Guest slimwitless Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) Well played, sir. Edited November 9, 2011 by slimwitless quoted removed post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) (from blog #114 NABS) ^^^^^^ So the elusiveness could refer to obtaining quality sample, problems in sequencing or analytic tests/testing or maybe just that some tissue sequences easily and other does not. Well, they are past that. So, they refined their techniques, got enough samples and sequences and/or finished sequencing multiple different types of samples such that maybe results are lining up the rest of the paper. I'm sure there could be more to it but these are just some speculations based on my rudimentary knowledge of things. Ketchum, in her recent message, blamed "science" and the DNA for her lack of success. Transparent scapegoating IMO. I don't think the issue is in the DNA, though there will be minor infrequent variations between what two labs find for the same sequence. The problem is in the interpretation. I have repeatedly posted about this so I won't repeat it all. But she has discovered that she was wrong in her ideas about human DNA. IMO. I could be wrong. For instance, I thought my wife would be home by 630 but she won't get here until 645. Edited November 9, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Ketchum, in her recent message, blamed "science" and the DNA for her lack of success. Transparent scapegoating IMO. I don't think the issue is in the DNA, though there will be minor infrequent variations between what two labs find for the same sequence. The problem is in the interpretation. I have repeatedly posted about this so I won't repeat it all. But she has discovered that she was wrong in her ideas about human DNA. IMO. I could be wrong. For instance, I thought my wife would be home by 630 but she won't get here until 645. Blamed? Can you direct me to the passage where she "blamed" science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) Man I wish we could merge all these Ketchum threads...... I feel like I am playing Wack-A-Mole at Chucky Cheese Edited November 9, 2011 by Tautriadelta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Blamed? Can you direct me to the passage where she "blamed" science? Waiting......waiting..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Blamed? Can you direct me to the passage where she "blamed" science? Yes, please. I missed that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Oh come on, folks... "...realize that extreme scientific overkill is required in order to convince a world full of skeptical scientists...". --Melba Ketchum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Oh come on, folks... "...realize that extreme scientific overkill is required in order to convince a world full of skeptical scientists...". --Melba Ketchum Oy, that's what's known as a lack of context. The entire comment on science reads as follows: "Good science cannot be forced or quickly completed. If it is not extremely thorough, then it will all be for naught and any paper rejected outright. So, I ask you to be patient and understanding and realize that extreme scientific overkill is required in order to convince a world full of skeptical scientists." She's actually endorsing the scientific process not blaming it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Mulder, while I agree that DNA will do it, I didn't realize we were playing a game. I would think everyone wins including BF. They'll be the new star at the zoo, can't wait! Not that I believe it will happen anytime soon but I would hate to see a bf miserably confined at a zoo with people harassing it all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 9, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 9, 2011 Premature and de facto discovery (as Bindernagel (2010) promulgates Sasquatch is) is always fraught with the problem of science following the zeitgeist that Bigfoot has been somehow tainted by one man that carved a set of wooden feet more than likely modeled on a real BF track. Additional hoaxing by the TB's and GB's of the world haven't helped either. "...realize that extreme scientific overkill is required in order to convince a world full of skeptical scientists...". --Melba Ketchum I thought she was evoking the concept of "dotting your i's and crossing your t's" personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I am sure Dr. Leila Hadj-Chikh, with her PHD in Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology(from Princeton) probably knows a little something about DNA, as I am sure Dr. Ketchum does as well. I have hunch they where/are aware that not every sequence is in the genbank as well. I doubt than anyone here is qualified to doubt an interpretation we have not even seen yet. I could be wrong,its just my impression, for example I doubted that anyone with a PHD in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Princeton could do good science,but evidently, I was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts