Guest Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Mulder, no evidence has met the challenge, it's really that simple. Opinion presented as fact fallacy. Scientists and other professionals have adduced evidence. Tom Moore was a court-certified forensic examiner with a concentration in fish and wildlife trace identification. Off Chillcutt was/is a court-certified forensic examiner of fingerprints. Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, etc's professional credentials are well known. They are scientists and experts every bit as much as your 'mainstream' scientists. Their professional opinions carry just as much weight. If it had, mainstream science would be studying it. Argument from authority variant fallacy. You only recognize "mainstream" scientist opinions as being valid and ignore proponent credentials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) edit Edited November 27, 2011 by StankApe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 27, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 27, 2011 If the outcome is man-ape (hybrid) vs. ape vs. man I guess I'd prefer hybrid as it would fit with my current level of understanding and personal research. I think it will continue to be as difficult to capture and study such beings even after species elucidation through DNA. .....edited initial response as post referred to above was removed..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 There are so many threads going I'm not sure where to put this stuff. Here's the latest FB post from Melba Ketchum: Thanks so much to all of you for all of the holiday wishes and kind words. I couldn't have done this without your moral support and all those whose sample submissions made this possible. You guys and gals are great! I sure hope I can make you proud here shortly. We'll have to see how and when the peer review comes back. With the amount of data we have amassed, I am very optimistic that the outcome of the peer review will go well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 There are so many threads going I'm not sure where to put this stuff. Here's the latest FB post from Melba Ketchum: Thanks so much to all of you for all of the holiday wishes and kind words. I couldn't have done this without your moral support and all those whose sample submissions made this possible. You guys and gals are great! I sure hope I can make you proud here shortly. We'll have to see how and when the peer review comes back. With the amount of data we have amassed, I am very optimistic that the outcome of the peer review will go well. HOLY COW! FINALLY! WE KNOW IT IS IN REVIEW. YAY! Thanks for the post, slim.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) After a bit of linguistical pondering I have come to the conclusion that the OP is moot. Something will come of Ketchum's project! The possibilities range from "Wow, confirmation! Amazing! Much rejoicing" or "hmmm, appears to be a new hominid, but there are lots of unknowns here leading to no definitive conclusions as yet.." all the way to mild chuckling as it's revealed that they botched it.... So fear not! We will have something to comment upon regarding Ms. Ketchum's results! :-) Edited December 2, 2011 by StankApe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Tom Moore was a court-certified forensic examiner with a concentration in fish and wildlife trace identification. Off Chillcutt was/is a court-certified forensic examiner of fingerprints. Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, etc's professional credentials are well known. Argument from authority variant fallacy. Speaking of fallacious arguments from authority... Which of those people is an actual authority on bigfoot? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) Speaking of fallacious arguments from authority... Which of those people is an actual authority on bigfoot? RayG He left out Ivan Marx. Edited December 2, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Speaking of fallacious arguments from authority... Which of those people is an actual authority on bigfoot? RayG Specificity fallacy. One does not have to be a "bigfoot expert" to examine trace evidence for a large, bipedal primate objectively. He left out Ivan Marx. You're pushing it, Parn. Implying that credentialed professionals are in the same catagory as Ivan Marx is barely worth rebutting. You know better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 But Marx said he investigated bigfoot for ten years and filmed 4 of them, one of them limping as if it were the creature that made the Bosburg tracks. How could he not be an expert on Bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Specificity fallacy. Got a link or some examples of this fallacy? One does not have to be a "bigfoot expert" to examine trace evidence for a large, bipedal primate objectively. Correct, but one does not need to accept their unsubstantiated pronouncements either. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) I was trying to explain this the other day and didn't do a very good job of it. I found an article that talks about the Denisovan genome and some of the precautions needed when using these newly sequenced lines for comparison. I can see this as being the case for sequencing supposed bigfoot DNA. Pääbo, Reich and the other scientists involved in sequencing the ancient genomes are eager to see others run with their data, but caution that they need to be aware of the limitations. "They're really terrible-quality genomes", chock-full of gaps and errors and sections in which short stretches of DNA sequence have been put in the wrong place, says Reich. "There are a lot of traps in using these data, and if people are not careful they'll find all sorts of interesting things that are wrong." Pääbo's team is working on improving the quality of the sequences and including data from more Neanderthals and — he hopes — Denisovans. Pääbo says that he and his team regularly receive e-mails from scientists asking them questions about using the ancient genomes, which they have attempted to make as user-friendly as possible. But if the first year of ancient human genomics is any indication, these requests will multiply as scientists find new applications for the genomes. "Maybe we should write a little booklet called archaic genomics for dummies," Pääbo says. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110810/full/476136a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110811 Edited December 3, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I can agree on the precautions Jodie, but there should be alot better DNA sequences to work with in Ketchums study by comparison to Denisova, and with so many samples to draw from, the results should be far more conclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 3, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 3, 2011 From the same Nature Journal page of Jodie's link above I love the first comment: For me, it's always absolutely thrilling to see two different branches of science (paleontology and anthropology working together; as the study says, the speed at which we are finding out more and more information about Neanderthals and how they influenced us as a species is mind blowing. Hopefully, in the future, we will be able to see the same type of study conducted on Homo floresiensis (the hobbit). 2011-08-26 08:30:59 AM Posted by: andrei aaJust substitute Sasquatch for H. floresiensis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 But Marx said he investigated bigfoot for ten years and filmed 4 of them, one of them limping as if it were the creature that made the Bosburg tracks. How could he not be an expert on Bigfoot? Those Marx Brothers............funny, funny guys! Except for Karl, he wasn't that funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts