Jump to content
Guest

The Ketchum Report

Recommended Posts

TimB

yahoo,

we've been over this and over this. The only DNA we've seen from Ketchum or Stubstad is modern human. ...

or something from Ketchum or Stubstad? something. ...

p.

I"m pretty sure Ketchum and her report is completely separate from Stubstad and what he's working on. Why do you insist on lumping them together? Your argument would have more credibility if you address this repeated inaccuracy.

Tim B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

you are correct.

He is not necessarily correct. The more challenging a finding is to the prevailing status quo, the more resistance there is to the finding, and the more carefully and thoroughly crafted the paper needs to be to be accepted.

That would take time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

Pages back, there were references to the Meldrom/Sykes study demonstrating that indeed there may be some legitimate evidence to analyze. Reading the article below, it would almost seem otherwise. It seems that a DNA study is being started, but that they are now starting to invite samples, not that they have any existing samples to start with. So, it appears that Sykes is inviting bigfooters to put up or shut up, perhaps suggesting that he's tired of hearing people criticize "science" as an antagonist to the idea of bigfoot:

"I'm challenging and inviting the cryptozoologists to come up with the evidence instead of complaining that science is rejecting what they have to say," said geneticist Bryan Sykes of the University of Oxford.

http://www.livescience.com/20487-yeti-bigfoot-dna-cryptozoology.html

Don't overlook this quote from Sykes

"As an academic I have certain reservations about entering this field, but I think using genetic analysis is entirely objective; it can't be falsified," Sykes said. "So I don't have to put myself into the position of either believing or disbelieving these creatures."

One theory about the yeti is that it belongs to small relic populations of other hominids, such as Neanderthals or Denisovans. While Sykes said this idea is unlikely to be proven true, "if you don't look, you won't find it."

It can't be falsified Parn! Don't forget that from Sykes himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

yahoo,

we've been over this and over this. The only DNA we've seen from Ketchum or Stubstad is modern human.

WRONG! We haven't "seen" any DNA whatsoever. Certainly not from Ketchum. We've had claims about the DNA from Stubstad, Paulides and Lindsay, but they haven't ponied up the goods to support those claims, either about their own samples or Ketchums.

And you still are misrepresenting the findings. According to the "leak" (and assuming it's accuracy), the mtDNA read as human or near-human, however the nuDNA was decidedly not human.

Get it right.

The copyright documents, the domain names. Paulides stuff. The long delay. It all speaks to modern human with some polymorphisms that weren't in Genbank.

Blatant supposition. Got any proof?

Pages back, there were references to the Meldrom/Sykes study demonstrating that indeed there may be some legitimate evidence to analyze. Reading the article below, it would almost seem otherwise. It seems that a DNA study is being started, but that they are now starting to invite samples, not that they have any existing samples to start with. So, it appears that Sykes is inviting bigfooters to put up or shut up, perhaps suggesting that he's tired of hearing people criticize "science" as an antagonist to the idea of bigfoot:

"I'm challenging and inviting the cryptozoologists to come up with the evidence instead of complaining that science is rejecting what they have to say," said geneticist Bryan Sykes of the University of Oxford.

http://www.livescien...ptozoology.html

That's an unfortunate position from Dr Sykes.

It's not the proponent scientists' fault that Science won't engage the existing evidence (tracks, hairs, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

He is not necessarily correct. The more challenging a finding is to the prevailing status quo, the more resistance there is to the finding, and the more carefully and thoroughly crafted the paper needs to be to be accepted.

That would take time.

My understanding was that the research and the paper had been completed, and had been submitted for peer review, and I believe I also heard rumors that it may have been returned for corrections or modifications. Is the stuff done, or not? If so, then what else needs crafting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeG

I have as much evidence for this as I have for everything else I have said in this thread.........

.......but my guess is that this inordinate delay isn't anything to do with the science or the publication. My guess is that lawyers are involved, and that there are some big fat fees being earned at the moment sorting out ownership, credit, rights, blame etc

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

That's an unfortunate position from Dr Sykes.

It's not the proponent scientists' fault that Science won't engage the existing evidence (tracks, hairs, etc).

Well, hey, he's got the door wide open. He's saying bring on the evidence. He represents mainstream science, and if the people griping about science not giving the evidence a fair shake want science to give it a fair shake, then they ought to pony up the evidence for him to put into his study. Tracks are a totally different thing. Biological evidence is what is being looked at. "Science" is willing, and apparently is not the closed door, denial club that has been characterized. If there's DNA evidence, this is the chance to have it treated respectfully and professionally by "science".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

WRONG! We haven't "seen" any DNA whatsoever. Certainly not from Ketchum. We've had claims about the DNA from Stubstad, Paulides and Lindsay, but they haven't ponied up the goods to support those claims, either about their own samples or Ketchums.

And you still are misrepresenting the findings. According to the "leak" (and assuming it's accuracy), the mtDNA read as human or near-human, however the nuDNA was decidedly not human.

Get it right.

Blatant supposition. Got any proof?

That's an unfortunate position from Dr Sykes.

It's not the proponent scientists' fault that Science won't engage the existing evidence (tracks, hairs, etc).

I got it right. Nothing other than modern human DNA has been shown. Anyone/everyone can/has see(n) the statements by Paulides, the data from Stubstad and Ketchum, the copyright documents, the domain names. that's all we have at this point, and it all says the same thing. And you have what? some "leak" somewhere? a RobertLindsay special? really? that's all you have? blatant nothingness. please link to it so we can all see what you've got. Seriously. Show us. And tell us why Nature wouldn't have published such groundbreaking news, if she had it, months ago (oh, wait, I forgot: your conspiracy theory; Nature isn't in business to publish groundbreaking science). Tell us why Meldrum is starting afresh. I'll be waiting.

p.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

My understanding was that the research and the paper had been completed, and had been submitted for peer review, and I believe I also heard rumors that it may have been returned for corrections or modifications. Is the stuff done, or not? If so, then what else needs crafting?

your entertaining rumors as facts, next you will be taking quotes from mad magazine as to why their cannot be a BF in existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

your entertaining rumors as facts, next you will be taking quotes from mad magazine as to why their cannot be a BF in existence.

No, I'm not. I clearly said "rumors" and asked if anyone had anything factual. Read more carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BFSleuth

I got it right. Nothing other than modern human DNA has been shown. Anyone/everyone can/has see(n) the statements by Paulides, the data from Stubstad and Ketchum, the copyright documents, the domain names. that's all we have at this point, and it all says the same thing. And you have what? some "leak" somewhere? a RobertLindsay special? really? that's all you have? blatant nothingness. please link to it so we can all see what you've got. Seriously. Show us. And tell us why Nature wouldn't have published such groundbreaking news, if she had it, months ago (oh, wait, I forgot: your conspiracy theory; Nature isn't in business to publish groundbreaking science). Tell us why Meldrum is starting afresh. I'll be waiting.

References please. What exactly "has been shown"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeG

Posted again in the hope that Parn will eventually stop misrepresenting what Stubstad has said about the early DNA results from the Ketchum report.

Parn,

that is a gross distortion of what Stubstad has posted. He has said at great length that the mitochondrial DNA is within normal human range, but right at the extreme (in other words, atypical/ rare). However, the Nuclear DNA is outside the range of any known modern human on the planet (my words....read his below). Therefore, the animal that carries this is NOT a modern human. You keep repeating that same fallacy and misrepresentation, so to try to obviate the possibility of you doing this again, here is his explanation in his words, not yours: (Apologies to the mods if I have done something wrong in clipping this in here)


    • Richard Stubstad
      March 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM
      That’s OK, Robert, I can answer the question unequivocally. Whether SeesDifferent believes me or not is another matter. That’s his/her issue, not mine.
      All three mito sequences WERE within modern human ranges — but just barely at both ends of the spectrum, so to speak. When one “connects the mito dots†and doesn’t assume each sequence is unrelated to the next, one COULD be lead to believe these three were modern humans, albeit from VERY strange and rare haplotypes.
      It was the nuclear MC1R DNA sequences that sealed the deal. None were within human ranges. Each of the three had a particular mutation that no human on earth has been shown to have.
      This is exactly the same result that was found for Neanderthal within MC1R, but Neanderthal’s mutation site was different from the three purported sasquatch mutation sites.
      Based on this, all three MC1R sequences were not within known modern human ranges. So either sasquatch is a hoax and Neanderthals were hoaxes, or both subspecies are the real deal.
      Put that in your pipe and smoke it for awhile.
      Richard

I hope you'll now adjust your position regarding Stubstat's evaluation of the data . To declare, as you often do, that Stubstad says "sasquatch = modern human" is clearly, clearly erroneous.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BFSleuth

+1 Mike. If Parn wants to quote the horse, then go to the horse's mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Particle Noun

+2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gershake

Anyone/everyone can/has see(n) the statements by Paulides, the data from Stubstad and Ketchum, the copyright documents, the domain names. that's all we have at this point, and it all says the same thing. And you have what? some "leak" somewhere? a RobertLindsay special? really? that's all you have? blatant nothingness. please link to it so we can all see what you've got. Seriously. Show us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...