Guest Theagenes Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Theagenes - nope, you're right I overlooked an earlier line that did mention that. Wouldn't you then remove those samples and run the tests on the unknowns, which is what she did? I agree again that the work on the paper itself is sloppy, but someone's going to test this once they get the data. Even the Smeja info is interesting. Suggesting and proving are two different things. I'd love to see the individual reports for each sample and go through which ones were discounted and which ones remain unknown. Well, what she's saying is that parts of the strands are human and parts are novel, so she's interpreting that as hybridization. So from her point of view having the strands be part-human is okay. Others are interpreting it as degradation, contamination, or artifacts from the amplification process. We saw what John Timmer said. Here are some more opinions from geneticists: http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/02/what-do-geneticists-think-of-the-bigfoot-paper/ Typical Disotell, didn't bother to read anything but the abstract. The others did though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Sure, I got you. But in truth what was glaringly absent is a second or third author that did make substantitve contributions. That was a little surprising. When the number two spot went straight to one of the testing labs and not an academic (whom I would have thought she would have enlisted to help her with the writing at least) that did raise an eyebrow. Heck, I would have expected some one like Burtsev or the like in the number two spot. (even better would have been Bindernagel or Hadj-Chikh), but it seems she preferred to go it alone and we're seeing the unfortunate result of that. ^Agreed 100000% Right on! My thoughts? That there seems to be some sort of animosity that is mostly one sided, aimed at those people who tend to require reliable and reproducible evidence before proclaiming that something "is". Whether that's proof of A, B, or C (whatever the "is" is) shouldn't matter that much. Evidence that is incontrovertible prior to belief and proclamation. Is there proof? Is there resentment? You tell me. In the mean time, the reviewers of this paper are not trending towards confirmation of the desired results or pre-release conclusions. This paper does not seem to be indicating proof. Nor has the snippet of a video. Agreed, but the proof is in the pudding, which, to the best of my knowledge is still cooling on the kitchen counter. These reviewers are taking some liberties when dismantling the paper w/o having the backing evidence as well. I see no proof, I see resentment from DMK. Doesn't change the data that has yet to be evaluated. I'm not going to comment on the other parts as it will only spin into OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Now on Lon Stricklers site, Exclusive: Evidence Collection -- Ketchum DNA Study Findings The Ketchum DNA study has now been released, so I am offering an exclusive look into where and how some of the evidence was collected by major participants in the study. Throughout the process I have attempted to keep the readers updated without violating the NDA between the parties involved in the study. I have tried to offer an honest assessment over the past two years without posting speculation and conjecture. My source(s) have provided final exclusive information in return for their confidentiality since the study started. http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Llawgoch....Thanks but, ummm, no, it wasn't: "Sykes said. 'So I don't have to put myself into the position of either believing or disbelieving these creatures.'" As I would expect from a scientist, doing science. After all, why would somebody expose their reputation (and waste the funding) to that risk if they believed they knew the outcome as a foregone conclusion? I've not heard from any source he has a hypothesis one way or the other, only a drive to see for himself (which I guess, now that I think about it, is a pure hypothesis). Really, ain't that refreshing? And really too, even if he had the expectation of a negative result, I certainly don't care, as long as his methodology is clean and he gets his results published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) we are al out of plusses for Theogenes today... it seems that is the picture emerging. except for those many submitters, and I hope thier claims will be validated somehow, if not with this, then Sykes... Over the three years watching this take a strange and unpredictable trajectory I also got to watch all kinds of proof blow up...and the Dyer thing seems so unreal, and yet still possible... and somehow I still think it is possible MK will be validated in some way....... I do know Bfs are real and I do believe many of the submitters provided evidence that is typical, and in some cases exceptional, to the evidence gathered from many for so many decades! Edited February 14, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Agreed, but the proof is in the pudding, which, to the best of my knowledge is still cooling on the kitchen counter. Beautiful metaphor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Yeah, thanks theagenes. I appreciate your insight. Hopefully GenesRUs checks in soon so I can call it a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) http://blog.chron.co...-bigfoot-paper/ this is a Houston Chronicle writer Eric Berger (and linked by someone above, back a few pages, who was it? thanks!) I had to register to read..apologies if this is redundant, the pages moving fast here. so am also copying these quotes from the article, and I found the second quote most interesting, in terms of the structural DNA question/conclusion and most importantly GenBank -...no problem with unnamed taxon load it up....(Gibbs says it's standard protocol to do so): "shared this with a few geneticists I know to get their measure of the research. First up is Richard Gibbs, one of the key scientists behind the Human Genome Project and director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at Baylor College of Medicine: “As a scientist I would consider anything.The currency of scientific advance is keeping your skepticism at bay. You have to approach these things incredibly agnostically. As I read the paper I asked, is the evidence here compelling? I don’t know. Is there clear evidence of fraud? That’s not apparent. It’s an intriguing hypothesis. One would need to view more sequencing information before supporting the conclusions.†Specifically, Gibbs said, it’s standard protocol to upload the raw sequencing data which can then be analyzed to determine whether this is a new species, or simply an amalgam of existing species. Only a text file, which is unhelpful, accompanies the paper. Next is the view from Leonid Kruglyak, a Princeton University geneticist: “To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid. Instead, analyses either come back as 100% human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts. They make the bizarre claim that the failures might be caused by novel, nonstandard structure of the DNA (“Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR.â€) which would mean this DNA was different from DNA in all other known species. There’s also the strange statement they couldn’t deposit sequences in GenBank because it’s a new/unknown taxon — GenBank does that no problem.†“The tree in Fig 16 is inconsistent with known primate phylogeny and generally makes no sense.†didn't add the figure.. Edited February 14, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 “To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid. Instead, analyses either come back as 100% human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts. They make the bizarre claim that the failures might be caused by novel, nonstandard structure of the DNA (“Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR.â€) which would mean this DNA was different from DNA in all other known species. There’s also the strange statement they couldn’t deposit sequences in GenBank because it’s a new/unknown taxon — GenBank does that no problem.†“The tree in Fig 16 is inconsistent with known primate phylogeny and generally makes no sense.†Thank you that's exactly what we need to be looking for. It may make no sense to him, as he has no idea what he is looking at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Carl Zimmer, an award winning science writer has commented on the paper: https://twitter.com/...809169097453568 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 theagenes - thanks for your helpful and clear analysis. can we boil this down to misinterpreted results that were glaringly obvious to those skilled in the underlying science, and as a result, an online journal was created to give the paper a veneer of respectability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Sure, I got you. But in truth what was glaringly absent is a second or third author that did make substantitve contributions. That was a little surprising. When the number two spot went straight to one of the testing labs and not an academic (whom I would have thought she would have enlisted to help her with the writing at least) that did raise an eyebrow. Heck, I would have expected some one like Burtsev or the like in the number two spot. (even better would have been Bindernagel or Hadj-Chikh), but it seems she preferred to go it alone and we're seeing the unfortunate result of that. Except, she says in the bottom of her paper that those listed as co-authors DID help write the paper: Author Contributions: M.K., P.W., D.S., A.H., S.B., R.S., and R.S. performed experiments. M.K, and F.Z. analyzed the genetic data. M.K., A.W., and P.W. wrote and edited the manuscript. A.H. analyzed and wrote the EM portion of the manuscript. D. S. analyzed and wrote the hair analysis portion of the manuscript. D.T. analyzed and wrote the histopathology portion of the manuscript. A.W. also researched pertinent additions to the manuscript and helped with data collection. M.K. distributed samples, collected and combined data from the blind studies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 14, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 14, 2013 I wonder if she had permission to include them as co-authors or if she just included everyone who worked on the DNA without asking them? If I was a professional DNA guy I'd want to avoid being listed as a co-author. Wonder if they were willing participants? Guess we'll find out. OR NOT, if there is money and NDA's involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 theagenes - thanks for your helpful and clear analysis. can we boil this down to misinterpreted results that were glaringly obvious to those skilled in the underlying science, and as a result, an online journal was created to give the paper a veneer of respectability? I think that's about the size of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 As I understand it, Ketchum purchased the zoology journal for the reason she wanted to keep the peer reviews intact, since the reviewers apparently passed her paper. Otherwise, she could have just started her own journal from scratch. Pardon me if this has already been mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts