TimB Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 That darn SCIENCE- always laughing and denying. Perhaps better offerings would appease SCIENCE and SCIENCE would offer his /her benevolence to us mere mortals. All hail SCIENCE!! Tim B.
MIB Posted February 15, 2013 Moderator Posted February 15, 2013 I don't know, but that's clearly her way out of this mess. If she really has anything (which I obviously doubt) then all she has to do is submit it to genbank and all will be fixed, I'm not sure that's true. I've been watching her for a while now. Seems to me there's a history of people trying to spin situations as binary, with only two mutually exclusive options, and yet later it turns out there was a 3rd option everyone ignored. This could be another one. She's said she couldn't submit to GenBank. Ok, so instead of either blindly accepting that -or- presuming to have all the facts and calling her a liar, why doesn't someone look into WHY she was unable to submit? The third option, ya'll are ignoring, is that there really is a reason she can't do that. That reason might be real enlightening. 1
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 To anyone who has actually read the paper: Is the any explaination(or even mention), explicitly or implied, of what the "curveball" thrown by the purported bigfoot DNA is? Apologies if this has been answered and I missed it... It's not explicitly mentioned, though there were a number of sequences that failed to amplified and there is mention of using a newly desgned primer for sequencing a particular gene (for red hair--the sequence came back human). But for someone reading this who had not heard that curveball story this would fly under the radar probably.
JDL Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) I'm not a geneticist, just a lowly licensed professional chemical engineer. I understand the chemistry of DNA and other biological processes and have even used them for industrial applications, but I am not an expert at deriving or even sifting through the information that DNA contains other than in the most basic sense (well, maybe a little more than that). That said, I'm having trouble sifting through the comments being made by people sifting through the report. There may be some objective analysis here, but I can't distinguish it from the rest. What I see in the comments primarily includes the following: 1. Those who dismiss the study simply based on its topic. 2. Those who dismiss the study based on its author(s). 3. Those who dismiss the study based on its source and means of publication. 4. Those who dismiss the study by saying that it isn't professionally formatted. 5. Those who dismiss the study by stating that it doesn't deliver on fundamentals even though they've stated in their own posts that they, themselves are not experts and have made statements that even I can distinguish as incorrect. 6. Those who dismiss the study because they're taken in by all of the above. So I'll support and repeat the call for an actual DNA expert to weigh in. I suspect that the study does, in fact, have flaws, though I have not yet read it. I also expect that the study does contain some nuggets of solid information that support the existence of an unidentified hominid in North America, presumptively bigfoot, since the provenance, such as it is, conforms most closely with descriptions of bigfoot and there does not seem to be any other likely candidate. So I'm waiting for the undisputed and universally acknowledged expert to provide an objective opinion. I'd like to avoid what we referred to in the Army as ****house lawyers who attempt to discredit the substance by discrediting the factors surrounding the substance. Disotell's a name a lot of people here have lionized. I don't think he has weighed in yet. What does that mean? Edited February 15, 2013 by JDL
Guest gershake Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 Uploads to Gen bank will be made. The Erickson videos will be released. Dr. Sykes will publish his results, confirming Dr. Ketchum's DNA findings. Your words into God's ear...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 he has but has dismissed it as well.... im waiting till someone tries to replicate her findings.....everything else is chaff... good points JDL
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) ^belated uploads to GrenBank, but necessary....you know I think the Sierra Kills sample should have been submitted on receipt, given she thought BFs a subspecies of human. Twitter accounts are on fire and i notice that Zimmer reported he has sent the article to several scientists. We will be getting some reviews in spite of the $30. I would refrain from paying until that step has been taken, just me. I realize this a.m that even if discredited, or hailed, there will be those who cling to whatever outcome they hoped for. That is scary. To the many submitters, some who did/do exceptional work, that doesn't change, thanks! Edited February 15, 2013 by apehuman
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 he has but has dismissed it as well.... im waiting till someone tries to replicate her findings.....everything else is chaff... good points JDL Until she uploads to GenBank there are no findings to replicate. They can't even analyse the sequences she found properly until she uploads them. The ball is still in her court. I'm really not sure what anyone is supposed to replicate anyway. She has said most of the samples she used were destroyed. And there were only three samples that yielded anything unusual; they're the only ones that count. Has she indicated she would make them available?
Guest Crowlogic Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) I've maintained from day one that there won't be an outcome that confirms Bigfoot. As far as I know real science done in a truly professional manner on a truly authentic subject matter does not become a soap opera. This this has been a soap opera worthy of prime time. IMO the paper stands virtually no chance of being received by the solid scientific community subject, matter not withstanding, due to Ketchum's purchase of the journal she is published in. After the dust has settled and the water has long flowed under the bridge the BF community will be fielding excuses why the paper failed the scrutiny of science. No doubt the conspiracy theories will run rampant. The backstory will tell the truth and I hope it is under scrutiny while the players are still around. Edited February 15, 2013 by Crowlogic
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 JDL, I assume most of those points are aimed at me. I'm sorry you don't care for my conclusions, but I stand by them. I have done the best I can at conveying the content of the report within the limitations of my personal knowledge and expertise. I have no doubt that I have made some mistakes and/or misinterpreted some things, particulary when I have commented on areas outside of my expertise. But I have also included direct quotes from the report on various topics that came up so that people can draw their own conclusions. Has anyone else done that? If you feel I am being too harsh, then I would suggest trying to find someone who has something positive to say about this report. It has been out for two days now and has been read by plenty of skeptics and proponents alike. I am still waiting for the glowing positive review: "OMG! She's done it! SHe's proven BF exists!." Where is it? How about something a little more modest: "Well, she has interesting data and makes a compelling case." I haven't seen that yet either. Forget me. What are the knowledgeable BF proponents saying? What's Meldrum saying? Bindernagel? Hadj-Chikh? The silence is deafening. Hey, I'm not even the only anthropologist on these boards. Maybe Hairy Man would like to give her thoughts on the very brief paleoanthropological portion of the paper regarding the dating of the hybridization event and it's connection to the Solutrean hypothesis. I really would like to get her take on it to how it meshes with my own. If you are so sure there is a gold nugget buried in there somewhere that everybody else has missed, why don't you buy the paper and check it out yourself. You're a chemical engineer so while you may get all the technical details, I have no doubt you will see why so many of us have problems with it.
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 She's said she couldn't submit to GenBank. Ok, so instead of either blindly accepting that -or- presuming to have all the facts and calling her a liar, why doesn't someone look into WHY she was unable to submit? The third option, ya'll are ignoring, is that there really is a reason she can't do that. That reason might be real enlightening. She stated the reason. She said they would not accept anything that did not belong to a known species. This is not the case; she was wrong. She is not reacting to this. Of course if she insisted they accept them as Sasquatch samples and they said she couldn't do that, they'd have to go as unknown samples, that might be the case, I don't know, but again that's up to her to accept the norms of working. But unless she submits them other people cannot validate her work. I'm no expert, but this is what experts have said.
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 I'm wondering if it was a requirement to theorize the origins of the species AND also prove their existence. Isn't it a big enough nut to crack just to prove they’re real? All she would have needed to do (should have done really) is show her DNA sequences and how they are novel. Of course she was unable to do so since they all seem to be modern human (with contamination) thus she came up with her hypothesis since she is convinced these samples are bigfoot. The data available now does not support her conclusion or her hypothesis. If she releases the nuDNA sequences (upload to genbank) scientists can actually look at the data, right now she is saying 'take my word for it'. I'm not sure that's true. I've been watching her for a while now. Seems to me there's a history of people trying to spin situations as binary, with only two mutually exclusive options, and yet later it turns out there was a 3rd option everyone ignored. This could be another one. She's said she couldn't submit to GenBank. Ok, so instead of either blindly accepting that -or- presuming to have all the facts and calling her a liar, why doesn't someone look into WHY she was unable to submit? The third option, ya'll are ignoring, is that there really is a reason she can't do that. That reason might be real enlightening. She gave a reason as to why she was unable to submit the data to genbank: "Until a taxon name is accepted by ZooBank, GenBank will not accept an upload of the DNA data". The statement above is not accurate, perhaps someone should let her know that so she can start the upload.
Big Stinky Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 I'm not a geneticist, just a lowly licensed professional chemical engineer. I understand the chemistry of DNA and other biological processes and have even used them for industrial applications, but I am not an expert at deriving or even sifting through the information that DNA contains other than in the most basic sense (well, maybe a little more than that). That said, I'm having trouble sifting through the comments being made by people sifting through the report. There may be some objective analysis here, but I can't distinguish it from the rest. What I see in the comments primarily includes the following: 1. Those who dismiss the study simply based on its topic. 2. Those who dismiss the study based on its author(s). 3. Those who dismiss the study based on its source and means of publication. 4. Those who dismiss the study by saying that it isn't professionally formatted. 5. Those who dismiss the study by stating that it doesn't deliver on fundamentals even though they've stated in their own posts that they, themselves are not experts and have made statements that even I can distinguish as incorrect. 6. Those who dismiss the study because they're taken in by all of the above. So I'll support and repeat the call for an actual DNA expert to weigh in. I suspect that the study does, in fact, have flaws, though I have not yet read it. I also expect that the study does contain some nuggets of solid information that support the existence of an unidentified hominid in North America, presumptively bigfoot, since the provenance, such as it is, conforms most closely with descriptions of bigfoot and there does not seem to be any other likely candidate. So I'm waiting for the undisputed and universally acknowledged expert to provide an objective opinion. I'd like to avoid what we referred to in the Army as ****house lawyers who attempt to discredit the substance by discrediting the factors surrounding the substance. Disotell's a name a lot of people here have lionized. I don't think he has weighed in yet. What does that mean? Good post JDL. My thoughts as well on this . I am in the science field ( microbiologist) and concur that we need the opinion of several scientist versed in this field to summarize the paper. I think one very crucial point is the debate on contamination. The abstract states a high level of purity, this is paramount to the study and verified by the authors of the study (criminology verification) . Could ALL the samples be contaminated ? I thought I read that many samples showed very similiar trends/patterns, so could all the samples tested be of the same source and contaminated by the same individual ? The science and methodology first has to reviewed as sound. The interpretation of the results is a another issue. As mentioned there probabily are some flaws in the paper but let's see what collective data can be used here. It may hold some very valuable information . Big Stinky
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) 700 pages, just wanted to be here! One more post shouldn't matter! Theagenes; I have read your posts and thank you, again. I don't get from your words that you have enjoyed your role here, but are doing a service as a member and doing it well, even if hard for us to read, both emotionally and intellectually! For the most part I think everyone is trying to comprehend what has transpired and where we are headed. That should be clearer IMO, and I guess why we are waiting for "science" to weigh in beyond the initial reactions..that GenBank upload I guess? To the above who wonders why to load in GenBank..my layperson response not good enough, and hoping Theagenes or another explains why it is so important for evaluating her data Edited February 15, 2013 by apehuman
Guest njjohn Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 Theagenes - my only disagreement was your assertion that there would still be BF mDNA being passed down. Not if it completely replaced the old species. When the pilgrims showed up, we gave the native americans small pox as well as other things their bodies weren't used too. The same happened to the colonists. The death rate for them during those early times shows how amazing it is we maintained a stronghold at all. The original species could have come across humans and started disappearing because of things they weren't immune too and the new hybrid species were. Also, the 16 halpo's just meant it didn't start from a single event. 13k years is a long period of time. And these samples aren't a complete study because it was just these submitted samples. If you had a submission from every sasquatch out there, you'd probably get a better idea of how many starts there were as well as which ones became the dominant version in their area. I know MK doesn't go deeply into this, but she does mention that there needs to be further studies. It'd probably be best suited as an anthropology study to dig into those aspects. Also I think some in the thread might be misunderstanding a word used. The word novel isn't being used to show minimal. It's being used to show new, modern, unusual, unknown.
Recommended Posts