Guest Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 For starters, why would a scientist need to write a paper and then get it passed by peer-review to refute Ketchums paper when her paper has yet to be proven correct or even passed an excepted peer-review/publishing? Seems like a waste of time and money when they can just analysis the data provided in her paper and refute or confirm the claim. Also the GeneBank problem, if this is DNA from a sasquatch (as Ketchum has claimed proven on numerous occasions) then she should have no fear of uploading the sequence's to GeneBank, unless these squatch's check GeneBank to make sure they are not identified. Maybe they are looking to cash in on a lawsuit, I suppose it would be nice to upgrade from a stick structure to a two bedroom house.
Guest Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 denovojournal still down. Things that make you go hum.
TimB Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Can't upload what isn't there . The fact that the DNA shows a mix of known animals with modern human and not a novel species has been greatly overlooked IMO. Wasn't the wording something to the effect of, "closest known species"? Not "exact match to species"? I could be wrong.
southernyahoo Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) SY, are we then not at a stalemate now with the DNA and GenBank? If they are indeed human (by mtDNA standard), how can one proceed with the DNA study (including GenBank submission or publication) if one can not get their informed consent? Would you feel that a dead specimen's DNA could be submitted, or the fact that it may have a living relative prevent it's submission? Do you have any thoughts on how you could get around this point? It seems by finding the mtDNA is human we have painted ourselves into a corner regarding publishing the sequence - or is the fact that the nuDNA is not 100% human sufficient to make the claim that BF does not need to provide consent. IMO nuDNA trumps mtDNA. I don't think GenBank's policies are in place to inhibit science (which when taking this literally is exactly what I think it would be doing). I think a compromise could be made. Get some scientists together and collectively rule out the submitters profiles from the data, then upload the mitos minus any personal identity makers. You could upload most of the mtDNA data, but not all of it. From there, same team of scientists could verify single contributors from the samples, that there is human mito coming from them , and that this can be tied to repeating novel Y chromosome sequences. Thats how i would proceed. I think if the human mito holds true, a dead specimen would become a dicey situation maintaining an ethical study of something that could be an odd but contemporary human. Being part human and part not human conjures images of a monster too, which invokes extreme responses. Bottom line is if you can't get rid of the human mito, then science dictates that the rest must also be human or it couldn't exist without genetic engineering. Edited April 18, 2013 by southernyahoo
Cotter Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Maybe they are looking to cash in on a lawsuit, I suppose it would be nice to upgrade from a stick structure to a two bedroom house. LOL. However, there may be a possibility at this point it ain't the BF looking to cash in on lawsuits.....
dmaker Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 ^^ I thought they lived underground in caves with invisible openings?
Guest Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 "What you are saying (as Skeptics always do) is that the total burden of producing evidence is on the proponent side and that those seeking to rebut need produce nothing to prove their case in turn. Which is not scientific in any way." Yes it is. No, it is not (again addressing the generic case). A reviewer cannot simply say "I reject this" without showing with specificity and evidence how and why they do so and be considered to have done due diligence. "I reject this" is an opinion, and opinions are not science. "I reject this for the follwing reasons, and here's my laboratory work as evidence" is science. Once again, you keep re-inventing how science works. No, I'm pointing out that "science" isn't following it's own rules (which happens all too often) by allowing debunkers a lesser standard of evidence than it requires of proponents. When a scientist gathers data and writes a paper with a hypothesis, the journal editors make sure the evidence collected supports the hypothesis and the paper gets published. And how can they say it does not if they do not do due dilligence to a scientific standard? It is then that potential critics have to "produce data and evidence of equal weight" Awful convenient that they use the journal and it's lesser standards for debunking as "blockers" innit? As Darren Naish (who reviewed the paper) points out, Ketchum didn't get pass the first stage. Her evidence wasn't strong enough to support her conclusions and legitimate papers reject her article. Hence why she had to buy one and publish it there. . Since you insist on continuing to bring up Ketchum, care to show me HIS fully researched, peer-reviewed, etc paper showing his evidence for those statements? If you cannot, then that's his mere opinion, not science. For starters, why would a scientist need to write a paper and then get it passed by peer-review to refute Ketchums paper when her paper has yet to be proven correct or even passed an excepted peer-review/publishing? Seems like a waste of time and money when they can just analysis the data provided in her paper and refute or confirm the claim. Because Skeptics keep insisting that "Science" is all about evidence. If a reviewer and/or debunker wants to dismiss a paper, then they must adduce positive evidence to support their dismissive hypothesis. One standard for BOTH sides of the issue. That is objective. THAT is science.
dmaker Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 No, Mulder you are wrong. In the "generic" case, as you put it, say the case for the existence of Sasquatch, it is quite acceptable for a skeptic to say I do not accept your claim until you prove it. There is NO burden of disproving placed on the skeptic at that point. Consider this quote from Grover Krantz, PhD, and Bigfoot proponent: "At this point the burden of proof is still on the believers. Until a specimen is produced the skeptics will continue to hold the field. It is possible to prove something exists by producing it. The reverse is not possible--one does not prove a nonexistence with positive evidence. The failure to produce a specimen continues to be strong evidence against the Sasquatch."
Guest Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) Well that should be easy, all a scientist needs to do is buy a journal then publish a paper in said journal that states Ketchum's paper is a piece of crap. Edited April 18, 2013 by squatting squatch
Guest Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) Mulder again you are changing the rules of science to suit how you want this to work out. Regardless of how Ketchum does things there is no such thing as a peer review of the peer review. Edited April 18, 2013 by BipedalCurious
Guest Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Oh and look. Denovo now redirects to www.advancedsciencefoundation.org What an obvious attempt to cover a bad Internet search history. Same strategy Mulder uses above. When things don't go right change the mark, move the goal posts, reinvent the wheel.
Guest thermalman Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) No law against streamlining websites or business models. Happens millions of times a day. Edited April 18, 2013 by thermalman
Guest Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Owned by ryanandjessicajordan@Gmail.com with a SC address and a MI phone number. Sounds like a real scientific organization.
Guest Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) Because Skeptics keep insisting that "Science" is all about evidence. If a reviewer and/or debunker wants to dismiss a paper, then they must adduce positive evidence to support their dismissive hypothesis. One standard for BOTH sides of the issue. That is objective. THAT is science. Nope, all the "debunkers" have to do is look at the same data that Ketchum uses to support her claims and point out the flaws. When Ketchum presented her paper those journals, the reviewers pointed out that her "novel dna" samples were not large enough to show hybridization. Theirs no need to "research and gather data of equal weight". All that was needed was a general understanding of genetics to point out the flaws. This happens all the time in peer review. Edited April 18, 2013 by Jerrymanderer
Guest Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) Oh and look. Denovo now redirects to www.advancedsciencefoundation.org What an obvious attempt to cover a bad Internet search history. I don't want to follow this myself..and will wait, but this would be the third internet/Journal presence in as many months, and your take sounds reasonable. So many sputters... Edited April 18, 2013 by apehuman
Recommended Posts