...so, .his conclusion: " It's impossible to say anything for certain until we can get the sequences analyzed; hopefully, we'll have an update on that before the week is out. At the moment, though, all indications suggest that the sasquatch hunters are working on a mix of human DNA intermingled with that of some other (or several other) mammals." This seems to be in line with most other reviewers who claim expertise,,,, try as they might there isn't enough in the paper to support the claims, or test them...

It's 60 days later, and his "in a week we'll know," follow up didn't jump out at me in your links, but I didn't read them carefully (no glasses) and guess I don't think it's there or you would have highlighted?

I have read/heard conflicting statements from MK that this additional data exists and is going to Genbank.

I recall she stated early that great scientists had come forward after release to help her do that We haven't heard anymore on that, right?

I gave up on thinking there really was any more than the supplementals provided with the paper cited here, and after that last FB post from MK that "it's all in the paper" assume there isn't.

Is this still a gray area?

Edited April 13, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

That's the point, most people who have reviewed it say there's not enough data to prove a new species but Ketchum insists all needed data has been published. She has yet to release anything else for these people to follow up on, hence no more updates, so unless she starts being more open with her extra data(if she has any) this paper is done and must stand on its own, which has failed in the eyes of the scientific community.

That's the point, most people who have reviewed it say there's not enough data to prove a new species but Ketchum insists all needed data has been published. She has yet to release anything else for these people to follow up on, hence no more updates, so unless she starts being more open with her extra data(if she has any) this paper is done and must stand on its own, which has failed in the eyes of the scientific community.

[MIB]

This is all just silly. I'm a skeptic who said I would welcome MK's DNA results proving BF with open arms. I agreed with Mulder's general point that DNA = critter. But come on you guys. She has simply failed to establish re-testable, replicable DNA results that establish a new species of anything. I wanted her to succeed. She has not. She has failed. There is no reason for a multi-year study debunking that which has not been established.

I'm not a skeptic. However, I have to agree with your assessment of the paper. I would love to have Dr Ketchum explain, for those of us who don't see it, how the data presented in the paper support her conclusions. I personally can't connect the dots.

MIB