Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 Disotell is giving his opinion on the data that is on hand which is.....a bunch of talk from Ketchum and no data, I wouldn't say he's written it off, but finds it suspicious without any data to back it up.
Oonjerah Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 DNA | Anthropology | Social Conscience As the editor of a science journal, perhaps I only want the DNA part of it ... Correcting my post #13328 above: "As the editor of a science journal," should say, "Suppose I were the editor of a science journal -- but I am not -- perhaps I would only want the DNA part of it" Sorry if that caused any confusion.
Guest Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 I think I remember Disotell say, he could sort it out if he only had a few hundred base pairs of DNA from her study.
JDL Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 Disotell is looking to get his name added to it at the last hour.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) "Disotell is looking to get his name added to it at the last hour." Maybe, but it's possible that he's just interested. He's tested dozens of alleged sasquatch & chupacabra samples. The Sasquatch samples would often come back as modern human. Edited February 3, 2013 by OntarioSquatch
southernyahoo Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I think I remember Disotell say, he could sort it out if he only had a few hundred base pairs of DNA from her study. Depends from where in the genome most likely. Most species ID is done with mtDNA. Testing that would not find what Dr Ketchum says is novel.
Guest gerrykleier Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Remember when this thread would grow by pages every day! Now we're lucky to get one new post! It's cruising towards become 'unpinned'. GK
Cotter Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 ^My thoughts exactly Gerry, it seems as though the whole Ketchum DNA saga is slowly fading into the background. However, you and I both know that one statement from the Ketchum camp can re-ignite the posting in an explosive manner. To be honest, I would have figured we would have heard some sort of comment regarding the Sierra sample by now. Not sure what to make of that.
Guest Thepattywagon Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 May be a case of one party waiting for the other to blink.
Cotter Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 ^ Could be, kind of like a stand-off with each one waiting to see the others' move.
Guest DWA Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Ketchum vs. Sunset: the first takes more time. the second is more scenic, by a lot. Edited February 5, 2013 by DWA
bipedalist Posted February 5, 2013 BFF Patron Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Disotell has already said he would like to look at the data and see if it has any merit. Thanks--but no thanks--, but I'd take any run of the mill geneticist in an academic department before I'd take the word of a scoftic scientist. Edited February 5, 2013 by bipedalist
Guest gerrykleier Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 ^My thoughts exactly Gerry, it seems as though the whole Ketchum DNA saga is slowly fading into the background. However, you and I both know that one statement from the Ketchum camp can re-ignite the posting in an explosive manner. To be honest, I would have figured we would have heard some sort of comment regarding the Sierra sample by now. Not sure what to make of that. We get no hint of what is going on behind the scenes, if in fact, ANYTHING is happening. All opinions seem equally likely right now. Mine is that it's at the 'stick-a-fork-in-it' stage and we won't hear anything from MK and the whole thing will just sink into the ocean and disappear without a trace. GK
Guest Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 There will be a book. It will provide no evidence just her theory. It will proclaim that the evil science guys just could not accept the truth.
Guest Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Ketchum vs. Sunset: the first takes more time. the second is more scenic, by a lot. That's some appreciated humor.
Recommended Posts