Guest believer Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I hope to balance the pendulum my way:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 What we seem to see is someone misleading people about journal requirements (not saying whether or not it's intentional),. Ray G and Bipedal Ape have demonstrated that, and I would agree from my experience. I also have to agree with Saskeptic; the red flags are waving. p. That seems like a reasonable and healthy attitude. I'm leaning heavily in the "this looks good" camp, but I think the sort of healthy skepticism you display is good for everyone. I do get a bit tired of those who are as abhorrently declarative about the study being bulls**t as those who claim too much on the other side as well. what exactly "looks good" to you, PN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 The problem as I see it is in the interpretation. New DNA would need more than 6 authors and a panel of peer reviewers to decide that we have a new hominid, or two, or three as the case may be. From what brief time I worked in research, it wasn't up to the peer review group to agree or disagree with the conclusions, just validate the methods used to get there. So when this paper is released, I only care about what the geneticist's have to say about it, specifically those working with the ancient human lines and primate sequences. That's assuming that the paper appears in a journal they might read depending on what hypothesis she worked from, and if they ever even see the research paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I also have to agree with Saskeptic; the red flags are waving. Does this mean you're ditching your modern human DNA hypothesis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 23, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 23, 2012 April 5th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 The only opinion I care about is what other geneticists have to say about the results. My spidey sense tells me it will be another month before it is released and the results will be polarizing. I don't think there is any way this paper would publish if the reviewers (other geneticists) aren't looking at the actual data derived from the DNA. No Journal would risk their reputation on this subject without doing this very basic thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 It really depends on the quality of the journal SY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) I noticed on the Science 2012 Feb online an article by Dan McArthur , et al (long list included 1000 Genome). I have read that this individual is a co-author? His article looks closely related to me. It seems to indicate genetic methods that could have arisen from those "elusive turns" BF gave them? At any rate, if he is a co-author and given SR's past with Science it makes it a highly likley venue....or not. I do agree with many that there seems to be a reliance on Journal "policies" as restricting their public sharing of information, much like a child might blame their parent for limitations their peers will jeer about? On the other hand, given our insatiable needs, unlike many other discoveries unaccompannied by such a rowdy invested opinionated group of BF lovers, I can see the desire to be under the radar, right or wrong. Also, I haven't really been impressed with the whole FB thing, and yet it seems to be our new way of communicating. Dr. K's emotive statements about her work as beautifual and amazing? It might be testimony to the truely amazing turn of heart a witness can experience. Or one working closely with witnesses and who has faith in the data. There is talk on the FB page of a non-profit Protection type group arising from the efforts which she will lead. Edited February 23, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 April 5th Ok...you say April 5 because...??? Roll of dice? Inside info? Magic Eight-ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 It really depends on the quality of the journal SY. .....and with all the work, money, reputations on the line , you would expect a reputable one to be sought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Well, I'm going to Old Mexico manana and won't be back till March. So, if the denouement occurs before I get back, this "really skeptical one", this mere "moth" will gladly eat the crow provided by any and all Bigfooters (washed down with some Shiners, please) as soon as possible. If, that is, the report is credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Ketchum and especially Ramey have been posting a lot on FB today, so if you want a complete image, just go to the relevant page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Melba-Ketchum/359075637446173?ref=ts However, here's an excerpt from a post by Sally Ramey that addresses the point RayG and I think Saskeptic have been raising: "these folks don't want to wait for the results like everyone else. They also keep harping on preliminary papers. Why on earth would anyone release a preliminary paper on something as controversial as this? Perhaps it is because one can poke holes in a paper that has not yet passed vigorous review?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Being published is everything, and brings in alot more scientists with relevant credentials (authority) thats where the game changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) I'm a little skeptical. I've avoided posting much, in this thread. Is it that the really skeptical ones just can't resist posting their potshots and sowing their land mines? What's the attraction? You're all like moths to a flame. It's all about damage control and staking their claim before the final verdict. Imagine if this paper flies? The skeptics will look pretty silly after all their write-off comments. They are merely playing the odds with anticipated rewards in the "I told you so" dept. Otherwise, they know no more or less than anyone else about this, obviously. Edited February 23, 2012 by Gigantofootecus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 However, here's an excerpt from a post by Sally Ramey that addresses the point RayG and I think Saskeptic have been raising: "these folks don't want to wait for the results like everyone else. They also keep harping on preliminary papers. Why on earth would anyone release a preliminary paper on something as controversial as this? Perhaps it is because one can poke holes in a paper that has not yet passed vigorous review?" I'm perfectly content to wait for the results like everyone else. It's not that I'm saying she MUST release information, I'm saying that the journal her PR specialist chose as an example does not prevent the release of information. RayG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts