Guest Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) I have not read the whole thread, so I hope I am not repeating what was said before.... I was thinking that if I was any kind of legit scientific publication, before I published a Melba KEtchum analysis of the samples, esp. if the conclusions were on the unorthdox side, I would want the results corroborated and independently and reproduced by an objective lab with no knowledge of the samples' orginis. Maybe that is one reason for the long wait. Edited November 8, 2011 by Kings Canyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Well sources from around Ketchum say that she has done exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Well sources from around Ketchum say that she has done exactly that. That's my understanding as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I would suppose some folks are watching how the participants in this first go around are treated after disclosure, before they decide if they want to participate in future efforts. There was an option to remain an anonymous submitter if they chose to, but the chain of custody and provenance would be lacking for the sample. It's a shame that a person could be treated poorly simply because of the subject matter, imagine what wildlife biologists go through every time they turn in a sample to lab and ask "what is it"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 There was an option to remain an anonymous submitter if they chose to, but the chain of custody and provenance would be lacking for the sample. It's a shame that a person could be treated poorly simply because of the subject matter, imagine what wildlife biologists go through every time they turn in a sample to lab and ask "what is it"? In Ketchum's study, I just don't understand the reason for 'turning in a sample and not knowing what it is'. Has anyone published the vetting procedure for the Ketchum study? Just what were the requirements to qualify a sample? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 It most likely gos something like this! I've got a sample for you to test of a bluebird (the whole bird) that has some odd markings and coloring could you test it to see if it's a different species or sub- species? Why yes and sometime later......days, weeks maybe Oh my it is different could you get another sample Why sure I just happened to have one right here in my back pocket. The site that I see these at they are pretty easy to catch....... And walla new species or sub-species is discovered all the time really quite easy except for.....well you get the point I'm not really sure you expected an answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Oh no......I feel an impending shadow of dread lurking on the horizon. Baton down the hatches....I fear a Parnassicane is about to strike us forthwith. I can feel it...I can feel it .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUhofAajHDA&feature=related Oh please...the worst a Parnassicane can generate outside of a forum that protects it (such as That Place) is a gentle but foul-smelling breeze... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Oh no......I feel an impending shadow of dread lurking on the horizon. Baton down the hatches....I fear a Parnassicane is about to strike us forthwith. I can feel it...I can feel it .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUhofAajHDA&feature=related Oh please...the worst a Parnassicane can generate outside of a forum that protects it (such as That Place) is a gentle but foul-smelling breeze... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 There was an option to remain an anonymous submitter if they chose to, but the chain of custody and provenance would be lacking for the sample. It's a shame that a person could be treated poorly simply because of the subject matter, imagine what wildlife biologists go through every time they turn in a sample to lab and ask "what is it"? Any sample which cannot be positively sourced is probably scientifically useless in this context, just so you'll know. I'm surprised that Ketchum didn't realize that and/or make it clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) Any sample which cannot be positively sourced is probably scientifically useless in this context, just so you'll know. I'm surprised that Ketchum didn't realize that and/or make it clear. thats bull unless you believe DNA can be faked. I understand now, thousand of footprints reported all over north america, but they are fake. Next there is BF DNA pouring into labs across the continent, but the skeptics assure us it's fake Edited November 9, 2011 by Alpinist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) thats bull unless you believe DNA can be faked. I understand now, thousand of footprints reported all over north america, but they are fake. Next there is BF DNA pouring into labs across the continent, but the skeptics assure us it's fake Uhm for those of us following along at home Mulder, on 06 November 2011 - 01:57 PM, said: No, because you are wrong. You can't have DNA w/o having a sample from which that DNA came. That sample came from a creature. DNA = sample = creature. Unless you are prepared to show that Dr Ketchum's lab (and all the other participating labs) are part of some massive conspiracy to manufacture fake DNA , then it's "game over" for the Skeptics if they have one shred of intellectual integrity Tautriadelta- Nice little article on DNA manufacturing in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.c...ence/18dna.html here's the Abstract of published paper (It'll cost ya..if so you must LOVE you some DNA) http://www.fsigeneti...0099-4/abstract Edited November 9, 2011 by Tautriadelta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 My main concern is not with "manufacturing fake DNA". It's with contamination, error, or an incomplete referencing database. If these three things are addressed a little bit, I would be happier. Just a little blurb is all I ask. I don't think they have been addressed yet, and I would love to see it in the conclusion. Skipping over these factors leaves holes. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 My main concern is not with "manufacturing fake DNA". It's with contamination, error, or an incomplete referencing database. If these three things are addressed a little bit, I would be happier. Just a little blurb is all I ask. I don't think they have been addressed yet, and I would love to see it in the conclusion. Skipping over these factors leaves holes. IMO Holes is all we got, man! JMHO...almost NOTHING has been addressed...I *hope* that they will be filled in, but "tempus fugit" as the BF world turns...complete with dramatic theme song...I am reminded of the post from a moon or two ago that so aptly dramatized the whole affair...dang, I plussed it, and I don't remember the author... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Well I meant for when all is said and done with the report, of course not now. Well to be more specific, we crossed a threshold. I'm still seeing a lot of "Proponents vs. Skeptics" arguments. We're beyond that now. Belief has nothing to do with this. It has to do with what we've all been asking for, analyzing empirical data. The thing we've all been talking about for years..... here we go..... ready for it.... now it really applies... dun dun daaaa.... "the scientific method" woo-hoo, finally. I'm getting a vibe that it will be okay to skip the step of "others should be able to replicate the results" and replace it with "trust the backstory". There aren't enough angry posts in the world to bully me into that acceptance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) I didn't see this posted anywhere so here goes. Ketchum replied to someone on Facebook who said they couldn't wait to read about her study in Nature. Here's her response: Somebody commented on this in a blog as a speculation but it is misinformation. The person with the blog ran with it. We are not announcing any potential journal or publication date until we are allowed to do so by the editors of the publication. I will say that our paper is not with the Nature group. What we are currently doing and where the paper is/is not cannot be discussed. Thank you for the interest though. It will come out when it is supposed to come out. I am sure of that and it shouldn't take that much longer. Edited November 9, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts