Skeptic's Answer To Ketchum's Dna Testing

[Guest]

I wonder if some else retained body parts from an area before the other party retained there's and there not letting that info out until it's published ?

A couple comments might be hinting to that. I bet if all that bs didn't happen with the Georgia guys,their would be a lot more people believing in the

project.

Edited November 7, 2011 by zigoapex

[Guest]

Bias is never good. Objective skepticism is entirely appropriate. Properly done, science has NO conclusion to support at the start of a study. It does the study and then goes where the evidence leads.

You are absolutely correct. However, I have observed that many, many times, the opposite is what actually takes place, and scientists view the evidence through filtered glasses and try to fit the evidence into the theories that they have already adopted, regardless of where it really leads. It is enough to make one become disillusioned with the entire process.

[Guest]

Mulder is correct in that a DNA sample can be analyzed and it's position plotted on a phylogenetic tree. If that was done and if the samples confirm something unique, e.g., distinctly Homo but diagnostically not H. sapiens, then we've got proof of a highly sophisticated ruse of some kind or an extant but undescribed member of our own genus sharing the earth with us right now.

The problem is that every one of the underlined items would need to be addressed by the researchers and exhaustively scrutinized by the reviewers and editors before the work could be considered proof of a new, extant hominid. That ain't easy, and that's why a new multicellular species has never been described from a smear of ketchup on a plate. This is altogether different from recognizing a new species by testing DNA from different populations within an already described parent species.

If you want to prove bigfoot, it's a whole lot easier to just go get one. "If it bleeds, we can kill it."

[Guest]

Bias is never good. Objective skepticism is entirely appropriate. Properly done, science has NO conclusion to support at the start of a study. It does the study and then goes where the evidence leads.

You are absolutely correct. However, I have observed that many, many times, the opposite is what actually takes place, and scientists view the evidence through filtered glasses and try to fit the evidence into the theories that they have already adopted, regardless of where it really leads. It is enough to make one become disillusioned with the entire process.

Bias is never good. Objective skepticism is entirely appropriate. Properly done, science has NO conclusion to support at the start of a study. It does the study and then goes where the evidence leads.

You are absolutely correct. However, I have observed that many, many times, the opposite is what actually takes place, and scientists view the evidence through filtered glasses and try to fit the evidence into the theories that they have already adopted, regardless of where it really leads. It is enough to make one become disillusioned with the entire process.

[Guest parnassus]

Mulder is correct in that a DNA sample can be analyzed and it's position plotted on a phylogenetic tree. If that was done and if the samples confirm something unique, e.g., distinctly Homo but diagnostically not H. sapiens, then we've got proof of a highly sophisticated ruse of some kind or an extant but undescribed member of our own genus sharing the earth with us right now.

The problem is that every one of the underlined items would need to be addressed by the researchers and exhaustively scrutinized by the reviewers and editors before the work could be considered proof of a new, extant hominid. That ain't easy, and that's why a new multicellular species has never been described from a smear of ketchup on a plate. This is altogether different from recognizing a new species by testing DNA from different populations within an already described parent species.

If you want to prove bigfoot, it's a whole lot easier to just go get one. "If it bleeds, we can kill it."

I agree.

Mulder, the great decrier of intellectual dishonesty, is in essence 1) doing the straw man thing to Radford ie putting words in his mouth.

and

2. Assuming to be true that which is in contention

Radford's comments are directed at "what Ketchum says." and she has said a lot of things, which are all unverified (not to mention the many rumors)....she was going to "say" some things at Honobia before she backed out. He nowhere refers to a completed, published peer-reviewed paper. There is none. Radford is saying that what she says is of little value until it is subjected to scrutiny. That scrutiny should entail things that Radford mentions, and these would be done if she ever submits such a paper to a journal which does meaningful peer review.

Mulder then simply postulates a peer reviewed paper (? based of a bunch of statements and rumors?) and suggests that Radford should not demand scrutiny of something that has already been scrutinized(!!).

It is not intellectually honest to condemn Radford for saying in essence that Ketchum's statements have little value scientifically, nor is it intellectually honest to attempt to create the illusion that we know what Ketchum has done and that it has scientific merit.

Those are my opinions. Free shipping within the continental US. All investments entail risk.

Edited November 7, 2011 by parnassus

[Incorrigible1]

Mulder, the great decrier of intellectual dishonesty, is in essence 1) doing the straw man thing to Radford ie putting words in his mouth.

All those playing along, take another drink.

[Guest]

DNA =biological sample = body = proof.

Period. End of story.

Unless you are prepared to show Dr Ketchum's lab artificially produced the dna, it's "game over" for the Skeptics if her results hold up.

DNA can be synthesis or modified (not science fiction or consperce theroy but pattended techniques). The sample should be large enough to be tested after the publication by independed resarchers that have no monetary intrest involed by sceptics of the claim.

The problem is that every one of the underlined items would need to be addressed by the researchers and exhaustively scrutinized by the reviewers and editors before the work could be considered proof of a new, extant hominid. That ain't easy, and that's why a new multicellular species has never been described from a smear of ketchup on a plate. This is altogether different from recognizing a new species by testing DNA from different populations within an already described parent species.

If you want to prove bigfoot, it's a whole lot easier to just go get one. "If it bleeds, we can kill it."

I agree there are to many farables in this equation to really know where was the sample retried from can we truly know the sample came from North America. Personally I say we still will need a body to be certain (Not trying to depate kill vs no kill just my oppions.) We have to wait to see the report and look at it crittically try to elimanate any possibilty (Null Hypothesis (HO) - simply to actively seek evidencie that might contradict what we would like to believe)why the the sample is not a bigfoot to be sure before we truly believe.

[Guest]

I agree.

Mulder, the great decrier of intellectual dishonesty, is in essence 1) doing the straw man thing to Radford ie putting words in his mouth.

and

2. Assuming to be true that which is in contention

Radford's comments are directed at "what Ketchum says." and she has said a lot of things, which are all unverified (not to mention the many rumors)....she was going to "say" some things at Honobia before she backed out. He nowhere refers to a completed, published peer-reviewed paper. There is none. Radford is saying that what she says is of little value until it is subjected to scrutiny. That scrutiny should entail things that Radford mentions, and these would be done if she ever submits such a paper to a journal which does meaningful peer review.

Mulder then simply postulates a peer reviewed paper (? based of a bunch of statements and rumors?) and suggests that Radford should not demand scrutiny of something that has already been scrutinized(!!).

It is not intellectually honest to condemn Radford for saying in essence that Ketchum's statements have little value scientifically, nor is it intellectually honest to attempt to create the illusion that we know what Ketchum has done and that it has scientific merit.

Those are my opinions. Free shipping within the continental US. All investments entail risk.

that's how you interpreted it,most take it at face value.

Edited November 8, 2011 by zigoapex

[southernyahoo]

Since radford hasn"t actually addressed ketchums statements by quoting them, and says he doesn't know what she's claimed,I take his statements to be uninformed at best, and bordering dishonest to imply there is any veil of secrecy. In fact, this is probably far more transparent than most science papers.

[Guest]

What happens if Adrian Erickson release "Sasquatch the Quest" when Dr. Melba ketchum release the DNA study (As it is suppose to happen), and the documentary "sasquatch the quest" turns out to be pictures of a faked sasquatches. Would skeptics not read the DNA results or claim that they are fabricated? Would the media report on the documantary only but fail to look at Dr. Melba Ketrum publication? If "Sasquatch the quest" turns out to be faked it could have the potentale of doing more damage than good.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Jeff Albertson

[Guest]

Mulder is correct in that a DNA sample can be analyzed and it's position plotted on a phylogenetic tree. If that was done and if the samples confirm something unique, e.g., distinctly Homo but diagnostically not H. sapiens, then we've got proof of a highly sophisticated ruse of some kind or an extant but undescribed member of our own genus sharing the earth with us right now.

The problem is that every one of the underlined items would need to be addressed by the researchers and exhaustively scrutinized by the reviewers and editors before the work could be considered proof of a new, extant hominid. That ain't easy, and that's why a new multicellular species has never been described from a smear of ketchup on a plate. This is altogether different from recognizing a new species by testing DNA from different populations within an already described parent species.

If you want to prove bigfoot, it's a whole lot easier to just go get one. "If it bleeds, we can kill it."

And again I say, though DNA evidence may be pretty darn good, the skeptics (including the mainstream, incl. Sas) will call for a type specimen to put in a museum, as it is a NEW, UNDISCOVORED large mammal/hominid...ketchup on the plate will not do...Yes, agreeing with you, Sas...as much as I hate the idea of killing one, it will be entirely necessary to science post-Ketchum...

All those playing along, take another drink.

Wait, which BF drinking game are we on, I am fitshaced...there have been so many

[BobZenor]

It remains to be seen depending on what her proof is if a sophisticated ruse is even possible outside of some grand conspiracy. Indisputable proof of another hominid is certainly possible outside of that implausible grand conspiracy type hoax. It isn't likely that a conspiracy of that sort would hold up very long considering that some of the samples apparently still exist. There are other reasons that a grand conspiracy type fraud is highly unlikely like the lack of motivation of DNA labs to be made to look like fraudulent fools. The term proof is relative. Even a body could involve a conspiracy that wouldn't prove it beyond any doubt if it involved multiple or conspiring analysts. Either should rise to the level that any scientist should accept the results assuming they are done by reputable labs in a repeatable fashion. That of course depends on what she considers proof. Making the DNA isn't really a possibility unless we are talking about relatively short sections of DNA. It certainly wouldn't apply to multiple individuals in multiple labs. There is no way that contamination could account for the same result but that also depends on the method used and what her definition of proof is. It is not really plausible that it could happen on multiple tissue samples assuming the samples are sequenced to the degree that you would expect for something of this nature being presented as proof.

If you prove that another hominid exists, it is still only an opinion that it proves bigfoot exists. Some might be so hard headed to take the position that it just proves some other unknown hominid exists. Someone could still claim that wasn't really a bigfoot but something else since it isn't precisely defined what a bigfoot is. It could prove that creatures matching the general descriptions of bigfoot exist that weren't known to science. That would be proof to most unbiased people and they would look pretty foolish arguing against the possibility that bigfoot existed in that situation. The logical conclusion would be that they exist.

Edited November 9, 2011 by BobZenor

[Guest]

I agree.

Mulder, the great decrier of intellectual dishonesty, is in essence 1) doing the straw man thing to Radford ie putting words in his mouth.

No, I'm taking his inferrance to the logical conclusion.

IF the results hold (as I've stated many times, btw), then only two possibilities exist:

1) there is an uncatalogued higher primate in the genus homo running around out there

or

2) a very expensive and potentially risky (in terms of reputation, etc) hoax is being deliberately perpetrated.

You guys keep insisting that option 1 is non-viable.

That only leaves option 2.

and

2. Assuming to be true that which is in contention

See the bolded part above.

Radford's comments are directed at "what Ketchum says." and she has said a lot of things, which are all unverified (not to mention the many rumors)....she was going to "say" some things at Honobia before she backed out. He nowhere refers to a completed, published peer-reviewed paper. There is none. Radford is saying that what she says is of little value until it is subjected to scrutiny. That scrutiny should entail things that Radford mentions, and these would be done if she ever submits such a paper to a journal which does meaningful peer review.

And your evidence that the paper does NOT exist is?

What is Dr Ketchum's motive for dishonesty when she says it DOES exist? (Careful with the answer...she's a member after all)

It is not intellectually honest to condemn Radford for saying in essence that Ketchum's statements have little value scientifically,

Radford to my knowledge hasn't seen the submitted paper any more than any of us have. Yet he has no problem savaging it sight unseen.

THAT is intellectually dishonest. Calling him on it is nothing more than pointing out the truth.

nor is it intellectually honest to attempt to create the illusion that we know what Ketchum has done and that it has scientific merit.

Since I have not done that, you're batting 0 once again.

Those are my opinions. Free shipping within the continental US. All investments entail risk.

And those opinions and $5 will buy you a Starbuck's coffee...

And again I say, though DNA evidence may be pretty darn good, the skeptics (including the mainstream, incl. Sas) will call for a type specimen to put in a museum, as it is a NEW, UNDISCOVORED large mammal/hominid...ketchup on the plate will not do...Yes, agreeing with you, Sas...as much as I hate the idea of killing one, it will be entirely necessary to science post-Ketchum...

And I've agreed with the practical necessity of it...while pointing out the position as the cynical, double-stardard-ed position that it is.

[Guest]

If you prove that another hominid exists, it is still only an opinion that it proves bigfoot exists. Some might be so hard headed to take the position that it just proves some other unknown hominid exists. Someone could still claim that wasn't really a bigfoot but something else since it isn't precisely defined what a bigfoot is. It could prove that creatures matching the general descriptions of bigfoot exist that weren't known to science. That would be proof to most unbiased people and they would look pretty foolish arguing against the possibility that bigfoot existed in that situation. The logical conclusion would be that they exist.

All true, but to be fair, the DNA-proof-of-hominid thing won't tell us which bigfoot is the real one. For instance, does a "human" bigfoot make Patty more or less plausible? Does a human bigfoot make "samurai chatter" more plausible, and howling at the moon less plausible? Does a human bigfoot rule out the 12-footers? Here's a tough one: mid-tarsal break. DNA evidence that places bigfoot in Homo makes Meldrum's mid-tarsal break hypothesis far less likely. A personal favorite of mine, 4X4 mode, is clearly out the window with a human bigfoot.

There would still be many questions to address with the bigfoots-are-humans-via-DNA analysis scenario. All would be answered if somebody just hauled one in.

[Guest]

A personal favorite of mine, 4X4 mode, is clearly out the window with a human bigfoot.

Not so. Someone on the old forum posted an account of a town in Asia (IIRC) where the entire population goes 4x4 doe to some weird genetic quirk. It would be easier for BF, with it's longer than normal for human arms to do this.