The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

If we ever see the paper how many of you are going to understand what you are reading to know whether it's sound science or not?

Very few that's certain...ERGO>>>PEER REVIEW.

I posted (#11117) just a sample of the type of questions that this study will have to address...and as you can see, they are rather complex. I would hazard to guess.....not well understood by 99% of people here.

[Guest]

If we ever see the paper how many of you are going to understand what you are reading to know whether it's sound science or not?

I will, and reading between the lines, a handful of other posters on here will also be eager to get their grubby mitts on the data...

[Guest]

I think by nature scientists are VERY cautious beings, rather make the safe call than make waves, it don't surprise me none if none of them wants to touch her paper with a ten foot pole.

By nature, scientists are very human beings, and subject to all the intellectual blindness and prejudice of human beings. The institution of Science is thus also subject to those things, being the creation of scientists.

Before the usual suspects jump in with more inaccurate claims that I am "anti-science" please go back and read the previous two sentences again, taking note of the words I emphasized. I am not denigrating science as a concept, nor am I disparaging scientific methodology where it is properly deployed. I am simply pointing out that flawed people often fail to live up to that which they claim to uphold, as do the institutions they build.

[Guest]

99% of us are not. Which baffles me to why some posters here are so certain that MK is has nothing, when they, themselves, couldn't decipher the results if it hit them in the face.

I agree....But with that, it baffles me that the 99% seems to keep battling this semantical debate armed with Wiki, and Google knowledge to state their points on either side. It's comedy seeing carpenters, cops, small business owners, etc, arguing DNA, and Anthropolgy.

(And this wasn't directed towards you, therm)

Edited December 8, 2012 by PacNWSquatcher

[Guest]

You can't be serious ? Science isn't like Congress. There are no lobbying groups that pressure certain outcomes. Look at the huge majority of scientists that agree we are experiencing climate change. None of them are pressured by the carbon fossil fuels industry. NONE OF THEM.

No, they're pressured by the "environmentalist" lobby that considers Man to be the source of all the world's ills.

Just like FDA scientists are pressured to sign off on new drug studies by big pharmaceutical companies wanting to make a profit off of drugs of questionable effect and safety.

Just like Egyptologists are pressured by the Egyptian government (in the form of Zahi Hawass) not to ask uncomfortable questions about the age of Egyptian civilization.

That's just naming TWO areas where pressure groups seek to shape what is supposed to be an objective process to suit non-scientific purposes.

I could name other areas easily if it weren't for the rules of this sub-forum.

As I said above, Science (as an institution) is the flawed creation of fallible men (and women), not an almighty paragon of absolute objective truth.

Science has become political as anything else today, all you have to do is take a look at Global Warming and how much politics has creeped into it, science should be apolitical but sadly its not anymore.

Political being broadly defined as being subject to outside influence from multiple sources.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest thermalman]

I agree....But with that, it baffles me that the 99% seems to keep battling this semantical debate armed with Wiki, and Google knowledge to state their points on either side. It's comedy seeing carpenters, cops, small business owners, etc, arguing DNA, and Anthropolgy.

(And this wasn't directed towards you, therm)

No problem, I understand.

[gigantor]

It's comedy seeing carpenters, cops, small business owners, etc, arguing DNA, and Anthropolgy.

It's not rocket science either. The outline of the procedure is quite clear, it's a process of elimination. There may be difficulty by the nature of the data being a statistical comparison, but we don't need to understand the fine details of the genome to comprehend the process.

It would be helpful if a general overview of the study were released.

Edited December 8, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest]

DNA is DNA but there is a world of difference in how you look at it.

CT, either DNA science is accurate and valid, or it isn't. There isn't a special "science of billy goat DNA", "science of cat DNA", etc. It's all the same genetic science, conducted in the same ways.

Science (the institution) has no trouble at all accepting DNA results when discussing billy goats, or cats (or people). Neither do courts, who use it to sentence people to death on the basis of it. If DNA science were so unreliable, we would not do that.

To suddenly turn around and start looking for flaws in DNA science when it may be telling us there's a previously undocumented higher primate/hominid running around out there is massive special pleading.

But it makes a world of difference when you are looking at A,C, T, and G in determining what it is the DNA says.

Nope. You look at it, compare it to known samples, and it either matches or it doesn't. The basic process isn't all that difficult to understand

[Guest slimwitless]

I agree....But with that, it baffles me that the 99% seems to keep battling this semantical debate armed with Wiki, and Google knowledge to state their points on either side. It's comedy seeing carpenters, cops, small business owners, etc, arguing DNA, and Anthropolgy.

(And this wasn't directed towards you, therm)

To be fair, I see a lot more people asking questions than pretending to know the details. I've learned a lot about genetics and anthropology since I started following this but there's no way I can become an expert (I have my own field to stay on top of). If I were though, maybe I'd be at JREF cracking jokes about angel dna. Perhaps a little naivete is a good thing.

Also, I'm not too sure how well this "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" thing is going to work for Dr. Ketchum. I hope she succeeds but I recognize there's a good chance it's not going to happen. That said, if she pulls this off after all that's transpired, it will be the kind of revenge on a scale one typically associates with Quentin Tarantino films.

Sorry...movie night.

Edited December 8, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest]

^I don't know the details either. If you sat me down in a lab and said "Sequence this DNA" I wouldn't begin to know how to do it.

That doesn't mean I can't be reasonably well-informed on what the general process of DNA sequencing and comparison entails.

[gigantor]

It's a basic procedure, not the actual sequencing, but the study.

You have 100+ samples of claimed BF material, what are you gonna do with it?

First, make sure it's all BF (i.e. very similar). So you compare them all, set aside the ones that are not similar.

Then, it's just a process of elimination. compare the similar BF samples to modern human DNA, if they differ sufficiently, continue. Otherwise, you got human samples.

Then compare it to other primate DNA, if they differ sufficiently, you may have something.

The experts determine whether the samples differ sufficiently, that is what should be under peer review. We don't need to understand how they differ or any of the details. A summary statement by Dr Ketchum outlining the study in general terms would go a long way and not run afoul of any peer review requirements.

[gigantor]

Maybe she is reaching too far. Instead of just showing that she has samples that are not modern human and not of known primates, she might be trying to divine what the animal is, stretching the evidence prematurely to reach a conclusion.

All she needs to do is show that samples exist of a not modern human and of a not known primate and leave it at that.

She would eventually be credited for "discovering" BF, but I fear that is not enough for her, she may be trying to prove BF is a "forest person" or whatever and that's the problem.

Edited December 8, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest]

Maybe she is reaching too far. Instead of just showing that she has samples that are not modern human and not of known primates, she might be trying to divine what the animal is, stretching the evidence prematurely to reach a conclusion.

All she needs to do is show that there samples exist of a) not modern human and not known primates and leave it at that.

Yes sir! Couldn't agree more.

[Guest gershake]

Jan Allen Renda Allen:

"Melba.... If they by chance kick it out and i really pray they don't.. Will you still make the study known to us?."

https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/107116102791055?comment_id=20659&offset=0&total_comments=37

Melba Ketchum:

"Yes."

https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/107116102791055?comment_id=20675&offset=0&total_comments=37

[Guest]

Maybe she is reaching too far. Instead of just showing that she has samples that are not modern human and not of known primates, she might be trying to divine what the animal is, stretching the evidence prematurely to reach a conclusion.

All she needs to do is show that samples exist of a not modern human and of a not known primate and leave it at that.

She would eventually be credited for "discovering" BF, but I fear that is not enough for her, she may be trying to prove BF is a "forest person" or whatever and that's the problem.

Several people have been saying that for a couple of weeks now, myself included.