Guest OntarioSquatch Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Last I heard, she doesn't know the date. Only the science journal would know that info. And that's only if it's ready to be published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) If you're that cuious, maybe you should read up on the subject. Here's a good start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis Another unproven hypothesis taught as truth to students, with no evidence whatsoever to back the teachings. Dead Is dead. Life from nothing is impossible which = nothing! Inorganic a. 1. Not organic; without the organs necessary for life; devoid of an organized structure; unorganized; lifeness; inanimate. 2. (Chem.) Of or pertaining to compounds that are not derivatives of hydrocarbons; not organic{5}. Inorganic Chemistry See under Chemistry. Thesaurus adj. 1 inorganic - relating or belonging to the class of compounds not having a carbon basis; "hydrochloric and sulfuric acids are called inorganic substances" Chemestry, Chemical resources, Chemical sciences, Chemicist, chemistries, chemistry, Chemitry, Colloid Chemistry, normal values, chemical science - the science of matter; the branch of the natural sciences dealing with the composition of substances and their properties and reactions organic, Organic acids, organic arsenic, Organic component, Organic components, organic fluoride, organic mental disorder, organic mood syndrome, Organic part, Organic parts, organic personality syndrome, organicity, Organics, Organtic - relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis; "hydrocarbons are organic compounds" 2 inorganic - lacking the properties characteristic of living organisms organic, Organic acids, organic arsenic, Organic component, Organic components, organic fluoride, organic mental disorder, organic mood syndrome, Organic part, Organic parts, organic personality syndrome, organicity, Organics, Organtic - being or relating to or derived from or having properties characteristic of living organisms; "organic life"; "organic growth"; "organic remains found in rock" Now back to the subject on hand. Ketchum's report will come out once the peer review is done. There is no time limit and we'll have to wait as long as it takes. What's another month after the first 46 year wait? Edited January 31, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Ketchum's report has problems...PROVENANCE is at the top of my list. Then of course, you have Justin's *Poision Pill* sample...but the former is much more problematic in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Why would I? I didn't say peer review is crap; in fact I made the case for it. I said that peer review is an irrelevant concept when the people who would supposedly be doing such review dismiss the topic out of hand. I guess I really misunderstood your post/stance in that case. This is a very under-appreciated point: All scientific knowledge is anecdotal evidence, backed by advanced degrees. You been to the sun? How do you know it isn't a heat lamp on loan from the Ceti IV system? Easy. Someone told you what the sun is, and you bought that. I thought you were addressing what you saw as a flaw in the 'scientific method'. What I see quite a bit is folks understandably wanting 'science' to take a more serious interest in their favourite subject. When this doesn't happen it tends to breed (in some cases) a mistrust, suspicion or something bordering on contempt for the 'scientific method'. Then you end up with a conundrum - 'Can't trust science or expert opinion unless it's telling me what I want to hear'. Apologies for the delayed reply - the main forum showed you had posted a reply, but that reply would not show in the thread until much later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Ketchum's report has problems...PROVENANCE is at the top of my list. Then of course, you have Justin's *Poision Pill* sample...but the former is much more problematic in my mind. Gonna have to repeat myself it seems: res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"). Unidentified primate DNA is unidentified primate DNA, regardless of "provenance". It can only come from an unknown primate. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I just posted this on the Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample thread as there was mention there that Dr. Ketchum was remaining silent since the release of the DNA results from the other lab in that topic. I feel it should be posted here as well as this thread is the relevant one for the link below. Dr. Ketchum was on WGN radio last Tuesday. The podcast is linked below and her part starts early on (sorry I don't have the exact time, I am at work and cannot replay the podcast now). Nothing new, but she is still making the same claims and is hopeful for a release in "weeks". http://soundcloud.com/jonathon-brandmeier-show/tuesday-01-29-13-full-podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Ketchum's report has problems...PROVENANCE is at the top of my list. Then of course, you have Justin's *Poision Pill* sample...but the former is much more problematic in my mind. It's not the report that has problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I thought you were addressing what you saw as a flaw in the 'scientific method'. What I see quite a bit is folks understandably wanting 'science' to take a more serious interest in their favourite subject. When this doesn't happen it tends to breed (in some cases) a mistrust, suspicion or something bordering on contempt for the 'scientific method'. Then you end up with a conundrum - 'Can't trust science or expert opinion unless it's telling me what I want to hear'. Apologies for the delayed reply - the main forum showed you had posted a reply, but that reply would not show in the thread until much later. My problem in this case is that the scientific method has not even been applied, except by a few people. Those people are making a compelling case, that is being so roundly ignored that a physicist at Jeff Meldrum's university could publicly call for his tenure. (Fortunately, his boss understood what science is about.) Excuse me? Why should I take the word of a physicist on primatological research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) I just posted this on the Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample thread as there was mention there that Dr. Ketchum was remaining silent since the release of the DNA results from the other lab in that topic. I feel it should be posted here as well as this thread is the relevant one for the link below. Dr. Ketchum was on WGN radio last Tuesday. The podcast is linked below and her part starts early on (sorry I don't have the exact time, I am at work and cannot replay the podcast now). Nothing new, but she is still making the same claims and is hopeful for a release in "weeks". http://soundcloud.com/jonathon-brandmeier-show/tuesday-01-29-13-full-podcast Wow. That was hard to listen to. I feel sorry for her. They openly mocked her throughout and showed her no respect so that they could do their little gag. This is how the media has always treated this subject. They viciously mock it. It's no wonder that people tend to keep the sightings to themselves. She showed tremendous patience. I would've hung up after the question about why they don't live in houses. There was a hint of despair in her voice as well when she said that she "hoped" the study would be out in a few weeks. I no longer think that a paper will help. We're going to need a body to go on the talk show rounds. The reveal has to be the modern equivalent of King Kong. We'll put them in a cage to go on the Jay Leno show and they'll have Melba there as the girl. That's what the openly mocking mainstream media wants. Edited January 31, 2013 by Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I don't listen to that radio program (a co-worker told me about it as he knows of my interest in the subject), but I believe that the point of the show is foolish comedy and the like and they wanted to make fun of the recordings they had, but Dr. Ketchum wouldn't comment. As mentioned, I agree that she handled herself well and sounded confident about her data. Oh well, all we can do is wait, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 An interesting note about the recent radio program. Dr. Ketchum says the three nuDNA whole genomes align in the same places and are extremely mutated humans. Alignment across several samples is the killer of the "contamination" and or "degradation" theories. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 So how long are you guys willing to wait for the paper? If it isn't announced today or tomorrow, I'll presume it won't come out in a major American/Western Journal. It may come out elsewhere, or released as a white paper, but I won't waste mental energy wondering what is going on with it. I can IMAGINE that it still has a possibility to pass peer review, but I think that possibility will be very, very slim. In other words, no paper today or tomorrow-stick a fork in it! GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) Wow. That was hard to listen to. I feel sorry for her. They openly mocked her throughout and showed her no respect so that they could do their little gag. This is how the media has always treated this subject. They viciously mock it. It's no wonder that people tend to keep the sightings to themselves. She showed tremendous patience. I would've hung up after the question about why they don't live in houses. There was a hint of despair in her voice as well when she said that she "hoped" the study would be out in a few weeks. I no longer think that a paper will help. We're going to need a body to go on the talk show rounds. The reveal has to be the modern equivalent of King Kong. We'll put them in a cage to go on the Jay Leno show and they'll have Melba there as the girl. That's what the openly mocking mainstream media wants. The Penn and Teller School of Comedic Research. All I hear from skeptics is: what ridicule? What ignorance of evidence? What dismissal? With observational skills like that, no wonder they don't know what's going on! Edited January 31, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 If it isn't announced today or tomorrow, I'll presume it won't come out in a major American/Western Journal. It may come out elsewhere, or released as a white paper, but I won't waste mental energy wondering what is going on with it. I can IMAGINE that it still has a possibility to pass peer review, but I think that possibility will be very, very slim. In other words, no paper today or tomorrow-stick a fork in it! GK It's not going to be announced today or tomorrow. She just said so in her most recent interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts