Guest J Sasq Doe Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Are you just refusing to read any posts by anyone other than Melba klingons? You are all clinging on to something and making statements that have NO basis in Fact. No, that appears to be the realm of the staunch anti-Ketchum camp. You see, Dr. Ketchum has published the study. There is zero indication that you or anyone else has obtained all of her data. Until you get that data and attempt to replicate, or repudiate, Dr. Ketchum's results, then all you and your kind are doing is making statements that have no basis in fact. It's really quite simple. Get all of her data, and do her tests. Until then you got nuthin', regardless of what you say/wish/dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) Totally ageed SJD, it's what we've been trying to get across to everyone who has based their assumptions on partial disclosure. One just can't come to a believable retort with the absence of data. @LTBF "As so many of our experts have pointed out, the data should be showing it is 99.5% homologous to human if the genus is going to be Homo." Humans share 95-97% of DNA with gorillas and chimps, and 99% of DNA with mice. Yet, we are still considered human. So either your experts are incorrect or we aren't human or homo sapiens? Edited March 5, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) Any word on whether Dr, Sykes, Dr. Nekaris, or the "came forward after publication to review scientists" (other than the retired microbio guy) have been in direct contact with her, and if that review is occurring, or is going to occur on some date certain. Also, will they, or are they, doing what it takes for her to upload to GenBank all the rest of that raw data ? Edited March 5, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Forest Guy said: Hey Mel - the phylogenetic tree in the paper showed then as closer to lemur than other primate groups - I remember sitting there staring at it for a while, and acknowledging to myself that no, this wasn't a stroke of insightful genius, rather anything but...I think the Lemur gear was explained by Tylers mate - the human data on it's own looked like human; the bear data on its own looked like bear; the odds and ends on their own looked like odds and ends and (possible) artifacts. HOWEVER... the human/bear/odds-ends-artifacts all together look like Lemur (a bit, if you squint, stand on one foot, and look at it sideways...). Hello, I hope you are well. Well - there better be something in that unreleased data that says "HEY Bigfoot is a lemur!!" - because up until her interview with Linda - I can't remember anyone else bringing it up. If it isn't in there..... all together look like Lemur (a bit, if you squint, stand on one foot, and look at it sideways...) I was afraid - eventually - someone would tell me to do that. LMAO!!! But, you are probably right - and if you are - that's really sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Hey Mel - the phylogenetic tree in the paper showed then as closer to lemur than other primate groups - I remember sitting there staring at it for a while, and acknowledging to myself that no, this wasn't a stroke of insightful genius, rather anything but... Didn't it also show homo sapiens as closer to lemurs than other primate groups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 It has been refuted. It is either contamination, fabrication, or proof that something made bigfoot in a lab like the ‘Island of Doctor Moreau†(bear-pig-lemur man) No way that can be proved without full disclosure of the raw data. You're living on a prayer my friend. Didn't it also show homo sapiens as closer to lemurs than other primate groups? It's what MK claimed. A leaning towards the lemur tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 TM - no I wasn't questioning our homology to apes. I was just curious what our homology in relation to pre-humans was, because if you look at footprints, they look more like BF footprints than ours do. I haven't picked a side. I've asked questions about both sides. I've stated there's problems with some of the conclusions of the paper, just as I've stated there's some problems with the criticisms. I'm sure I've had people on both sides upset with me at one point or the other, but that's fine. I simply follow where the questions lead me because I find it all interesting. Now the reason I asked about our homology to pre-humans is because the statement made by Ketchum about it striking a nerve with Darwinism never really made sense to me in the context of her paper. BUT if the results somehow showed that the pre-humans never became homo sapiens, but were still around and breeding with humans on occasion, that would definitely go against the Darwin theory where it comes to the origin of man. The pre-human homology and bone structures definitely were closer to primates and closer to what is witnessed in regards to BF than humans are. But this is just glancing over it and I haven't really dug into it. It might even be best for another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Totally ageed SJD, it's what we've been trying to get across to everyone who has based their assumptions on partial disclosure. One just can't come to a believable retort with the absence of data. @LTBF "As so many of our experts have pointed out, the data should be showing it is 99.5% homologous to human if the genus is going to be Homo." Humans share 95-97% of DNA with gorillas and chimps, and 99% of DNA with mice. Yet, we are still considered human. So either your experts are incorrect or we aren't human or homo sapiens? Wrong, we are 98.5% homologous with chimps and less with mice. You most likely are talking about genes in general with the 99% claim about mice. http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-04/tech/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome_1_human-genome-new-human-genes-genes-that-cause-disease?_s=PM:TECH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) @ LTBF homology Similarity of the structure, physiology, or development of different species of organisms based on their descent from a common evolutionary ancestor. Analogy, by contrast, is a functional similarity of structure that is based not on common evolutionary origins but on mere similarity of use. The forelimbs of such widely differing mammals as humans, bats, and deer are homologous; the form of construction and the number of bones in each are practically identical and represent adaptive modifications of the forelimb structure of their shared ancestor. The wings of birds and insects, on the other hand, are merely analogous; they are used for flight in both types of organisms but do not share a common ancestral origin. Homology may refer to: Homology (anthropology), analogy between human beliefs, practices or artifacts due to genetic or historical connections. Homology (biology): similar structures due to shared ancestry. Homology (chemistry): a compound of a series differing only by repeated units Homology (mathematics), a procedure to associate a sequence of abelian groups or modules with a given mathematical object. Homology (sociology), a structural 'resonance' between the different elements making up a socio-cultural whole. Homology modeling, a method of protein structure prediction Homologous may refer to: Homologous series (chemistry), a series of organic compounds with a similar general formula. Homologous temperature, the temperature of a material as a fraction of its absolute melting point. Homologous chromosomes, chromosomes in a biological cell that pair up (synapse) during meiosis. I suppose it depends on the interpretation, or in reference to which area of homologous you're using as your definition. http://science.yourdictionary.com/science/examples-of-homology.html Edited March 5, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) Humans share 95-97% of DNA with gorillas and chimps, and 99% of DNA with mice. That is not a correct statement. You keep telling people to learn something about genetics, yet you seem to harbor great misunderstandings in that subject. http://cbse.soe.ucsc...man_chimp_mouse statement made by Ketchum about it striking a nerve with Darwinism never really made sense to me in the context of her paper. BUT if the results somehow showed that the pre-humans never became homo sapiens, but were still around and breeding with humans on occasion, I missed that, mind linking the source? Edited March 5, 2013 by NukaCola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) That is not a correct statement. You keep telling people to learn something about genetics, yet you seem to harbor great misunderstandings in that subject. http://cbse.soe.ucsc...man_chimp_mouse What would the correct answers be then NC? http://www.newser.co...-different.html LTBF posted this link in the same post http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-04/tech/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome_1_human-genome-new-human-genes-genes-that-cause-disease?_s=PM:TECH Edited March 5, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 ^ Click the link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 This study is not just about sample 26, and if there is a need to see the rest of the raw data, then it's not time to go insane! Capice!!? Nope, I don't Capice... because you didn't capice...I was saying that I must be insane, since I exhibit the common definitiion of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results." - I keep posting information wherein actual scientists have parsed the data that she hand-selected to be released to the public. Each of these scientists show what is happening in this data. Yet each Melba Clingon says that these scientists don't have her data to make conclusions upon, and further charge that they have no science to back up their claims that Melba's results don't hold water. I just truly can't wrap my brain around it. Theses scientists are doing the work with the data that she provided - ONLY the data that she provided. How can people then claim that the scientists don't have her data, and that no scientific work has been performed on her data? I keep posting what seems to me to be the irrefutable logic of this, and the Clingons keep using magic shields to block the logic. I don't know why I keep expecting 'different results'... the only logical answer is that I am going insane. lol. They derived their assumptions without the "Raw Data" everyone has been calling for?I will here state unequviocally that Melba used the term 'Angel DN'A. I have proof of it. I will be keeping that proof to myself for the time being. Time to put up or forever hold your peace! You won't even disclose the "MK stated Angel DNA", which leaves you running on empty. At least MK came forth with some results and is facing the music, which is far more honorable than any secret moonshine results. They used the ONLY raw data that Melba made available. Um, nope... I have evidence she has used the term. As long as people keep claiming that she has not used the term, I'm going to keep refuting it. If people want to take issue with that, so be it. It's no different than us refuting the people that say Sasquatch doesn't exist. We may not be able to provide proof, but if we "saw one with our own eyes" then by gosh, we are going to declare it. If people want to stop saying that she has never used those words, then I will stop correcting them, Just because you personally have not heard or seen her use those words, does NOT mean it hasn't happened. Melba only released her results after I was completely transparent with my results. If you want to put my record of transparency up against hers - please feel free. I think the Lemur gear was explained by Tylers mate - the human data on it's own looked like human; the bear data on its own looked like bear; the odds and ends on their own looked like odds and ends and (possible) artifacts. HOWEVER... the human/bear/odds-ends-artifacts all together look like Lemur (a bit, if you squint, stand on one foot, and look at it sideways...). Tyler. Mate. I love MOST of the stuff you post. Most. But what's the point of this? It's no different from taking Musky's word on RD, or Paulides on you and Bart, or Melba on her not using Angel DNA. I'm sick of the super secret squirrel excuse - especially when in almost every case it's being used to counter 'the word' of someone else. Note to forum - got secret info? Cool. Good news. Don't tell us about it until you can tell us about it ALL. Carry on. Ta, FG Please see point #3 above, Wherever I see claims about this woman or her study, which I know to be false, I'm afraid I'm going to say so - even when I have restrictions on how much I can say about it at the time. (Not that I care much about this particular point - to me, whether she used the term or not matters very little in the face of the glaring deficiencies in at least some of her evidence.) No, that appears to be the realm of the staunch anti-Ketchum camp. You see, Dr. Ketchum has published the study. There is zero indication that you or anyone else has obtained all of her data. Until you get that data and attempt to replicate, or repudiate, Dr. Ketchum's results, then all you and your kind are doing is making statements that have no basis in fact. It's really quite simple. Get all of her data, and do her tests. Until then you got nuthin', regardless of what you say/wish/dream. Why is it that we have to have obtained "ALL of her data"? She had the opportunity to hand-pick the data that she wanted the public to see. She did that, and now scientists have refuted that data. So now we/they are at fault for having worked with that data? They still have to keep their conclusions to themselves until she releases ALL her data? Why would we expect that data to be any better? What would prevent people from forming conclusions about that data? How long should everyone wait for "all" the data, before being allowed to offer any opinion on the data at hand? Humans share 95-97% of DNA with gorillas and chimps, and 99% of DNA with mice. Yet, we are still considered human. So either your experts are incorrect or we aren't human or homo sapiens? I'm afraid I am just going to shake my head on this one. Anyone who asserts that we have more DNA in common with mice than with chiimps, cannot be reasoned with. I'm just not smart enough to keep up with this logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) @ tylerH What would your correct answer be to the last statement, if I'm so wrong? Try the link again Nuka...... Edited March 5, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 According to the link posted above: 34% of mouse genome is identical to humans 95% of chimp genome is identical to humans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts