Ketchum paper published in Russia

Ok, Ive read on the blog comments and on JREF that someone emailed the Russian scientist and he confirmed that the paper is going to be published in Russia.

Im not saying this is true but if it is does anyone think the paper actually has any credibility?

BurdenOfProof wrote:Ok, Ive read on the blog comments and on JREF that someone emailed the Russian scientist and he confirmed that the paper is going to be published in Russia.

Im not saying this is true but if it is does anyone think the paper actually has any credibility?

That was obviously a troll lol. But if this is the case, it would have more credibility. We are brainwashed into thinking Russia is some backwater country when in fact, it's universities in the eyes of Europe put ours to shame. My ex fiancee was from Moscow and had a law degree. Her degree would not transfer here, however it would in England. A law degree from an American University won't transfer to Europe as they do not feel our Universities are on par with theirs (except the ivy league ones)

But say Russian Universities are a backwater and their science was thirdworld. (Remember, they used to be our rival during the space race and they beat us into space.) If ketchums paper was passed and published over there, and then Sykes paper passes in some esteemed journal of science, it is only going to give Ketchum and whatever journal that picked her up more fame.

At this point, I don't think it matters who publishes her anymore, she still wins. (Unless Sykes finds something completely different)

I would question why all the big journals in America would pass up on the greatest discovery of the century

For one, American scientists aren't as open minded about Bigfoot as they are in Russia. Would you publish something if you thought it might make you the laughing stock of the US scientific community? Of course not. Me I don't care I would publish it.

So that is probably why it might be published overseas.

We have no idea what Journal or Magazine that will publish the Paper.
I also think Scientist even with good evidence will still be skeptical on Big foot.
It could possibly throw a wrench in the theory of evolution for them.

CMcMillan wrote:We have no idea what Journal or Magazine that will publish the Paper.
I also think Scientist even with good evidence will still be skeptical on Big foot.
It could possibly throw a wrench in the theory of evolution for them.

Yeah, about that lol.

"Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution



"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Mutation - natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.



Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed."

And it goes on to show how biased the peer review is and how it accepts failures as proof http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Now you throw Hybrids into the mix and I have no idea what that will do to Darwinism

I don't believe bigfoot will throw a monkey wrench into evolution at all. Hybridization is an accepted mode of species creation for "evolutionists" (hate that name btw, sounds like a religion). Hybridization is just one of several ways a species may arise such as genetic drift, allopatric speciation, sympatric speciation and parapatric speciation. The Mariana mallard is now considered a species that arose through hybridization. Domestic sheep arose through hybridization.

As for the argument posited above that bacteria, despite their fast mutation rates, do not change is misleading for several reasons. First of all, what is meant by change? Bacteria are perfectly fine remaining as bacteria- they are adapted to their lifestyle just fine thank you. No need for them to evolve into a "higher organism" when they are perfectly capable the way they are. Secondly, it is a mistake to say they are not changing. Ever hear of antibiotic resistant bacteria? Anyone you know ever get innoculated with MRSA during a stay at the hospital? The rise of MRSA and other antibiotic resistant bacteria IS EVOLUTION IN REAL TIME!!!

Evolution is observable, testable, and is happening all the time. I would prefer people who subscribe to it not be referred to as "evolutionists" (sounds like religion) but simply biologists- because all of modern biology is evolutionary biology.

The above article is logically fallacious in so many regards I would not be surprised if there is some type of creationist quackery behind it.

SciaticPain wrote:I don't believe bigfoot will throw a monkey wrench into evolution at all. Hybridization is an accepted mode of species creation for "evolutionists" (hate that name btw, sounds like a religion). Hybridization is just one of several ways a species may arise such as genetic drift, allopatric speciation, sympatric speciation and parapatric speciation. The Mariana mallard is now considered a species that arose through hybridization. Domestic sheep arose through hybridization.

As for the argument posited above that bacteria, despite their fast mutation rates, do not change is misleading for several reasons. First of all, what is meant by change? Bacteria are perfectly fine remaining as bacteria- they are adapted to their lifestyle just fine thank you. No need for them to evolve into a "higher organism" when they are perfectly capable the way they are. Secondly, it is a mistake to say they are not changing. Ever hear of antibiotic resistant bacteria? Anyone you know ever get innoculated with MRSA during a stay at the hospital? The rise of MRSA and other antibiotic resistant bacteria IS EVOLUTION IN REAL TIME!!!

Evolution is observable, testable, and is happening all the time. I would prefer people who subscribe to it not be referred to as "evolutionists" (sounds like religion) but simply biologists- because all of modern biology is evolutionary biology.

The above article is logically fallacious in so many regards I would not be surprised if there is some type of creationist quackery behind it.

Ok so this Unidentified DNA in the Bigfoot creature. This as she puts it "Angel" DNA. If it is a TRUE ANGEL DNA or an Alien DNA. This would not throw a monkey wrench in the science of Evolution?
Really?

Can't really comment on Angel DNA because I see no mention of it in the press release and doubt it will appear mentioned in purported paper. As far as I can gather all she mentions in the press release is an unknown primate/hominin had a hybridization event with modern humans.

Anything beyond this is conjecture, rumor and hearsay. You can go there if you want but any attack on evolution is as flimsy as the evidence you are basing it on- off the cuff remarks, hearsay, rumor, and gossip.

Proving bigfoot is a big enough challenge- disproving evolution is, well, really beyond the scope of just one (purported) paper.

Evolution is not goal directed.

Tzieth wrote:
Yeah, about that lol.

"Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution



"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Mutation - natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.



Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed."

And it goes on to show how biased the peer review is and how it accepts failures as proof http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Now you throw Hybrids into the mix and I have no idea what that will do to Darwinism

Classic creationist drivel. You appear to lack an understanding of how evolution works.

I suggest watching this video as a starting point:



Potholer does a great job explaining evolution clearly. Also check his other videos in the "Made Easy" series, theres a couple more to do with evolution.

So Burden?

Lets say it is Proven that we were a genetic experiment that we were created by some other "Alien" race is it drivel then?

It is a plausible reason for some of the leaps in our "evolution"

I.D. and Basic Evolution in my opinion can work side by side.
If some I.D. force helped Jump Start our evolution then we kept evolving to the species we are now.

You are trying to fill gaps with some devine intervention with absolutely zero evidence for the claim.

We understand the tree of life from the first cells to the current diversity of life on earth today. No intervention required.

A popular tactic among Intelligent Design proponants is to explain what they do not understand by <insert god here>.

Science does not know everything and does not claim to know everything but that does not mean "therefore god did it".

Anyway back on topic...

The story is now making its rounds on various mainstream news sites and is being ridiculed as expected.

Various scientists have also commented on how both the approach to this is ridiculous aswell as how the findings themselves are ridiculous.

Thanks Burden, this video should be posted by Shawn on Bigfoot Evidence.

Its fine to speculate and imagine some type of alien intervention in our evolution. But that is just what it is- speculation- it is not science. And it is thoroughly outside the realm of science at this point. And I have no problem with people of faith working in science, genetics etc (Ketchum has a christian worldview in my understanding). As long as they are trained in the scientific method and they know the difference between demonstratable, repeatable evidence and conjecture, speculation and wishful thinking then I see no problem.

Maybe a primer on science vs pseudoscience is needed as well...

BurdenOfProof wrote:You are trying to fill gaps with some devine intervention with absolutely zero evidence for the claim.

We understand the tree of life from the first cells to the current diversity of life on earth today. No intervention required.

A popular tactic among Intelligent Design proponants is to explain what they do not understand by <insert god here>.

Science does not know everything and does not claim to know everything but that does not mean "therefore god did it".

Did I mention Devin?
Some I.D. doesn't even refer to Devin just some Intelligent Being pushing it along.
Kinda like SCIENCE!

SciaticPain wrote:Thanks Burden, this video should be posted by Shawn on Bigfoot Evidence.

Its fine to speculate and imagine some type of alien intervention in our evolution. But that is just what it is- speculation- it is not science. And it is thoroughly outside the realm of science at this point. And I have no problem with people of faith working in science, genetics etc (Ketchum has a christian worldview in my understanding). As long as they are trained in the scientific method and they know the difference between demonstratable, repeatable evidence and conjecture, speculation and wishful thinking then I see no problem.

Maybe a primer on science vs pseudoscience is needed as well...

How is it not science?

Do we or do we NOT Design Breeds of Dogs? Plants for Extra food. Shove steroids in People to make them better or domestic animals for more milk production these are all ways of Inteligent design

From wiki

Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. The Institute defines it as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[3] The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.[n 2]

I think you are a little confused between intelligent design and artificial selection

Artificial selection (or selective breeding) describes intentional breeding for certain traits, or combination of traits. The term was utilized by Charles Darwin in contrast to natural selection, in which the differential reproduction of organisms with certain traits is attributed to improved survival or reproductive ability (“Darwinian fitness”). As opposed to artificial selection, in which humans favor specific traits, in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass.

I am not confusing them.
I am saying that we as Humans have been touching on creating things.
This is also what I.D. is about. "Some Intelligence" creating or Modifying life.

Have we or have we not created Biological weapons?
Did we Create the African "Killer" Bees?
Do we not Inject Cows and other Livestock with Hormones or Insiminate them to create the best of them?
Do we not create Hybrid Plants to survive certain types of Climates?

This is all aspects of Inteligent Design

Well regardless of how inclusive your definition of intelligent design is David Paulides pretty much shuts the door on any talk of "angel DNA" in the Ketchum paper on his Coast to Coast radio interview.

SciaticPain wrote:I don't believe bigfoot will throw a monkey wrench into evolution at all. Hybridization is an accepted mode of species creation for "evolutionists" (hate that name btw, sounds like a religion). Hybridization is just one of several ways a species may arise such as genetic drift, allopatric speciation, sympatric speciation and parapatric speciation. The Mariana mallard is now considered a species that arose through hybridization. Domestic sheep arose through hybridization.

As for the argument posited above that bacteria, despite their fast mutation rates, do not change is misleading for several reasons. First of all, what is meant by change? Bacteria are perfectly fine remaining as bacteria- they are adapted to their lifestyle just fine thank you. No need for them to evolve into a "higher organism" when they are perfectly capable the way they are. Secondly, it is a mistake to say they are not changing. Ever hear of antibiotic resistant bacteria? Anyone you know ever get innoculated with MRSA during a stay at the hospital? The rise of MRSA and other antibiotic resistant bacteria IS EVOLUTION IN REAL TIME!!!

Evolution is observable, testable, and is happening all the time. I would prefer people who subscribe to it not be referred to as "evolutionists" (sounds like religion) but simply biologists- because all of modern biology is evolutionary biology.

The above article is logically fallacious in so many regards I would not be surprised if there is some type of creationist quackery behind it.

By change, they meant Macro. Becoming resistant to drugs is Micro. "Evolution" pretty much is a religion. I never copy-pasted the whole thing because it would have been too much text, but they cover every peer review that was passed even though it was a failure. Macro Evolution is taught as fact when it has never been tested nor proven. They use micro-evolution to make the case for macro, when by the very rules of micro, macro is not possible.

Basically micro law is that you have X-number of genetic traits unique to your genus. When needed these traits will emerge, but as recessive genes become dominant, the old dominant will become recessive. If there was an ice age, we may become hairy. If there was a major world flood, we may grow webbed hands and feet. But this is only because we already have these genes. However we may not trans-mutate into something else as our genes do not allow this and even prevent it by destroying or repairing mutated DNA strains. What they meant by the bacteria was that they can "Adapt" but in the end, they are still bacteria, not single celled organisms.

That page will go on to say how their experiments to prove macro not only failed, but reinforced the laws of Micro. They took Mayflies and purposely sped up their life cycles to equate Human existence and how long it took us to evolve. The mayflies went through various mutations over and over again, until they eventually all died out. the last line became sterile. They never evolved into anything else, instead they reached a certain point and then died. The peer review chalked this up as a success even though if anything, it only proves that every species has a pentacle before self extermination. So if Evolution is Extinction, I would rather "DE-volve" lol.

SciaticPain wrote:From wiki

Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. The Institute defines it as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[3] The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.[n 2]

I think you are a little confused between intelligent design and artificial selection

Artificial selection (or selective breeding) describes intentional breeding for certain traits, or combination of traits. The term was utilized by Charles Darwin in contrast to natural selection, in which the differential reproduction of organisms with certain traits is attributed to improved survival or reproductive ability (“Darwinian fitness”). As opposed to artificial selection, in which humans favor specific traits, in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass.

And this goes back to religion lol. That wiki was made by Evolutionists lol. The actual Founder of I.D. was at one point an Atheist until Computer Models failed to compute Evolution (Macro) Life simply would not start a million times fold. He always had to set it in motion. He came to the conclusion that life on Earth had to be manipulated to start. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-intelligent-design.html

Macroevolution is microevolution simply over a longer time. Creationists attempt to distort the issue by drawing a distinction between the two which modern biologists simply don't recognize.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm

And of course the founder of ID had problems with his computer simulation of evolution-its a simulation and probably loads of human error in how he made it after all.

And if we were "intelligently designed" that designer certainly wasn't very intelligent! He/she gave us extra teeth that need to be removed, an inefficient respiratory system (I would rather have the system of birds with air sacs), a rather inelegant propulsive system prone to break downs in the ankle, knee, hip and spine. The recurrent laryngeal nerve- why design it that way creationists? A brain that is prone to all sorts of psychosis, haywires, and degeneration. Simply put we are not "intelligently designed" and if we were that designer should be straight up fired- they did a crappy job!!!

You don't seem to get that ID is not th same as Creationism.
If you read what TZ linked He says that the ID could have just been the JUMP Start to creation of Life. And we went along and had some evolution involved.
Your so easy to Dismis s the Hypothesis when the arguments he makes are the same ones that Evolutionists make.
He says they both should be looked at with skeptism.

What makes you think I didn't slog through that article? Here is the final bit, from Phillip Johnson's own mouth :

And what is your view of the truth?

My view of the truth is that there is a creator. I don't know how long the creator took, but I think there was a process of creation, and the evolution that has occurred has occurred within the boundaries originally set. That would be my belief as of now. I tend to think that that will prevail, because I think it's the truth. But if it's not the truth, it won't prevail, and it shouldn't.

Sounds like creationism dressed up in a fancy new dress to me- he even says "creator"and "process of creation". Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

Now how about explaining the recurrent laryngeal nerve in terms of ID?

Don't get me wrong- I like the movie Prometheus- but there is absolutely zero proof for creationism, ID, alien intervention- whatever way you want to dress it up. No need to invoke such explanations and then attempt to pass them off as science.

The proof you are giving for Evolution can also be miss Identified. Or mistaken for something else.

Again you are missing one of the points of I.D. that some Inteligence Jump Started Life on earth So your proof is proof for ID as well.