Dr. Melba Ketchum Schedule To Speak About Sasquatch Dna On October 1, 2011

[Guest]

I wonder what is meant by 'specimen.' Does that mean the whole or part of a creature? How about blood, hair, a toenail, and/or a bone? Fossilized remains of primates support the past existence of those species, so I wonder if something short of a Bigfoot 'Puttin' on the Ritz' will have scientific merit. What will be necessary to get mainstream study and funding going?

A specimen of an extant organism would preferably be an entire body, but a body part would suffice. How small a body part? That's tough to say. I suppose the only rule of thumb would be that it would have to be enough to be diagnostic. In other words, it would have to be enough tissue that it could not in any way be confused with some other organism.

[Guest]

So, putting two and two together, one could deduce from your statement that if indeed Dr. Ketchum's paper is under peer review and is to appear in a scientific journal, then she must have a specimen.

No, I don't assume that. Journals vary in what they'll accept. She could publish her paper based on questionable data in a lesser journal and it might hold zero sway with the ICZN. To wit, no one has jumped on Meldrum's "ichnotaxon" paper, and that's been out for a few years now. I suppose if she publishes in a top journal that increases the likelihood that she has a specimen from which it can be demonstrated that the DNA was derived. Even if she publishes in Science or Nature, that fact does not by itself make bigfoot "accepted by mainstream science." (It'd be darn-near on its way, though.)

After all, if a journal has never in 275 years published a paper describing a new species of any kind without a specimen, why would they start with something as controversial as Bigfoot. Is that a fair assumption or am I way off base?

I wouldn't publish it on my watch without a specimen, but that's just me.

Given Dr. Ketchum's extreme caution about making public statements about the paper, isn't it also logical to assume that she contacted the journal in question and discussed the presentation at this or any other BF conference, and if they signed off on it, doesn't that protect her "credibility?"

I wouldn't assume that. Journals don't police their authors.

[Guest mitchw]

On the necessity for 'independent' confirmation, if Ketchum received samples from myriad unrelated investigators, maintained chain of custody integrity, and sent the samples out to independent genetic labs, how far short of independent confirmation will she have fallen? Are all those specifac samples now tainted, and new ones from new investigators will now be absolutely called for?

[Guest]

I wouldn't assume that. Journals don't police their authors.

But, won't they pull publication if certain criteria aren't met which would include pre-publication presentations of the same subject matter as the paper?

[Guest]

Totally illogical?

Yes, totally illogical.

If we had deer DNA that we OBSERVED being extracted from a deer...then it would be illogical not to definitively say that it is deer DNA.

We don't have that in this case.

You don't need the physical deer carcass if you have the deer DNA. Likewise you don't need the physical BF carcass if you have the BF DNA. DNA does not occur absent a physical creature to produce said DNA. The DNA therefore speaks for itself.

Again, I'm not saying that, if true, the Ketchum DNA study won't be ground breaking...it's just that without the body it will not be definitive proof to the scientific community.

Any legitimate scientific community will have to recognize BF based on the DNA finding (if it indeed holds up). Otherwise it forfeits all claim to objectivity.

[Guest]

I think before we listen to what the skeptics of the world need, let's see what is really included in the DNA study as well as what the EP will be releasing in conjunction. No one who is speaking against the paper not proving anything has any idea what it will entail or what will be released in tandem. If the public accepts it, I think you will be surprised how quickly science will change their tunes. Especially when they hear the magic phrase "research funding".

Plussed, except to say that the key is "public acceptance"...the average layman is a sheeple conditioned to accept whatever "science" tells them as the proverbial Gospel. If the community continues it's Denialist tendencies, then the paper, no matter how good, will face an uphill battle for recognition.

You're seeing the phenomenon at work right here in this very thread, as various Skeptics jockey for position to take pre-emptive shots at the Ketchum Paper before it's even published.

[Guest]

There's no bar-raising and no goal-post shifting.

We've all been subjected to the Skeptic "shuck and jive" at one time or another on evidence. No matter what evidence is on proffer, Skeptics always want +1 of some sort. Every milestone we've reached has just resulted in the goal being moved 10 yards further away, from witnesses to witnesses + photos, witnesses+photos+tracks/hairs, so on and so forth.

There's a proven process with a good 275-year history behind it.

Ah, and appeal to tradition fallacy...haven't heard that one for awhile.

The history of Science is stuffed full to overflowing with "things that were accepted" that turned out to be 1000000000% WRONG. And Science had to be drug kicking and screaming into the truth every time.

I suggest you find (if you can) James Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed" book and DVD series. It's the single most concise work on the subject.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Jodie
edited out personal reference

[Guest]

I imagine Jeff Meldrum would agree with everything I described in post 116. Would it all be easier to swallow coming from him?

Edited August 18, 2011 by Jodie
edited to conform to forum rules

[iacozizzle]

A specimen of an extant organism would preferably be an entire body, but a body part would suffice. How small a body part? That's tough to say. I suppose the only rule of thumb would be that it would have to be enough to be diagnostic. In other words, it would have to be enough tissue that it could not in any way be confused with some other organism.

Could it be possible that the tissue turned over for analysis yielded DNA from multiple organ systems? Perhaps some viable muscular, cardiac and spinal tissue? Would multiple tissue sources strengthen the impact of these results? At what point does it go from long range jump shot to slam dunk?

Just throwing some spaghetti at the wall.

[Guest mitchw]

I imagine Jeff Meldrum would agree with everything I described in post 116. Would it all be easier to swallow coming from him?

Meeting the standard of institutional science is the whole point of the work of Ketchum, Paulides, Meldrum, Bindernagel et al. I can't imagine that every argument from Saskeptic hasn't been incorporated into Ketchum's work. I think BF is real, but have never seen one; people who have seen one almost certainly think it's real, but publication and acceptance won't affect the creature's existence one iota.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Jodie
edited to conform to rules

[southernyahoo]

There's no bar-raising and no goal-post shifting.

Every extant, multicellular organism that is currently recognized by "mainstream science" has a published description somewhere in the scientific literature and a physical specimen curated somewhere. The natural sciences have followed this paradigm since Linnaeus published the first edition of Systema Naturae in 1735. Yes, in recent years, DNA analysis has revealed genetic divergence among populations of species that has led to the description of new species from within those populations. To my knowledge, we have not (yet!) had a new, multicellular species described solely from DNA analysis of suspected tissue. (The reason is most likely due to the singularly unlikely event that one could have tissue without having a specimen - but I'll leave that for another discussion.)

Science requires that a phenomenon be observable to the senses (empirical observation) to fall within the scientific method. Biological samples that yeild DNA definately fall within this requisite. So the issue you seem to have is with a fordrawn conclusion that hasn't been given. What we have is a large collection of samples that defy identification for some reason. The conclusion only needs to be supported by the data, and doesn't have to give a detailed description of the donor, only that it is not known if new. This is perfectly publishable in science. You're having issues with the implications, since these samples are from people investigating bigfoot. It is afterall , inescapable.

So, if Ketchum is to propose a description of "bigfoot" based solely on DNA analysis of putative bigfoot tissue, she is in uncharted waters. People need to understand that if a bigfoot description were published in a leading journal based just on the DNA - i.e., no specimen - this would be a scientific first. This would mean that the journal editors would be bending over backwards to accommodate the paper, because such a thing has never been done. I read tragic irony on the BFF rather frequently when people post statements to the effect that journals and scientific societies are biased against bigfoot papers. The reality is that if a journal publishes a bigfoot paper in the absence of a specimen, it demonstrates a decidedly PRO-bigfoot bias in that journal.

Based on your previous statements, I'm not sure you meant to word it that way, because I know you've stated you believe DNA can prove bigfoot, yet you just said the journals can't publish a bigfoot paper without a specimen. Which is it? Is it bias? Does it have to be bias one way or the other? Why couldn't a paper be published on the merits of the evidence? I'm feeling an equal measure of tragic irony from the other side.

Let's say Ketchum manages to publish a paper on DNA analysis of samples that occupy a unique position on the phylogenetic tree of the hominins. In other words, the DNA definitely indicates a new species, closely related to humans and other apes, but also undeniably not one of the species with which we are familiar. To me (personally), this would constitute extremely compelling evidence that there is some otherwise undescribed humanlike creature out there. I suspect that many of my scientific colleagues would also be very impressed with such a discovery. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the one paper is a slam-dunk for the whole of mainstream science. Before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature accepts the description and recognizes the new species, they would very likely want to see similar results independently replicated. When that happens, we can finally consider the work to have gone "mainstream" in science.

So there can be a difference between what any one individual scientist (or journal) will accept and what can be considered established by mainstream science. If all you're looking for is individual scientists to be convinced that there are bigfoots out there, you already have that, and have had that for decades. If you're looking to truly mainstream bigfoot, it doesn't happen the day Ketchum publishes her paper. There's a proven process with a good 275-year history behind it.

I guess the question here is, Can proof precede a complete description of a population of beings which may be quite variable in physical makeup?

[Guest RioBravo]

I think the "steak" tissue sample - if it actually had skin and hair attached as claimed - should be enough to validate the existence of the creature.

[Guest parnassus]

À la "I'll show all the parnassi in the world...."

There is only one parnassus.

Of course, that's just my opinion. There have been thousands of reports of purported parnassi around the world, and images of possible parnassi can be found in ancient cave art, but there is only one proven parnassus specimen which has been confirmed. It is possible that more parnassi exist, as there are thousand of square miles of urban habitat yet to be searched, and neither the gubment nor Science will even lift a finger to help the small number of dedicated PRO members in their heroic efforts to locate another parnassus, and thus confirm the existence of a species. As it stands now, science views parnassus as a hybrid mosaic mongrel, a new category. There are no plans to file for an endangered status, which is fine with parnassus. He is curious about the pink hairless beings, especially about those who call themseves "squatchers," and is content to roam the internets from which he can view them from a safe distance, occasionally tossing a few metaphorical pebbles, just to let them know he exists.

[Guest]

There is only one parnassus.

Of course, that's just my opinion. There have been thousands of reports of purported parnassi around the world, and images of possible parnassi can be found in ancient cave art, but there is only one proven parnassus specimen which has been confirmed. It is possible that more parnassi exist, as there are thousand of square miles of urban habitat yet to be searched, and neither the gubment nor Science will even lift a finger to help the small number of dedicated PRO members in their heroic efforts to locate another parnassus, and thus confirm the existence of a species. As it stands now, science views parnassus as a hybrid mosaic mongrel, a new category. There are no plans to file for an endangered status, which is fine with parnassus. He is curious about the pink hairless beings, especially about those who call themseves "squatchers," and is content to roam the internets from which he can view them from a safe distance, occasionally tossing a few metaphorical pebbles, just to let them know he exists.

[Guest]

You're having issues with the implications, since these samples are from people investigating bigfoot.

I'm not having "issues." I'm not trying to discredit Ketchum or her work. I am describing my perceptions of how her work would be perceived by scientists under different scenarios of what that work might be.

Can you explain to me which part of this paragraph doesn't make sense to you? I'm not sure I could explain it more clearly.

"Let's say Ketchum manages to publish a paper on DNA analysis of samples that occupy a unique position on the phylogenetic tree of the hominins. In other words, the DNA definitely indicates a new species, closely related to humans and other apes, but also undeniably not one of the species with which we are familiar. To me (personally), this would constitute extremely compelling evidence that there is some otherwise undescribed humanlike creature out there. I suspect that many of my scientific colleagues would also be very impressed with such a discovery. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the one paper is a slam-dunk for the whole of mainstream science. Before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature accepts the description and recognizes the new species, they would very likely want to see similar results independently replicated. When that happens, we can finally consider the work to have gone "mainstream" in science."

Maybe this will help. Think of "mainstream acceptance" as a gradient of acceptance that occupies at least 4 levels. With respect to bigfoot:

1. Are non-crazy adults convinced there is a population of otherwise undescribed large, bipedal primates wandering around the United States right now? YES.

2. Are any scientists convinced there is a population of otherwise undescribed large, bipedal primates wandering around the United States right now? YES.

3. Have any peer-reviewed journals published papers with analysis that confirms that there are undescribed large, bipedal primates wandering around the United States right now? NO, but according to Dr. Ketchum, this is about to change.

4. Have the relevant taxonomic authorities (e.g., ICZN, American Society of Mammalogists) endorsed the type description of a heretofore undescribed large, bipedal primate wandering around the United States right now? NO.

Level 4 is what you want, folks. You can't skip Level 3, though. Level 3 is NOT Level 4, and my stating so doesn't make that the case. It just is. It's not some rhetorical dodgeball I learned on the debate team. Don't believe me? Well, I've already mentioned one notable case in which publication (in arguably the top journal in existence) did not lead to mainstream acceptance. There are many others (climate change, hello?).