Guest gershake Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 it is, and one used by many reputable people. . So you know which journal it is, but you cannot say which one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I can't be sure. But I might be getting excited about all of this.. ^^^^ If it doesn't go away by morning, call your doctor. Edited November 28, 2012 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) It is the most efficient and logical method to ensure phenotypical conformity. Same features built from the same "blueprint". It is not more efficient to create genes De novo than it is to repurpose what's already there. Epigenetics and microRna give a lot of flexibility to the already existing blueprint. Edited November 28, 2012 by HODS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icicle Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Again, based on what I was told, she has the DNA to document a new critter, but is way over-reaching and/or off-base on her statements about what the critter IS. The end product is a paper that (as has been said by several people) is akin to trying to pound a square peg into a round hole, which is why it was in "review hell" for so long. I don't want anyone to mistake this for a personal attack, but there are certain clues in Ketchum's appearance that while she knows what she is doing in most respects, she has a tendency to overreach as she does it. The accurate yet not blended enough eyeshadow - and the lipliner going way way waaay over what is justified. Technique correct, scope not so much, determination nevertheless impressive. It is going to be an interesting paper, and first, but I think Sykes' will be more on the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I don't want anyone to mistake this for a personal attack, but there are certain clues in Ketchum's appearance that while she knows what she is doing in most respects, she has a tendency to overreach as she does it. The accurate yet not blended enough eyeshadow - and the lipliner going way way waaay over what is justified. Technique correct, scope not so much, determination nevertheless impressive. It is going to be an interesting paper, and first, but I think Sykes' will be more on the money. I am coming to you from now on, man. Resource. "He may have a body. But would you bet on it? Look at that mascara he's wearing..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 ^^^^ If it doesn't go away by morning, call your doctor. LOL I don't want anyone to mistake this for a personal attack, but there are certain clues in Ketchum's appearance that while she knows what she is doing in most respects, she has a tendency to overreach as she does it. The accurate yet not blended enough eyeshadow - and the lipliner going way way waaay over what is justified. Technique correct, scope not so much, determination nevertheless impressive. It is going to be an interesting paper, and first, but I think Sykes' will be more on the money. She might be too busy um...working to worry about what you think about her appearance. : ) Sorry but the analogy does not work for me, it sounds like what this culture likes to do to women in the public eye to discredit them, there is not one woman who has been exempt from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Does anyone have a better link for this video of Dr Ketchum on a Houston News programme? This link is from the Crypto Crew blog but audio is terrible on this verson. http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2012/11/dr-melba-ketchum-on-news.html?m=1 Another excellent observation Violet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 ; D I think the one posted a couple pgs back is good http://www.click2houston.com/news/Does-Bigfoot-have-human-DNA/-/1735978/17568802/-/5pkab/-/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Cheers my dear. This topic moves too fast for me sometimes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Icicle...really?? This isn't the 1950's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 The Jets losing a playoff game? You'll have to be more specific (Dolphins fan- no room to talk, but I can't in good conscience pass up a chance to s-talk the Jets) Don't remember which year exactly...want to say it was within the last 5-6 years. It was one of the playoff games in the run up to the Superbowl. 4th and short with the Jets within ~30 yards of the goaline and plenty of time on the clock. Parcelles called for the punt, which gave the other team the ball, and they proceeded to fritter away the clock. I was watching the game with a friend and we both wanted to put a boot through the TV (or up Parcelles' butt) for being so stupid. As for trash-talking the Jets...at least they MAKE the playoffs...who do you think they are? The Seahawks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 So you know which journal it is, but you cannot say which one? i don't know witch one, just that it's well known Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Note that at 1:54 she discusses Dr. Burstev, and mentions that they are working with him on samples he submitted for a SUBSEQUENT STUDY, which means he may not be involved in this study as suspected. This would indeed be great news. A few things occurred to me this morning. Either: 1) The paper really is in immanent release, which means it must have passed peer review. I would assume the lag between PASSING peer review and actual publication is more than a week or two 2) They were rejected from the journals they'd been working with for so long, which had the strict prohibitions against pre-press interviews and information and now are with a less stringent journal. Otherwise it's hard to square the idea that they are able to give so much press at this point. I'm really hoping for 1 of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 ScienceCritic, on 27 November 2012 - 09:58 PM, said: and there positive results are??? They published their research and it was accepted as sound although some question the genetic implications for actual interbreeding of Neandertal /Cro magnon. But for the most part, they all either established a new species or established their relationship to HSS through genetic research. The genetic research continues on the hobbit, but it's thought to be a new species of homo at this point. Very impressive, CTfoot, my hat is off to them, I love that type of work..... But, that misses my point... What were their results when sequencing purported Sasquatch DNA? "Contaminated, end of study.." It seems that The Talking Points for the academic scientific community, is still the archaic "contaminated end of study". BTW, what would their findings have been, IF they had received the same set of samples that Ketchum got... Does Contaminated, end of study, ring a bell? Sooooo, IMHO, how would they have been better choices? Nuff Said SC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 So it is said by the great skeptical scientist. I hope that sinks in around here. You've switched arguments from "she isn't qualified to interpret human DNA" to "she isn't qualified to ID new uncatalogued species DNA" . Truth is she's done alot of work on both human and animal DNA, been involved with genome studies, identified criminals, 911 victums, animal and human paternity, etc etc etc. The fact you wouldn't choose her to do this study is irrelavant. What I said is there is a distinct difference between forensics and interpreting new sequences of DNA. If you would like to debate that point with one of the experts I listed above who have done it successfully and published feel free to do so since I'm sure your opinion is just as irrelevant as mine . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts