Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) Funny how the Ketchum Study demonstrates every one of the points listed for pseudoscience. Edited April 15, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Confirms on all points, is how the 'experts' would state it:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Thank you for the advice...but based on what I knew and predicted before she even released the paper, Anything following this just goes to re-enforce the bias evidenced in this argument. This is personal and it predates the release of the paper. It's hard not to disregard what comes after. You believe what you want to believe, but biased or not, you can believe this....I can back up EVERYTHING I've ever said as "definitive" through either documentation or multiple witnesses and I challenge you to point to evidence where I've failed with respect to truth and transparency. Tyler as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 I'd like hear about the roller coaster ride you, Tyler and Justin were on when Trent must have been reporting "human" and bear DNA. What was the excitement about Bart? Why were you ever "alive" up until DNAsol. matched the human DNA to Justin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) SY, It was definitely a roller coaster. They had trouble getting any DNA, (that made it interesting) then they got bear (that made us deflate), then they got a second contributor (that excited us) then they said it was human (that had potential to excite us). Then, based on the mtDNA, they estimated there was more "human" there than bear! Suddenly, it seemed that the human may have been the primary contributor as opposed to the secondary! Then they tested for nuclear, and the nuclear amounts reversed the original potential for "human" contribution to be more than the bear contribution.(that deflated us again). Then they tested Justin's swab against the human component, and matched them. That was about the nail in the coffin for Trent, but we still awaited the DNA Soln results to compare. When DNASolns got the same, and got it for nuclear to complement the mtDNA match that Trent got... well, it seemed to be al over but the crying. Throughout all of this, I constantly challenged and question each result that Trent came up with that did NOT support our hopes of "unknown primate" - Bart wanted us to stay neutral, but I was more like "hey, I'm an advocate, they are the scientists - I need to push them, and they can prove me wrong - I can't change the science." I have over 200 emails between myself and them, throughout the 7-8 mos. Believe me, by the end of it, I'm sure they hoped to never hear from me again. But I felt it was necessary to be able to come back to the community, and confidently say that I did not doubt their conclusions. I know I lost face a bit with them - I likely looked desperate to refute what they felt was irrefutable. But I think I made the right decisions - otherwise I would not have been able to say all the things I have said here, with the confidence that I have had." Edited April 15, 2013 by Tyler H At member's request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) Leonid: “The tree in Fig 16 is inconsistent with known primate phylogeny and generally makes no sense." By stating that only confirms that it is indeed "novel". Novel a. 1. Of recent origin or introduction; not ancient; new; hence, out of the ordinary course; unusual; strange; surprising. Novel assignment (Law) a new assignment or specification of a suit. n. 1. That which is new or unusual; a novelty. Edited April 15, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) The phylogenetic tree not making sense doesn't mean it's legitimate. It's the other way around actually, unless you can prove that what is currently established is incorrect. Edited April 15, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Leonid: “The tree in Fig 16 is inconsistent with known primate phylogeny and generally makes no sense." By stating that only confirms that it is indeed "novel". Novel a. 1. Of recent origin or introduction; not ancient; new; hence, out of the ordinary course; unusual; strange; surprising. Novel assignment (Law) a new assignment or specification of a suit. n. 1. That which is new or unusual; a novelty. "Novel" is fine "Contradicts not just the tree, but the basic fundamentals of genetics" is NOT. Unless you believe Sasq is either alien, or Angel, as MK purportedly does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 I've seen no proof of anything anyone has claimed on either side. Not about the paper, not about history of Ketchum's deceitful past, nothing. It's all based on rumors of conversations that can't be proven. Nothing's resolved, nothing's proven, it's opinion either way. No matter how you chart it, it still all bad science until something's proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) The coelacanth contradicted the evolutional tree. And basic fundamentals of the evolutional theory. Edited April 15, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 The coelacanth contradicted the evolutional tree. No, it didn't. Many lifeforms have remained much as they were millions of years ago, due to their specific adaptations and selection pressures. Just study alligators, crocodiles, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) Funny how the Ketchum Study demonstrates every one of the points listed for pseudoscience. From both sides. The coelacanth contradicted the evolutional tree. No, it didn't. Many lifeforms have remained much as they were millions of years ago, due to their specific adaptations and selection pressures. Just study alligators, crocodiles, etc. Alligators and crocs were not thought to be extinct. And what about any current new discovery of bones and/or new species? They have to be fitted somewhere in the evolutional tree! One can't ignore evidence as its presented. The phylogenetic tree not making sense doesn't mean it's legitimate. It's the other way around actually, unless you can prove that what is currently established is incorrect. Sure it does. Any new discovery would have to added. Whether it makes sense or not, the DNA paper trail would dictate the final placement in the tree. Edited April 15, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) Just because our misinformed species assumed (momentarily) that an animal was extinct doesn't have any bearing on where that animal actually falls in the evolutionary continuum. We "thought" they were extinct, but we were wrong. That's like saying that since humans didn't initially understand that the Earth revolved around the sun, the sun must not fit in a working celestial model because we didn't understand it fully at the time! Science is CONSTANTLY updating and correcting itself. That is a strength, and not a weakness. Edited April 15, 2013 by Matt Pruitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Just because our misinformed species assumed (momentarily) that an animal is extinct doesn't have any bearing on where that animal falls in the evolutionary continuum. That's like saying that since humans didn't initially understand that the Earth revolved around the sun, the sun must not fit in a working celestial model because we didn't understand it fully at the time! Science is CONSTANTLY updating and correcting itself. That is a strength, and not a weakness. I agree. That's why it makes sense that a novel find can fit anywhere on the tree that the evidence says it should, NOT where we "think" it should or shouldn't. To claim that it doesn't fit where it should, is shallow minded and not how science should be progressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) Sure it does. Any new discovery would have to added. Whether it makes sense or not, the DNA paper trail would dictate the final placement in the tree. When something doesn't make sense, it's generally a sign that something is incorrect. The figure that Dr. Ketchum included in her paper apparently contradicts what is already known about primates. It's not just adding a new branch. I think an equivalent would be someone writing a paper about how unicorns are half horse, half unknown and throwing a bunch of sequences from known animals together for the nDNA and calling it a discovery. No real journal would accept this. Edited April 15, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts