Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Mulder, I just give up, you simply don't understand the physiology well enough to understand what the research I linked means, and that's fine. Stop trying to pretend Genetics is all complex. You can read about it on the Internet ya know. Duh!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Stop trying to pretend Genetics is all complex. You can read about it on the Internet ya know. Duh!! Dude... wanna splain genetics and DNA sequencing to us? It's WAYYY OUT...THERE but I'm all ears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) I'm contesting the Ketcham study. You can't contest the data of something that has not been published. Edited December 9, 2012 by crabshack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 T hold up to the scrutiny of scientific querry and peer review (AKA...meets the standard of SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY), Oh really? http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/ http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/sep/09/peer-review-highly-sensitive-to-poor-refereeing-claim-researchers http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303627104576411850666582080.html http://www.infotoday.com/it/apr03/peek.shtml http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us-Scientists-relationship-consultants/dp/B005DI6QAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Oh really? http://michaelnielse...ic-peer-review/ http://physicsworld....aim-researchers http://online.wsj.co...0666582080.html http://www.infotoday...pr03/peek.shtml http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/B005DI6QAM Come on .... just a barrage of stuff .. you don't get it do you? You can't have have a study verified without peer review... are you saying peer review is meaningless? If this study doesn't pass the PEER REVIEW..it's going >> NO WHERE. Your opinion here means ZIP. Edited December 9, 2012 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 that's your best rebuttal to date, against the study Which means the study has little to worry about from his quarter... Just to clear the air.. the REAL problem with all this is>> There was NO OTHER creature OTHER than MAN 15K years ago. Proof? By that we mean....no other HOMINID ..no other UNKNOWN species capable of mating with a human and producing FERTILE offspring. The only OTHER demonstrable hominid capable of this vanished 30K years ago>>>NEANDER. Proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Which means the study has little to worry about from his quarter... Do I see>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 I hope this doesn't sound too condescending>>> trust me on this one. We know to a CERTAINTY that modern man has lived with NO OTHERS for almost 30,000 years! Proof? (other than this *hobbit thing* isolated in Indonesia and the jury is still out...but it was *gone* over 15k years ago.. Not according to the discoverers, who place it as recently as 12,000 years ago. people here try and use this as a counter argument>>FAIL). YES...30,000 years!!! There is ZERO..ZIP...NADA..evidence of ANYTHING co-existing with humans since then..let alone >>> Wrong. See "hobbit". Come on .... just a barrage of stuff .. It's called refuting your claim...not my fault if it upsets you. you don't get it do you? I "get it" just fine. Your almighty, sacred, never-to-be-questioned peer review process, like any designed by man, is flawed, imperfect, and subject to fraud, politics, and bias. It is NOT an objective evaluation of truth or falsity, as the scientists and science writers whose articles I linked to admit. The Peer Review emperor has no clothes. You can't have have a study verified without peer review...are you saying peer review is meaningless? I'm saying it's not the infallible standard of intellectual righteousness that you claim it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Proof? Not according to the discoverers, who place it as recently as 12,000 years ago. Wrong. See "hobbit". Fellas.. I wish ya'all well..really. we all love the squatch...we all think he's walks as we speak...I do BUT one thing Squatch doesn't need is Ketcham and her fairy tale. I'm outta here for now. Adios Amigos..at least for now. Edited December 9, 2012 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Do I see>> *image omitted to conform with rules* Nope. Just returning your sentiments in like kind. You haven't posted a single shred of evidence that there either is no study at all, or that it will be worthless. You keep using the words "trust me". I don't. You've utterly shirked your duty to back your claims with evidence, engaged in a veritable raft of logical fallacies, and generally illustrated the difference between a legitimately skeptical thought process and it's Skeptical counterpart. If Ketchum's study results came out that all 100-odd samples were from known animals or contaminated., Skeptics would not so much as blink an eye and would accept her professionalism and competence without a single complaint. Because she claims to have found reliable proof of an UNknown animal, Skeptics have done nothing BUT complain to the effect that she is either unprofessional or incompetent or fraudulent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 "she claims to have found reliable proof of an UNknown animal Shucks...I was gonna sign off I'll leave you with that then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Alright. So where are we on the report? Is it going through a peer study as we speak or is it in limbo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Alright. So where are we on the report? Is it going through a peer study as we speak or is it in limbo? 1. On Thursday (December 6) Robin Lynne said: [a] "In regards to what is being said . The only thing that happened with the paper was at one time it was sent back rejected pending revisions. They didnt even read it all. this is a long paper 50 pages. This is what Igor is referring to The REVISIONS HAVE BEEN DONE AND THE JOURNAL HAS THEM NOW. They are now reading the paper. I have read the paper myself it is very indepth. and long. Extremely scientific. This is why it is talking so long. This is what Igor is referring to. In Russia they very much believe in the forest people . That is why it is also in review there. It is being reviewed in the U.S. as well as Russia. The large amount of information takes alot of time to be though. Also this is a topic never been done before. All this adds up to taking alot longer to approve." http://bigfootforums...830#entry664692 And: "We feel confident that this whole situation will be resolved very soon. Possibly the end of the month. Due to holidays it might not be until the first week in January. With all the problems this is causing if it isnt done by then , we will consider other options. HOWEVER THE PAPER ISNT REJECTED ONLY WAS ASKED FOR REVISIONS!" http://bigfootforums...860#entry664734 2. On Friday evening (December 7) Melba Ketchum said: I really appreciate all of the support. Let the hecklers have their day, who cares. Our science is overkilled beyond reason. After all they accepted a new species of monkey (below) with less than 6.8 kilobases of sequence. Our mito alone is 16.5 Kb on the samples. Our nuclear is 3 genomes from three individuals and is 3 Terabytes of data and billions of bases plus a lot of other testing and disciplines. We also used blind studies. I don't care what anyone says, we have this nailed and it will come out. The journal just has to have the guts to go where no journal has gone before. I personally believe that they will do it. http://bigfootforums...070#entry665485 Edited December 9, 2012 by Oak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 "she claims to have found reliable proof of an UNknown animal Shucks...I was gonna sign off I'll leave you with that then... Yeah I'm totally confused myself. I'm still waiting for proof of some other claims thrown around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Latest on Robert Lindsays blog; Very interesting and seemingly informed read Edited December 9, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts