Guest StankApe Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Parn- I have no idea what the actual results are (and Lindsey has shown in the past he will hardly let something like the truth cloud his judgement) But I think that there has to be something here. None of the reports have said "modern human" but you. If there is some difference in the dna from modern humans that has to be a result of some sort (note that i didn't say it proved bigfoot, only with a body to compare the DNA too could you confirm bigfoot). Not to mention ,I find it hard to believe that Ketchum and others would've gone to all this trouble and expense if they knew the samples were either hoaxes or modern human. That path leads to no carrot at all. It would only lead to ridicule and scorn and a bag full of nothing. What's their motivation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 ... So let's say some benefactor has now paid for the DNA slab from the Sierra's (or two slabs depending on whose story you listen too) to be put to the highest possible amplification and sequences.....let's say the whole genome. How long would this take on the basis of the Human Genome project as an example? ... The cost is coming down fast. It looks like it was about $50,000 last year and might be much less now. http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/05/costs-of-dna-sequencing-falling-fast-look-at-these-graphs/ Here is an example of it taking 4 weeks to do the entire genome. I don't know what that means in the real world but they can probably do it faster by the time the genome gets completed assuming it was done. The technology is moving very fast. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/08/human-genome-completed-using-one-machine-for-four-weeks.ars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I think this is an interesting time to pose the question: Do you hope the results come back "modern human" or "ape"? As a University student who has taken genetics courses, I know it's not that black and white. But, if you had to pick one end of the spectrum what would you hope for? Personally, I'd much rather ape. It'd prove the Sasquatch phenomenon much more easily, and this whole conundrum would be one step closer to 'over'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 9, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 9, 2011 The cost is coming down fast. It looks like it was about $50,000 last year and might be much less now. http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/05/costs-of-dna-sequencing-falling-fast-look-at-these-graphs/ Here is an example of it taking 4 weeks to do the entire genome. I don't know what that means in the real world but they can probably do it faster by the time the genome gets completed assuming it was done. The technology is moving very fast. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/08/human-genome-completed-using-one-machine-for-four-weeks.ars Thanks and the link below suggests $5000 for a whole genomic sequence for humans and it may become a personal thing for diagnosis/treatement in a few years http://singularityhub.com/2010/02/22/complete-genomics-secures-new-customers-500-orders-for-whole-genome-sequences/ Some recent headlines in the big boys pressies: http://www.completegenomics.com/news-events/press-releases/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Well don't be like me and miss the Google boat, this appears to be the next big Yahoo for those with spare money during these difficult economic times to invest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I think this is an interesting time to pose the question: Do you hope the results come back "modern human" or "ape"? I would say human, one thing that has always bothered me about BF being an ape is the level of intelligence it would need to do all the things that are claimed it can do, i have never been able to accept the fact that an ape like ( gorilla / chimp ) animal could do such things. Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 (edited) Parn- I have no idea what the actual results are (and Lindsey has shown in the past he will hardly let something like the truth cloud his judgement) But I think that there has to be something here. None of the reports have said "modern human" but you. If there is some difference in the dna from modern humans that has to be a result of some sort (note that i didn't say it proved bigfoot, only with a body to compare the DNA too could you confirm bigfoot). Not to mention ,I find it hard to believe that Ketchum and others would've gone to all this trouble and expense if they knew the samples were either hoaxes or modern human. That path leads to no carrot at all. It would only lead to ridicule and scorn and a bag full of nothing. What's their motivation? Stank Stubstad is the only source of DNA data and he revealed modern human DNA. Paulides is very close to Ketchum and he says human. Ketchum says nothing. Some journal may have rejected it; that wouldn't happen if they had some novel DNA. Nothing seems to be happening. I'm betting on modern human; you may not think so... that is what makes horse races, as they say.... I have said several times that I think Ketchum made a mistake initially, perhaps misled by Stubstad and his "statistics." That doesn't require any hidden agenda or motivation. Sometimes it takes a while to admit to yourself that you went down the wrong path. Or maybe she hasn't yet. I don't have a crystal ball. p. Edited December 9, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 9, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 9, 2011 Yeah, I'm tired of the Sasquatch Militia websites and want to see the Sasquatch Air Force ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Stubstad is the only source of DNA data and he revealed modern human DNA. Paulides is very close to Ketchum and he says human. Ketchum says nothing. Some journal may have rejected it; that wouldn't happen if they had some novel DNA. Nothing seems to be happening. I betting on modern human; that is what makes horse races, as they say.... What about the stated polymoprhisms (wtvr the heck that means I'm a physics guy not a bio guy) being different and at a lesser extent than Chimps but much different than human. From the way i interpreted Stubstad's statement, he wasn't saying it was modern human dna, but rather between chimps and modern humans..... Like I said, if this were about neutrino's I could weigh in as a somewhat higher level civilian expert, but this DNA stuff.... i know very very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I don't think Lindsay is a reliable source for info on polymorphisms, if I remember correctly, that's where that rumor came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I would say human, one thing that has always bothered me about BF being an ape is the level of intelligence it would need to do all the things that are claimed it can do, i have never been able to accept the fact that an ape like ( gorilla / chimp ) animal could do such things. Tim ~ It's not a matter of accepting. It is a documented fact that many of the great apes are extremely intelligent, even sentient. Rather, people (eg Mulder) who believe in credentials over quality, One doesn't obtain credentials w/o being able to produce quality results. How about you address the results and stop ad homing the credentials? But that would mean acutaly addressing the evidence, and it's much easier to bash credentials, isn't it? Meanwhile Science will politely stifle a yawn (maybe indulge in an eyeroll) and go about their business. Of ignoring the matter and abrogating it's duty to seek truth. if she writes it as a positive bigfoot study, I don't think it will be published in any journal that values its scientific reputation. That is not to say that it won't be published somewhere. If the results hold up to review, the journal has an absolute DUTY to publish, regardless of topic. If, as you keep insisting, science is all about the data. Or you could just admit that your precious Science is nowhere near as objective as it pretends to be. if she writes it as a positive bigfoot study, I don't think it will be published in any journal that values its scientific reputation. That is not to say that it won't be published somewhere. If the results hold up to review, the journal has an absolute DUTY to publish, regardless of topic. If, as you keep insisting, science is all about the data. Or you could just admit that your precious Science is nowhere near as objective as it pretends to be. I think what Parn is really trying to say is that he thinks Dr. K isn't smart enough to know what she's dealing with which I suspect is the argument in the holster the skeptics intend to pull out most often when the paper is finally published. I suspect you are correct. He assumes the paper has failed to prove anything other than Dr. K's incompetency in sequencing and identifying DNA. This despite repeated statements that the analyses were done by multiple independent labs with blind sample submission. Which only proves he either hasn't bothered to check his facts or doesn't care. In his defense, he's not basing his assumption on actually knowing Dr. K or seeing the paper. He's basing it on his unshakeable opinion that such a thing as ridiculous as BF could never exist. Any paper suggesting that it does has to be total crap. Which is a defense of nothing, but rather a further indictment vis a vis objectivity and intellectual integrity. This would be good news because it will then take the phenomena away from the warm nurturing environment of the Bigfoot believing community and place it in the realm of cold empirical and objective research by employing the methods of science. Then, we will see what we really have on our hands. May I say (sarcastically) thank you very much for that entirely unwarranted backhand to the face of every proponent on this board and in "the community" at large? We may not have half the alphabet appended to our names, but we are not stupid either. This would be good news because it will then take the phenomena away from the warm nurturing environment of the Bigfoot believing community and place it in the realm of cold empirical and objective research by employing the methods of science. Then, we will see what we really have on our hands. May I say (sarcastically) thank you very much for that entirely unwarranted backhand to the face of every proponent on this board and in "the community" at large? We may not have half the alphabet appended to our names, but we are not stupid either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 I wonder if this thread will best all of the PGF threads in total posts. tee hee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Folks like James Randi know a thing or two about fooling people, Mostly fooling people into believing that he's anything more than a washed-up stage magician with an intellectual axe to grind. and Randi claims that the hypereducated are among the easiest to fool. Dr. Ketchum's susceptibility to a ruse could actually be positively correlated with her intelligence. Careful...referring to a forum member there... hmmm I sense we are drifting into a sea of woo with this feral children stuff. Those gazelle stories (and in fact most all of them) are hoaxes. You put a baby outside and leave it and it will die. Now it is certainly true that in generations and centuries past, "defective" children and young people might run away or even be driven away from their homes or villages, and might live a feral lifestyle by stealing and scavenging, sleeping in barns and abandoned structures. But the idea that animals raise human babies is just so much nonsense; assessments of the capabilities of "feral children" is hardly scientific, as we don't know whether they were normal to start with, and the argument could certainly be made that they weren't. Sensory deprivation stories "closet children" are a completely different issue, and always involve abuse, not to mention nutritional issues. Of course the environment is important. But let's not lose a sense of proportion here. Skeptic Playbook #7: Dismiss and belittle anything that supports the position you reject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 It's not a matter of accepting. It is a documented fact that many of the great apes are extremely intelligent It is a matter of accepting for me, you have to admit some of the claims of what BF can do are pretty far fetched. Running with cars on the highway, talking, avoiding trail cams , etc, it's a lot to accept. Tim~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Sometimes it takes a while to admit to yourself that you went down the wrong path. You realize this may be your petard that does you in, right? (Where's the Shakespeare emoticon?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts