Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) Public Service Announcement Due to the number of deleted posts and rules violations members will keep the discussion to the point and argue the argument. Thank You for your renewed commitment to following the forum rules. Grayjay Edited November 9, 2011 by grayjay post doubled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Depends on how you define positively. we don't have a denisova body, yet they existed. to say similar evidence for bigfoot or any other undescribed and or extant species is scientifically worthless is gross intellectual dishonesty. There u go putting words in my keyboard. I will say this again: excluding common DNA from elk, bear, racoon and maybe a chimp that someone submitted as a joke, etc: the. DNA. Is. Human. How many times and in how many languages does this have to be repeated? there is no hobbit or denisovan or Neanderthal or hybrid or humanzee DNA. HUMAN. There is no faked manufactured DNA. Just human. And my comments are based that. Are we clear? Now you can go ahead and resume your strawmanning and scatological references and dreams of "33%" chimp. And feel free to send Dr. Ketchum your ideas about how she can make human DNA into a Bigfoot; I think she needs some help. I could be wrong; for example, I thought the dog would eat her breakfast this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 There u go putting words in my keyboard. I will say this again: excluding common DNA from elk, bear, racoon and maybe a chimp that someone submitted as a joke, etc: the. DNA. Is. Human. How many times and in how many languages does this have to be repeated? there is no hobbit or denisovan or Neanderthal or hybrid or humanzee DNA. HUMAN. There is no faked manufactured DNA. Just human. And my comments are based that. Are we clear? Now you can go ahead and resume your strawmanning and scatological references and dreams of "33%" chimp. And feel free to send Dr. Ketchum your ideas about how she can make human DNA into a Bigfoot; I think she needs some help. I could be wrong; for example, I thought the dog would eat her breakfast this morning. Parn , you are making absolute statements about the dna in ketchums study, that you have'nt even seen.i don't know how you can do that honestly. My argument centers on established precedents and standards of accpetance for valid evidence. your attempts to impose a double standard is duely noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 There u go putting words in my keyboard. I will say this again: excluding common DNA from elk, bear, racoon and maybe a chimp that someone submitted as a joke, etc: the. DNA. Is. Human. How many times and in how many languages does this have to be repeated? there is no hobbit or denisovan or Neanderthal or hybrid or humanzee DNA. HUMAN. There is no faked manufactured DNA. Just human. And my comments are based that. Are we clear? Now you can go ahead and resume your strawmanning and scatological references and dreams of "33%" chimp. And feel free to send Dr. Ketchum your ideas about how she can make human DNA into a Bigfoot; I think she needs some help. I could be wrong; for example, I thought the dog would eat her breakfast this morning. That's dangerously close to making a statement based on belief instead of science. Sure you don't want to add a couple of qualifiers in there? Otherwise you may be perceived as a practitioner of blind faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 There u go putting words in my keyboard. I will say this again: excluding common DNA from elk, bear, racoon and maybe a chimp that someone submitted as a joke, etc: the. DNA. Is. Human. How many times and in how many languages does this have to be repeated? there is no hobbit or denisovan or Neanderthal or hybrid or humanzee DNA. HUMAN. There is no faked manufactured DNA. Just human. And my comments are based that. Are we clear? Now you can go ahead and resume your strawmanning and scatological references and dreams of "33%" chimp. And feel free to send Dr. Ketchum your ideas about how she can make human DNA into a Bigfoot; I think she needs some help. I could be wrong; for example, I thought the dog would eat her breakfast this morning. Are you referring to mitochondrial dna or nuclear dna? If the former then what do you predict for the latter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 You should just write "Can't wait to read your paper when it's published in the American Journal Of Physical Anthropology" on her FB wall and see what she says. It worked once. Who's to say it won't work again? If she says no, we can pick another publication and keep going until she either doesn't respond or says "thanks!" In fact, we might be able to find out what the paper says and more by using this strategy. "So glad your paper proves that Sasquatch are apes!" "Very happy to hear you have a body included in your study." "Cool to learn you're dating David Paulides." Winner winner chicken dinner!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 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? If you can't understand the simple fact that not all biological samples found in the wild come attached to a body and that not all people who could come across such evidence could imediately identify such things, then there's hardly any hope you would understand what science could do to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) There u go putting words in my keyboard. I will say this again: excluding common DNA from elk, bear, racoon and maybe a chimp that someone submitted as a joke, etc: the. DNA. Is. Human. How many times and in how many languages does this have to be repeated? there is no hobbit or denisovan or Neanderthal or hybrid or humanzee DNA. HUMAN. There is no faked manufactured DNA. Just human. And my comments are based that. Are we clear? Now you can go ahead and resume your strawmanning and scatological references and dreams of "33%" chimp. And feel free to send Dr. Ketchum your ideas about how she can make human DNA into a Bigfoot; I think she needs some help actually I think Parn knows more than we give him credit here for, he might even be one of the profs on the review board when it is handed in....... how many samples have you tested and came up with human on Parn?, isnt there a chance that someone has found DNA sources that you have not tested for? isnt there a chance that someone has found actual bigfoot DNA that you have not been able to test? included with a chain of evidence? as I am quite sure you will be reading the actual paper when it is submitted, will you just kick it out because of personal reasons? citing some bad math or fill in the blanks....... maybe there is something that she found that you didnt? that is entirely possible isnt it? this is science after all........ ladies and gents, Parn aint no dummy, I have a feeling he has real credentials ......... edited for a double post Edited November 9, 2011 by driftinmark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Parn certainly isn't dumb and his "human" pronouncement is based on an educated guess just like the rest of us, his probably being more educated than most. Until those on the forum who submitted samples are able to provide us with the results it's anybody's guess. I've heard 37%, 50%, and human with a few different polymorphisms. Anbody else talk to someone with secret squirrel info that says something different than those options? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Parn certainly isn't dumb and his "human" pronouncement is based on an educated guess just like the rest of us, his probably being more educated than most. Jodie, with all due respect, I think his position is more than an educated guess........IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 But how would I know that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 But how would I know that? IMHO, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Parnassus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 wow. So Ketchum is saying it isn't going to be Nature. Let's try again, then. I believe that Jeff Meldrum is associated with the project. Meldrum has published papers in the Am. Jour. of Phys. Anthropology.(just clickhttp://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=jeff+meldrum+american+journal+of+physical+anthropology) So Meldrum would likely be a good resource for successfully submitting papers to this journal. Your move Ms. Ketchum (Yes I am a little sneaky minded. I wrote an email to Paulides some days ago wondering if the paper was going to come from Nature. He's a cop, so he knows better than to respond at all.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Is there something a little less than fully human? If they are somehow 100% human then killing them would be murder.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts