Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I'm not even a scientist and know that makes no sense at all! Something was distantly related, but evolved to the point where it could interbreed with humans?! How in the world did this woman even become a vet? There's nothing wrong with the idea theoretically, it would be a new branch of primate not from the existing hominid or ape "root stock" that convergently evolved towards homo sufficiently to interbreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 The data is all at this point. If they have not done what I said above, they have no right to trash the study. Mulder comes through as the voice of reason. Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Lindsay is saying that Sykes/Nerakis will do a professional critique/analysis of Ketchum's study. Take that for what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) So they have no basis for trashing the study, as they cannot have gotten to or analyzed the data yet. That is the point. Noone should be dunning the study results unless they can demonstrate the following: 1) They have access to the full genetic dataset. Looks like Ketchum is not about to release that... 2) They either have credentials sufficient to analyze that data or have access to willing other parties who do. Credentialed individuals (much more credentialed than Ketchum actually) have evaluated the data released. Just look back in this thread and you'll see that the sequences released by Ketchum have been BLASTed by others and are turning out to be human/bear/junk (eg. contaminated and degraded). 3) They have completed a full technical analysis of the data and produced a formal report (with peer review). Why do they hve to produce formal reports with peer review when Melba gets away with a high-school level paper, no data supporting her hypothesis and no peer review? Because they're supposed to be professional scientists (or ones in training) and they have a duty to objectivity and their own rules of operation to do things in a properly objective, scientific manner rather than engage in base mockery. The steadfastness of certain people despite reality staring them in the face invites such mockery. Edited March 1, 2013 by NukaCola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 So they have no basis for trashing the study, as they cannot have gotten to or analyzed the data yet. That is the point. Noone should be dunning the study results unless they can demonstrate the following: 1) They have access to the full genetic dataset. 2) They either have credentials sufficient to analyze that data or have access to willing other parties who do. 3) They have completed a full technical analysis of the data and produced a formal report (with peer review). I disagree. When you publish a paper you publish the data so other can substantiate the claims, or disagree with them. I am only debating the data that she has put forward, and it is wrong. The conclusions she is stating can not be derived from the data she presented. She may have other, better data. But how can we discuss this at all if it is not out to be reviewed? She wrote a scientific paper - she has to play by the rules of science. I don't expect the rest of the data to be out any time soon, but MK, prove me wrong, release the data. And I do feel qualified to discuss this paper - as would anyone with a few university courses of genetics. The errors in the theories are quite basic. http://www.illumina....te_Q-Scores.pdf Not sure how you couldn't find this it took me a whole 2 min to confirm and the PDF file was the top hit in google search for Q30 score It shows that higher score better Data Quality. Which would indicate more pure. Thank you Cath for helping us to support this claim of the Q scores! Yes, better Data quality, no purity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Because they're supposed to be professional scientists (or ones in training) and they have a duty to objectivity and their own rules of operation to do things in a properly objective, scientific manner rather than engage in base mockery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 There's nothing wrong with the idea theoretically, it would be a new branch of primate not from the existing hominid or ape "root stock" that convergently evolved towards homo sufficiently to interbreed. That is only a correct statement if 'by nothing wrong' you actually mean 'everything wrong'. No known existent species have evolved separately towards one another sufficiently to interbreed. Thus that idea is completely unfounded by evolution as we know it, and should be rejected until some evidence is presented. Mathematically, probabilities against something like that happening would approach infinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) How is it not make sense. we know that Neanderthal interbred with modern man. That modern and Neanderthal were living side by side. It is possible we have been placing fossil records in wrong places I mean you look at some of them we go from looking human to looking ape then back to human than ape. Maybe we are identifying fossil records incorrect. This is NOT directed at Cath.. I only use the comment as an example. I keep seeing things like this posted. For some strange reason, I feel like instead of Melba fixing the problems with her paper - it almost feels like some are willing to re-write history and evolution to make Melba's paper work... Mulder said: At this point, however, with an actual paper on proffer, we must switch to strictly limited comments based on the data, not her paper-writing skills or how she handles her PR. Well, see those things are part of the problem here. Melba attempted to offer up something new to not just the scientific community but the world. She will be critiqued on all levels - to include her PR and writing skills. That's just the way it is. But, I am pretty sure she already knew that - which is why she brought a PR person on board.. I wish she had hired a better one. Edited March 1, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Well, if we're assuming that accounts are correct, what are the probabilities that a mammal has glowing eyes? That a large undiscovered primate is roaming NA? That a primate can 'zap' someone with infrasound? We're dealing with small likehoods here anyway......what's another impossibility to contend with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Thank you Cath for helping us to support this claim of the Q scores! Yes, better Data quality, no purity. Wait a second. If you read that paper. It says that the Higher the score the Less likely the chance of having False Positive hits. So in that regard the Score would equal Purity of the sample because it is going to give a more accurate result. Your arguing her choice and others choices of words. Most of what I am seeing is argument over her choice of words and statements. The whole Melba vs Justins sample is so silly. we are taking Justin word that samples were the same. In Barts own statement Justins wife handled the samples. So we don't know 100% that both samples the one Bart has and the One Melba have are the same. I don't think they are. But maybe Justin and His wife can take another lie detector test to verify these claims of the samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 That is only a correct statement if 'by nothing wrong' you actually mean 'everything wrong'. No known existent species have evolved separately towards one another sufficiently to interbreed. Thus that idea is completely unfounded by evolution as we know it, and should be rejected until some evidence is presented. Mathematically, probabilities against something like that happening would approach infinity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I keep seeing things like this posted. For some strange reason, I feel like instead of Melba fixing the problems with her paper - it almost feels like some are willing to re-write history and evolution to make Melba's paper work... Aren't many doing the same thing as well on both sides? Reading things into it the way they want too? Its human nature to read something and interpret it with your knowledge or understanding behind it. This statement goes both ways. Like I have said before she should have held off on her "theory" for another paper. No she is not an evolution expert. She is knowledgeable in DNA so I don't feel the testing she has had done or that her samples were contaminated like everyone says. She went in the paper the and explained how she used a base line dna as a sample for this. Collected the DNA from the people. How she presented that and compared it. Again you can argue her theory. But I am reading many places that people are accusing her of Fraud certain others want to accuse her of that then file a lawsuit on her. But She produced the results and the paper. It will be hard to claim fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 No Cath - People are questioning Melba's paper based on established scientific principles and methods. Those who disagree with her findings are not trying to change how science is done - so they can throw out her paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 ........ But maybe Justin and His wife can take another lie detector test to verify these claims of the samples. .......... Since you mentioned it, I was thinking maybe Melba could take a lie detector test. Smeja already took one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Lindsay is saying that Sykes/Nerakis will do a professional critique/analysis of Ketchum's study. Take that for what you will. How is that possible as she hasn't released anywhere close to all of the data. My neighbor is a geneticist and he looked her release and was shocked at the lack of what should have been included. He said there is no inclusion of any raw data. The entire paper is an interpreted conclusion without any backing data. He described it as a solution to a very complex math problem except the math calculation was not included. Just the end result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts