bipedalist Posted December 25, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 25, 2012 ....Eventually they'll have to throw down, though the lure of just dragging the process out and forcing Ketchum to withdraw the study and so (in their minds) absolve them of any culpability might now be in play. Maybe so, either way, if a peer-reviewed journal doesn't publish it and it comes out in monograph or other scientific form on=line then there WILL be peer-review and critics judging it's scientific merit either way. You pick which or who among them is being professional I suppose. The paper will either have the goods or it won't...... science or sham-science. That is assuming there will be a paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 I just found this while researching a reply in another thread. From the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on the acceptiblitity of DNA as a "type specimen": So, the hair, or skin sample or whatever IS a valid "type specimen" with DNA sequencing. So much for that issue. CheckMate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 So, the hair, or skin sample or whatever IS a valid "type specimen" with DNA sequencing. So much for that issue. Unless all she has is modern human DNA that's "novel" only because isn't in GenBank. Saying that the sample came from BF and BF is human won't work. This is where the nDNA that she says is not modern human is critical. She's got to show that it isn't just degraded modern human DNA. If that holds up to scrutiny then she's got something. I hope that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) That's why it's up for peer review. I don't think she'd present anything but the real deal. Edited December 25, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Not even close to being the same. Proponents have scientifically analyzable evidence that conforms to known biological norms for distirbution pattern (in the case of tracks), has been analyzed to have come from a to-date unknown primate (forensically typed hairs), and so forth. Skeptics keeps sputtering on about "infallible", "objective", etc Science, when Science is none of that, a fact that has been demonstrated. Not only is it argument ad authority, it is entirely unearned and invalid authority. Science ought to be objective, true. I, a skeptic, have never suggested science is "infallible," and I have not seen any skeptical comments that suggest it is. Are you setting up a "straw man," Mulder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 The Ketchum report is a joke. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF94REQrzQ0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Oh really, so where can I see these 100 samples and the film of that one being taken? Oh wait, that's right it's not available, just a bunch of talk, no evidence brought forth what so ever. Lacking! What would it do to show you the samples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Maybe so, either way, if a peer-reviewed journal doesn't publish it and it comes out in monograph or other scientific form on=line then there WILL be peer-review and critics judging it's scientific merit either way. You pick which or who among them is being professional I suppose. The paper will either have the goods or it won't...... science or sham-science. That is assuming there will be a paper. IF the paper is ultimately rejected, I want to see exactly what the reviewer objections are and who they are so we can know if it is bad science or biased reviewers behind such a rejection. CheckMate Pretty much. The Ketchum report is a joke. *snip media per forum rule* And Disotell's authority to make such a pronouncement is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) Norse, That was good stuff thanks for posting it. So is it correct that not only is Dr.K claiming Bigfoot, but also another unknown that breed with modern humans to produce Bigfoot? Edited December 26, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 ^And? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 And what is the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Unless all she has is modern human DNA that's "novel" only because isn't in GenBank. Saying that the sample came from BF and BF is human won't work. This is where the nDNA that she says is not modern human is critical. She's got to show that it isn't just degraded modern human DNA. If that holds up to scrutiny then she's got something. I hope that's the case. You will want to see the "alignment scores" on the Novel DNA. Not in Genbank, is just a starting point. Degradation wouldn't likely occur on just the male lineage. Recombination vs contamination would get sorted out with enough study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 The Ketchum report is a joke. Is there a point to speed forward to for a salient argument or do I have to wade through 2 hours to see what you are talking about? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 You'll learn more than 2hrs of Dr. K that's for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Best case scenario: Ketchum paper is published in a reputable journal after passing peer review. Lesser case: She publishes it herself. Millions will read it and spread the word, eventho very few of us can actually verify the science of it. Either way, it will be ridiculed; that's the kneejerk way. If only 10% of the scientists who are qualified to understand her findings have open minds, there will be an undercurrent of approval for the discovery. Since I think Bf exists, I assume Dr. Sykes will find the same thing that Ketchum did. As a best-selling author with a great reputation in academia, he will have no problem getting published. The Russians will say, "We found Sasquatch first, and we told you so!" The undercurrent of accepting Bigfoot will swell dramatically. Younger scientists will want to join in the ongoing discovery. I believe all this will happen in 2013. There is absolutely No Good Reason to shoot Bigfoot!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts