southernyahoo Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 That's what science does, it refines our knowledge of repeatable and observable evidence.
Guest Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 Can MK refine her paper at this stage? No, the paper can not be refined. The only thing that can happen with the paper is a full retraction. Now the data can be reworked and re-evaluated ad nauseum if desired. And who knows, maybe a re-evaluation might make biological sense.
Guest Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 That's what science does, it refines our knowledge of repeatable and observable evidence. Well she didn't do that in the first place so it's highly doubtful she does it this time.
Cotter Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 Speaking of DMK. What has her camp been up to lately? Still trying to get cash to study that skull from SA?
Guest Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 People do need to just read the review before getting up in arms. https://www.facebook.com/notes/haskell-hart/review-of-ketchum-et-al/145941685585819 Thanks, but that is not accessible.
Guest Posted May 4, 2013 Posted May 4, 2013 That's what science does, it refines our knowledge of repeatable and observable evidence. Only when scientists provide what is necessary for other scientists to test against their findings/methods/data, hopefully to replicate them or build upon them. That has not happened in this situation because Ketchum continues to hold back terabytes of data. And as long as she holds it back, science cannot refine our knowledge as it pertains to her paper because it cannot repeat or observe evidence kept hidden from it.
Guest Posted May 4, 2013 Posted May 4, 2013 That's what science does, it refines our knowledge of repeatable and observable evidence. Only when scientists provide what is necessary for other scientists to test against their findings/methods/data, hopefully to replicate them or build upon them. That has not happened in this situation because Ketchum continues to hold back terabytes of data. And as long as she holds it back, science cannot refine our knowledge as it pertains to her paper because it cannot repeat or observe evidence kept hidden from it. hidden in that supposed data, BTW, if I am not mistaken, should be at least one genome that includes a Y chromosome - the very thing that SY knows would prove beyond any doubt if it is a "highbrid" and yet, no one seems to be interested in pusuing that. which I find facinating as SY has been clamoring about the Y chromosome for a year, but seems to ignore it in the context of examining Melbas claims! SY, why not ask Melba to pull out the Y chromo sequence from her data? its not hard, a skilled technician can do it in pretty quickly. ? Why bother debating for a year, when the magic bullet solution is just sitting there in MK's database, screaming out to be examined!
southernyahoo Posted May 4, 2013 Posted May 4, 2013 Dr. Ketchum says she turned her data over to another group of scientists for study. It's her data as it was signed over to her with submission and admission of the samples. I have no control over that , so it is up to her and her contracted labs to provide it. All I have control of is one sample and would love to have a good read from the amelogenin locus, but wanted to hear the paper out as it pertained to the challenges encountered in sequencing the DNA from these samples, which reportedly required proprietary primers, which still failed too often.
Guest Posted May 4, 2013 Posted May 4, 2013 Dr. Ketchum says she turned her data over to another group of scientists for study. Do you really expect to find out who those scientists are and actually get the results of their study? Good money says never.
Guest Posted May 4, 2013 Posted May 4, 2013 Don't forget, her data is in digital format. Allowing another person/group access to it does not prevent her from its study as well. She does claim that all the data needed to support her hypothesis was released with the paper however. I think most here realize that the released data does no such thing (quite the opposite in fact).
Guest Posted May 5, 2013 Posted May 5, 2013 Sy, Can i ask you a few questions? and these questions have nothing to do with wether BF really exists. it is specific to Dr. Ketchums study and her "conclusions". Does Dr. Ketchums paper PROVE to you that BF is a highbrid between humans and an unknown primate, with that hibridization occuring about 15,000 years? Are you satisfied that the DNA sequences provided in Dr. Ketchums study are actually novel? and not of human or other known animal origin? and if so, why? what is it that convinces you of that? lastly: is there anything - any piece of data? any analysis? that would convince you that Ketchums study was indeed deeply flawed? Dr. Ketchum says she turned her data over to another group of scientists for study. It's her data as it was signed over to her with submission and admission of the samples. I have no control over that , so it is up to her and her contracted labs to provide it. All I have control of is one sample and would love to have a good read from the amelogenin locus, but wanted to hear the paper out as it pertained to the challenges encountered in sequencing the DNA from these samples, which reportedly required proprietary primers, which still failed too often.
southernyahoo Posted May 5, 2013 Posted May 5, 2013 Does Dr. Ketchums paper PROVE to you that BF is a highbrid between humans and an unknown primate, with that hibridization occuring about 15,000 years? I think there is human mtDNA present which suggests that if the data comes from bigfoot, they are a human or hybrid cross that occured no earlier than 15 thousand years ago, if the haplogroups are accurately dated to that time. Proof hinges on identifying the Y chromosome or not being able to. Are you satisfied that the DNA sequences provided in Dr. Ketchums study are actually novel? and not of human or other known animal origin? The novel sequences are acknowledged as such from several qualified members here. Their origin may or may not be from the donor of the samples, SeqWright , the lab attempting to do the sequencing for Ketchum seems to report the sequences as unknown and do not BLAST. and if so, why? what is it that convinces you of that? See above. lastly: is there anything - any piece of data? any analysis? that would convince you that Ketchums study was indeed deeply flawed? The whole nuclear genome assembly may not have went as it should, certain samples may not belong in the study or should be negative controls. I think the study started out on the correct path, but one or even half of the analyses being wrong doesn't make them all wrong, it just kills the paper. The fact that Dr.Ketchum did target the amelogenin locus agressively means the study wasn't flawed to me. It was the results that were unacceptable.
Recommended Posts