Guest Silent Sam Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Yep, peer review made Ketchum do it....... spouted so long people now believe that is why the paper reads like a book report from a fifth grader. Trying to deflect criticism away from the paper by pointing at the peer review process is like trying to deflect criticism away from a car that explodes every time you start it by pointing at the NTSB. The NTSB didn't build the car. Science didn't write this paper. Edited February 27, 2013 by Silent Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Yep, peer review made Ketchum do it....... spouted so long people now believe that is why the paper reads like a book report from a fifth grader. Bravo! Plussed. Yes, science is mean to Melba. That's why she talks to dead Bigfoots and thinks Chewtilda is cute....and, er, real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 The paper stinks, let's try to take down the peer review process to justify it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 you know, while we're on confirming sasquatch, we might want to figure out what makes people like Dyer, Biscardi, Standing and Ketchum tick, because I would really like to find that out. I'm much more comfortable with sasquatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 you know, while we're on confirming sasquatch, we might want to figure out what makes people like Dyer, Biscardi, Standing and Ketchum tick, because I would really like to find that out. I'm much more comfortable with sasquatch. Money What Ridgerunner states below is consistent with what my Geneticist source cited. My question is, RR - (I haven't really asked my other source this question) why is panda so well represented in Genbank/why are Ursus Americanus so under-represented in Genbank? Is Genbank European based or something? Are all North American animals/mamals under-represented compared to other continents? (not sure that any of this relates to our debate/endeavour here, but I am curious) yeessss... that sounds about right... Again, it is about money. It was quite expensive to generate a genome, although the price is rapidly coming down with new technologies. The Chinese published a paper in Nature (The sequence and de novo assembly of the giant panda genome) in 2010 in an effort to help understand the biology of this endangered species. I imagine some day there will be more genomes of NA species as the cost drops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Theagenes, where is the article by David Swenson on his website??? I can't find it and was interested in at least logging the title of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Yet, it would be more likely to be black bear. Perhaps chromosome 11 isn't sequenced for black bear, don't know. Does it matter if the sequence comes from some locus that is coding or noncoding? Could these sequences come from a locus that a large number of mammals are quite similar because it codes for a thick coat of hair, or two eyeballs etc........? Coding sequences tend to be much more highly conserved than non-coding, although the function of the non-coding sequences is being found to be a lot more than "junk" as had been believed for some time. An important "non-coding" regulatory sequence may also be highly conserved. When blasting a mammalian coding sequence, it will come up as highly homologous to mammalian species, with the list ranked by degree of homology. Usually the searches only show the top hits, and given that there are considerably more human sequences in the database, this can show up as the majority of the top hits. If you looked at the entire list, you would likely find every mammalian species for which that gene has been submitted to GenBank. If it is a universally important gene (essential to the basic biology of life), it may even show homology down to organisms such as yeast or bacteria. Typically the degree of homology decreases the further back you go to find a common ancestor, and this is how you can use this information to determine genetic timelines and determine phylogenetic trees. Edited February 27, 2013 by ridgerunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Yes that's how I understand it. I gather the trick is knowing where to draw the threshold in the measure of homology that distinguishes one species from a new one. Another one would be explaining how or why some organism could have higher homolgy to several other animals distinct from what the mtDNA says it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I just gotta plus that Cath .... That's the part of this that is so sad. The Lamestream Academic scientific bigfootery bunch .... That's the bunch that has chosen to take the Middle Ages stance of "laugh at and ridicule" .... Every thing they can't understand..... They Have been out flanked by a Veterinarian ( non member of their elected group ). Shame on her .... She saw the answer to the " Human contamination problem " and found the Scientific method to prove Bigfoot..... They can't stand it and most don't Understand (yet) how she did it.... They will eventually.. If not .... If her science isn't good .... They will still be back in that room arguing about how many teeth a ******* has to have to qualify for their Scientific agenda.. Yup and that is exactly how I look at this. I've read all about Galilleo, it's a wonder they didn't kill him. Melba has upset soooo many that some may never recover. I say, too bad, she found the evidence from the dna and so what.... they might have to rewrite the science books and now the history books. I am not ashamed to say I support Melba and her work. And I'm glad that she did the work. No one else was volunteering to do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 The paper stinks, let's try to take down the peer review process to justify it!!! Sure, the paper sucks. But is that 1000% on Melba? Is it a completely black and white issue? That paper points out that the peer review process isn't so pristine. Evidently it's not the be all to end all. There's more subjectivity to the process than the pure, clinical and objectively fair analysis that some believe. It is that belief, that faith, which maintains the status quo on a system that is not without some glaring faults. There's a message in that to anyone wishing to take on this subject and bring it to the scientific community. Do not assume that you will get a fair shake. Be prepared, question everything and proceed with caution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Yup and that is exactly how I look at this. I've read all about Galilleo, it's a wonder they didn't kill him. Melba has upset soooo many that some may never recover. I say, too bad, she found the evidence from the dna and so what.... they might have to rewrite the science books and now the history books. I am not ashamed to say I support Melba and her work. And I'm glad that she did the work. No one else was volunteering to do this? Thanks ... I agree IMHO ... The folks trying to decipher the ( human contamination problem on most reports in the past ) seem to be the same ones saying the Ketchum report is flawed..... By using the same techniques they have failed on since the early 2000s.... That reeks of the insanity of repeating a test over and over and expecting a different result.. Seems Albert Einstein quoted something about that ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Yup and that is exactly how I look at this. I've read all about Galilleo, it's a wonder they didn't kill him. Melba has upset soooo many that some may never recover. I say, too bad, she found the evidence from the dna and so what.... they might have to rewrite the science books and now the history books. I am not ashamed to say I support Melba and her work. And I'm glad that she did the work. No one else was volunteering to do this? She did not volunteer, she was paid handsomely. When you agree, contract , to do a job, certain standards must be met in order for the job to be deemed complete. If you hire a plumber to stop a leak under your sink and the leak continues, do you say, well he, she tried? Why did she have an “F†rating with the better business bureau? She took people’s money and did not complete the work!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Sure, the paper sucks. But is that 1000% on Melba? Is it a completely black and white issue? That paper points out that the peer review process isn't so pristine. Evidently it's not the be all to end all. There's more subjectivity to the process than the pure, clinical and objectively fair analysis that some believe. It is that belief, that faith, which maintains the status quo on a system that is not without some glaring faults. There's a message in that to anyone wishing to take on this subject and bring it to the scientific community. Do not assume that you will get a fair shake. Be prepared, question everything and proceed with caution. Peer review is flawed, without a doubt. But it is infinitely better than not having anything. Having personally gone through this process many times, I know this. But if the science is good (and it just isn't with the MK paper - sorry), the authors can argue their point. In the end, it may not get it in- journals often reject papers on the fact it is too descriptive, no hypothesis, or just does not fit. And if it does not get in, you generally take it down one tier of journal status (ie try in a less prestigious journal) and try again. In this case the science is flawed, and it in no way substantiates the conclusion of a new Homo sapien species. I don't think it should have been published - period! It is unfortunate that it has been ridiculed by a bunch of grad students and others in the scientific community, but MK brought a lot of this on herself with the manuscript itself and the method of getting it out there. Yes, Bigfoot is a bit of a joke in the scientific community, but MK has just made it 10x worse. Again, THANKFULLY, this does not really appear to have gone mainstream. Edited February 27, 2013 by ridgerunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I don't trust the BBB and neither should you. Do you own investigation of that organization. First, they want us to think they are a government organization and that is not true. OK "volunteer" was a poor choice of vocabulary terms to use. I have not seen or heard of anyone but Sykes actually taking samples and seriously trying to get the dna. I recently as in today, read of another couple of college educated people (not naming names) look them up yourself, that believe that the hairy people are just a myth and we have some sort of mental problem with nature? WTH? Excuse me but I know what I know and I'm sure everyone here who is a witness or knower, would say the same thing. I'm tired of the arrogance and the downright almost calling us liars and charlatans and mentally challenged. And "Brava" to Melba for having the guts to do this. I could care less how much money she was paid. Apparently there are scientists all over this country that thought it wasn't enough for them to get out of their cushy desk chairs and actually do the work? But that's a personal choice they made and not bashing them, it's just that they probably don't care about the hairy people. And just bringing up a point that has been hashed and rehashed on this very forum. The question is " would you let an accredited scientist come to your research area and do a study?" or something similar?. Well, until Melba............no, not very many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Peer review is flawed, without a doubt. But it is infinitely better than not having anything. Having personally gone through this process many times, I know this. But if the science is good (and it just isn't with the MK paper - sorry), the authors can argue their point. In the end, it may not get it in- journals often reject papers on the fact it is too descriptive, no hypothesis, or just does not fit. And if it does not get in, you generally take it down one tier of journal status (ie try in a less prestigious journal) and try again. In this case the science is flawed, and it in no way substantiates the conclusion of a new Homo sapien species. I don't think it should have been published - period! It is unfortunate that it has been ridiculed by a bunch of grad students and others in the scientific community, but MK brought a lot of this on herself with the manuscript itself and the method of getting it out there. Yes, Bigfoot is a bit of a joke in the scientific community, but MK has just made it 10x worse. Again, THANKFULLY, this does not really appear to have gone mainstream. Agreed. I never thought I'd say this but the combination of a flawed peer review system and a perpetually ridiculed subject means that the methodology of evidence gathering, data analysis, interpretation, documentation and submission is no longer worth pursuing officially. It would be a waste of time for an author to go through official channels to just acquire scientific recognition and acceptance - even for someone as hallowed as Sykes. The odds are heavily stacked against you because of this. Such action will have to come after the fact. The old-timers Krantz, Green, Dahinden et al were right. It's going to take a body. Edited February 27, 2013 by Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts