Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Here's a link to some Israeli scientists the figured out how to fake DNA evidence. This was a few years ago, so who knows what they can achieve now. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132965#.ULMlUeXCsRI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlueFunk96 Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Hold on a minute... If bigfoot is eight foot tall, hairy and not terribly handsome (it has to be said) then what on earth did its Daddy look like? I mean, lets suppose Bigfoot really is the the result of a human cross. That hybridization probably made it smaller and less hairy. Somehow I can't see a fifteen foot tall Cousin IT being popular with the ladies. Not necessarily. For instance, a Liger, which is a hybridization of a lion and a tiger, is actually substantially bigger than either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest teria Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Where is this "angel DNA" coming from? Apparently Robert Lindsey mentioned it and the skeptics have picked that up and thrown it in their talking points of why this is a farce. I do agree if Ketchum ever tried suggesting such an DNA existed it would be problematic in terms legitimacy but I have yet to see where this "angel DNA" was born from. You would need to look in the Bible, and such discussions are not allowed here--for obvious reasons. I'm sure discussions can get very heated about the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 The skeptics seem to believe all they need to do is throw crap at the wall to see what sticks. They have an advantage in that they are backed by Science (the institution), which has managed to appoint itself God-King of Truth in the public eye. Not at this point. Expressed traits are only part of what's contained in DNA. Even with access to an extensive population for comparison it would be impossible - it's impossible on humans. An example would be that your height couldn't be predicted by your DNA and probably never will be due to enviornmental factors. Certain unique traits like albinism or polydactyly could probably be predicted if we had access to a sizeable sample with known examples but how likely is that? We can or are near to being able to detect certain disease susceptibility genes (cancer, sickle-cell, etc), but only a few. A lot of the "sceptics" that are participating in the Ketchum thread are starting to become trolls. "Starting to become"? Here's a link to some Israeli scientists the figured out how to fake DNA evidence. This was a few years ago, so who knows what they can achieve now. http://www.israelnat...65#.ULMlUeXCsRI And there's the Skeptical "trapdoor"/escape hatch even if the Study turns in a perfect scientific result. Skeptic Rule of Psuedo-argumentation #2: If it can be "faked", it MUST be "faked" until proven NOT "faked". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Here's the embargoed article referenced by Bill: Doesn't look like the Ketchum report to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) The time of speculation is over. Iam very hopeful that the paper publishes 2012. When I get it, I already secured a DNA expert to check on the results. The whole DNA topic is just to far off to speculate in a layman manner. Fake DNA can be identified, and real DNA is proof of a living creature (extinct maybe). Thats it. If they found three different (individual mutations) it makes it a tribe/species etc. as a single mutation is proven wrong. Than you can date the samples, to see how old they are. If the DNA is legit I cant see any loose ends here. Edited November 26, 2012 by Data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Flag on the field. I think we all are getting ahead of ourselves before asking why? Why did Melba and now Paulides respond to Igor leaking? Lindsay had the Stubstad leak months ago and was dismissed as bs. Justin was under Nda and leaked. Bobo just leaked on Conan. There have been other leaks dismissed in the past. Why did she chose this one to give in and spill the beans, without publication?! More likely response to the past record would be prosecute Igor for violating Nda. Either she knows it will never pass peer review and can save face by saying Igor leaked it and she HAS to weigh in or it is about to publish in a non peer reviewed source. More importantly, the folks under NDA may be able to come forward regardless if this mess publishes or not. Erickson, Sierra kill, etc may see light of day instead of being supressed by these nda's. That will be the news if they are as claimed. Why now without a published paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 26, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted November 26, 2012 You would need to look in the Bible, and such discussions are not allowed here--for obvious reasons. I'm sure discussions can get very heated about the subject. They are allowed in the pay area of the forum PMP and are ongoing and insightful, $20 a year and you have almost met the post criterion of 75. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) Let us as a theoretical exercise look at "salvage" operations. Can holders of the results take those results to someone else (Sykes, for example) for analysis and reformulate a proper paper from the data from there? She may have good data but have written a paper making inappropriate claims ABOUT the data. Edited November 26, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Flag on the field. I think we all are getting ahead of ourselves before asking why? Why did Melba and now Paulides respond to Igor leaking? Lindsay had the Stubstad leak months ago and was dismissed as bs. Justin was under Nda and leaked. Bobo just leaked on Conan. There have been other leaks dismissed in the past. Why did she chose this one to give in and spill the beans, without publication?! More likely response to the past record would be prosecute Igor for violating Nda. Either she knows it will never pass peer review and can save face by saying Igor leaked it and she HAS to weigh in or it is about to publish in a non peer reviewed source. More importantly, the folks under NDA may be able to come forward regardless if this mess publishes or not. Erickson, Sierra kill, etc may see light of day instead of being supressed by these nda's. That will be the news if they are as claimed. Why now without a published paper? To me it looks like, what is indicated, a missunderstanding. It seems that Burtsev loosely interpreted/translated, the Press Release that Dr. K afterwards published herself. It is very likely that this was released to Burtsev as to the media as embargoed prerelease notice, and Burtsev took it as the public release, "rereleasing" it right away on his blog. This would mean that the paper is really very soon to be released and could be reason that Dr. K herself broke (maybe after checking with the journal) the story to the public. On some reprints of Dr. Ks release on the web as well as on the release on her homepage. There is the indicative last paragraph that states: "Dr. Ketchum is available for interview or to answer further questions about the Sasquatch genome study and associated research on novel contemporary hominins at media@dnadiagnostics.com" Thats exaclty what would be in a prerelease note for an embargoed article/report/ etc. As we learned the last year Dr. K wasnt like talking until this. And now she is open for interviews on it? Thats not just a midtime high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 It seems that Burtsev loosely interpreted/translated, the Press Release that Dr. K afterwards published herself. It is very likely that this was released to Burtsev as to the media as embargoed prerelease notice, and Burtsev took it as the public release, "rereleasing" it right away on his blog. Your words into G*d's ears... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Right Data. Why has the light switch been flipped from total silence as of late to now open for interviews? Other possibility could be the 'journal' or source has looser restrictions than 'Nature' 'Science' or other top tier journals. Yet another reason may be she knows Sykes will hit on his study soon and has to salvage something out of her efforts before he releases his findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Then again, if this was an embargo pre-release notice, why would it state that the paper is still in peer review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Then again, if this was an embargo pre-release notice, why would it state that the paper is still in peer review? Good point. As you can see, it is just a pasted in sentence. They call it "upcoming" on the other hand. Maybe the journal told her to or she wanted to stay on the safe side. Remember this was uped at a time, it might be difficult to reach all the people to check back on all necessary. Whats much more interessting to me is that the Burtsev release seems to be a adopted version from the prerelease notice. Burtsevs post is to close to the Dr. K release to be just some random spilling the beans, and there are several aspects he could have come up with. But no he to just released a "Teaser". For me its obvious that Burtsevs post is based on Dr. Ks release. Meant to generate publicity. Now why should anyone get the prerelease notice, if its not the time for it? Burtsev surley has much more insight than this. Also remember that Dr. K wrote that its not Burtsevs fault. This too implies that he not out of nowhere put it up, but was "motivated"/lead to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Well, my understanding is that "modern" Homo sapiens sapiens as a whole have the Neanderthal DNA, technically making modern HSS himself a hybrid of a HSS precursor and neanderthal. If that is incorrect, I'd appreciate a link or two. Mostly correct, however Africans are the exception in that they show no Neanderthal DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts