Ketchum DNA Paper?

http://www.newswise.com/articles/list?category=embargoed

Could it be in one of these Journals?

The Key Words
American Museum Of Natural History, morphobank, fossil specimen, Cretaceous, phenomic, Genomic, Mammals, Ancestor, afrotheria, Molecular, Biology, Anatomical Sciences, Mammalogy, National Science Foundation EMBARGOED
canine cranium development, Genetic Variation, human cranium development, brachycephaly, dolichocephaly, genome-wide association studies
genomic analysis, proteomic analysis, blood plasma, diagnostic targets, Therapeutic Targets

CMcMillan wrote:Could it be in one of these Journals?

We'll find out at 2/7/2013 2:00 PM EST!!


Edit: the keyword list mentions 'afrotheria' and the afrotheria clade is really weird.

I just noticed that doing a search for "afrotheria" on that site brings up two results, one of which is this:

Placental Mammal Diversity Exploded After Age of Dinosaurs
Stony Brook University
2013-02-05
Scientists build new tree of life for placentals using ‘phylophenomics,’ visualize common ancestor.

Clicking on it brings up this message:

This news release is embargoed
This news release is available only to verified logged-in journalists until the embargo expires on 2/7/2013 2:00:00

It doesn't look like it's the Ketchum paper.

It has several "Papers in it" that was all the key words from the ones in that Science Journal

Off your link released to reporters yesterday embargo off tomorrow.
Science



EMBARGOED

A reporter's PressPass is required to access this story until the embargo expires on 2/8/2013 9:15 AM EST



Keywords:



population and evolutionary genetics, Genome Biology, systems bio, Methods, Technology, Resources

BurdenOfProof wrote:Still no paper. The bigfoot community need to demand more from the claimants.

... or just go "Yeah, that sounds like it might be interesting" and then go on with their lives until something worthwhile eventuates from the claims.
Running wild with speculation at just the suggestion that something has or will happen makes things a lot easier for the hoaxers.

BurdenOfProof wrote:The sykes paper is maybe the last chance for bigfooting.

NOT finding definitive proof is quite different than proving the non-existence. For that matter...proving something can not exist is much more difficult than proving it does. While the existance of Bigfoot has not been proven...how would one go about proving it can not?

You can give "logical" reasons that Bigfoot can not exist all day long...it is no different than the multitude of potential evidence that Bigfoot does.

DPinkerton wrote:NOT finding definitive proof is quite different than proving the non-existence. For that matter...proving something can not exist is much more difficult than proving it does. While the existance of Bigfoot has not been proven...how would one go about proving it can not?

True, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. No one can ever 'prove' a negative in the actual world. (Theoretical and mathematical negatives are a different matter.) But then again science never claims 100% absolute proof for anything anyway - no theory is ever finalised and every finding is always open to further experimentation and refinement.

On the other hand, science is much more interested in investigating probabilities than possibilities. Is it possible that a population of very large omnivores/carnivores could exist in the USA and not be known to science? I guess so. Is it probable? It's looking less and less likely every year. People have been trying to prove Bigfoot's existence since the 1950s and in those 60+ years there's been absolutely no scientifically verifiable evidence come to light. That's a ridiculous amount of research for zero results.

You have summed up the problem with bigfooters. They can sit forever in their comfy position of "the evidence just hasnt been found yet", because noone is ever going to prove it doesnt exist. There comes a time when the line must be drawn. I would suggest if the Sykes study comes back all known animals then its time to rethink what you "believe".[/quote]

Nope, it just means we have to keep looking, the truth is out there. We just need to look harder. Yes it may be a "comfy" position, but I like it. And I will still believe.

Just because "some" samples may be known animals, doesn't mean they all are. I personally will keep looking and keep believing, you may think my position is stupid, but I don't care. You have your opinion and that is good, and that's what keeps us discussing.

BurdenOfProof wrote:I would suggest if the Sykes study comes back all known animals then its time to rethink what you "believe".

Why? What do you care what I or anyone else believe?

Is it adversely affecting your existence? Is someone's belief in Bigfoot endangering you, costing you money, harming the environment, or anything else that you should be concerned with? I do not think so.

So what do you care?

Squatchmaster G wrote:

DPinkerton wrote:NOT finding definitive proof is quite different than proving the non-existence. For that matter...proving something can not exist is much more difficult than proving it does. While the existance of Bigfoot has not been proven...how would one go about proving it can not?

True, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. No one can ever 'prove' a negative in the actual world. (Theoretical and mathematical negatives are a different matter.) But then again science never claims 100% absolute proof for anything anyway - no theory is ever finalised and every finding is always open to further experimentation and refinement.

On the other hand, science is much more interested in investigating probabilities than possibilities. Is it possible that a population of very large omnivores/carnivores could exist in the USA and not be known to science? I guess so. Is it probable? It's looking less and less likely every year. People have been trying to prove Bigfoot's existence since the 1950s and in those 60+ years there's been absolutely no scientifically verifiable evidence come to light. That's a ridiculous amount of research for zero results.

Science does not work on Probables.
If it did it is Probable that Bigfoot is real It is Probable Aliens are real. It is Probable Evolution is not accurate and correct. It is Probable that we were created by Ancient Aliens.
If they did then they would be open to these things. But Science is not.
Science has become the Relegion for Aethists. Watch an Aethist defend Evolution and shoot down any other theory. Its the same Zealot beliefs of other relegions.
If People actually believe it is Probable they wouldn't get all zealot about Science. They would look at the information you present and question but accept your view until it is proven wrong or proven correct.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

DPinkerton wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:The sykes paper is maybe the last chance for bigfooting.

NOT finding definitive proof is quite different than proving the non-existence. For that matter...proving something can not exist is much more difficult than proving it does. While the existance of Bigfoot has not been proven...how would one go about proving it can not?

You can give "logical" reasons that Bigfoot can not exist all day long...it is no different than the multitude of potential evidence that Bigfoot does.

You have summed up the problem with bigfooters. They can sit forever in their comfy position of "the evidence just hasnt been found yet", because noone is ever going to prove it doesnt exist. There comes a time when the line must be drawn. I would suggest if the Sykes study comes back all known animals then its time to rethink what you "believe".

So are we to assume Sykes is the end all be all Expert in BIGFOOT DNA? Why would one need to change their view?
Would you change your view if he comes back and says Bigfoot is real? Or would you require more Proof?

CMcMillan wrote:Science does not work on Probables.
If it did it is Probable that Bigfoot is real It is Probable Aliens are real. It is Probable Evolution is not accurate and correct. It is Probable that we were created by Ancient Aliens.
If they did then they would be open to these things. But Science is not.
Science has become the Relegion for Aethists. Watch an Aethist defend Evolution and shoot down any other theory. Its the same Zealot beliefs of other relegions.
If People actually believe it is Probable they wouldn't get all zealot about Science. They would look at the information you present and question but accept your view until it is proven wrong or proven correct.

Wait, so science can't operate on absolutes but you're not going to let it operate on probabilities either? You really, genuinely don't understand how the scientific method operates.

There's also absolutely no impetus for people to accept you view without first finding conclusive proof against it. You need to present compelling evidence to back up your claims, you can't just make up stuff and expect people to go along with you. The burden of evidence is on the people presenting the new hypothesis.

CMcMillan wrote:
DUDE So Burden can Say we should do something and you don't trash him>?
Seriously?

Yeah I think Burden was a little hasty there.

I know how science works my friend.
I would accept if it actually worked on Probabilities but the people involved and claim science is fact don't allow it to.
Its the Scientist who do not work on the Probabilities like the should.

Hypothesis is a Possible or Probability.
Then the research is to either confirm or deny the Hypothesis.
But once a person who comes along with a different Hypothesis and sees the evidence in a different way.
Even if it is Probable that the evidence is wrong. The rest of the science community slams the new theory.
I will give you the biggest example:
Ancient Aliens theories. the Chariot of the gods.
when you investigate and look at the "physical evidence" of drawings and buildings. The probability is high that we could have been influenced by a race of superior like humans from space. But main stream science will deny it.

CMcMillan wrote:I will give you the biggest example:
Ancient Aliens theories. the Chariot of the gods.
when you investigate and look at the "physical evidence" of drawings and buildings. The probability is high that we could have been influenced by a race of superior like humans from space. But main stream science will deny it.

Ha, I was just read the chapter in James Randi's book Flim-Flam! about Erich von Daniken last week. Those ancient aliens theories are incredibly weak (and more than a little racist in most cases) and the 'evidence' they put forwards is just awful.

We were talking about science and 'ancient aliens' theories are not any sort of proper science. Try a different example.

See you proved my point.

CMcMillan wrote:See you proved my point.

"The probability is high that we could have been influenced by a race of superior like humans from space" is an unsupported statement. Your point was a bad point.

The skeptics didn't outright deny the theory, they looked into it and discovered that the evidence was either really really weak or non-existent and in some cases outright fabricated. Science didn't get a chance to examine the claims because there were no peer reviewed formal papers putting their claims forwards.

LOL you just said it wasn't real science so which is it?
You keep changing your mind.

Ok again ID has been peer reviewed if Peer Review makes it good science why don't people accept ID as a real scientific theory?

CMcMillan wrote:LOL you just said it wasn't real science so which is it?
You keep changing your mind.

I didn't change my mind, read what I said again.

CMcMillan wrote:Ok again ID has been peer reviewed if Peer Review makes it good science why don't people accept ID as a real scientific theory?

Can you point me in the direction of some formal ID papers which have been peer reviewed? I want to check this stuff out.

I also never said that peer review makes it 'good' science, only that peer review is a necessary step in the scientific method. Once a paper has been published under peer review it's still open to discussion and can still be completely negated by further research. There's literally hundreds of thousands of formal scientific papers which have passed through the peer review process and been published over the last few centuries which have now been superceded. Publication isn't the end of the scientific process.
You really don't understand the significance and function of the peer review process, do you?

1.) go look for them yourself. There have been several. I suggest read the papers not the comments.

I also never said that peer review makes it 'good' science, only that peer review is a necessary step in the scientific method. Once a paper has been published under peer review it's still open to discussion and can still be completely negated by further research. There's literally hundreds of thousands of formal scientific papers which have passed through the peer review process and been published over the last few centuries which have now been superceded. Publication isn't the end of the scientific process.
You really don't understand the significance and function of the peer review process, do you?

So wait?
I get Peer Review and its still always being peer reviewed?
So whats the point in getting the first Peer Review?
Seems like its a waste why not just publish and let whomever read it and pick it apart?

CMcMillan wrote:I get Peer Review and its still always being peer reviewed?
So whats the point in getting the first Peer Review?

No, being argued over once it's been published isn't "peer review". Peer review is the process whereby a potential paper gets evaluated to make sure it follows correct scientific procedure and is of a good enough quality to be published.

CMcMillan wrote:
Seems like its a waste why not just publish and let whomever read it and pick it apart?

Because there's all sorts of idiots/schizophrenics/crackpots out there who have no idea how to conduct a proper scientific study and who would just waste everyone's time and patience if their rubbish got published.

Squatchmaster G wrote:Because there's all sorts of idiots/schizophrenics/crackpots out there who have no idea how to conduct a proper scientific study and who would just waste everyone's time and patience if their rubbish got published.

So doesn't that fall to the organization that published the paper? If the organization is a reputable one...they will not allow anyone to waste their time, money and reputation on a crackpot paper.

Ok so Intelectual Design is a True Science Theory
It has been peer reviewed. It passed it has been Published so the scientific method behind it is sound.

But ala's so many in the science community who don't like the ID theory say Peer Review doesn't mean anything

Squatchmaster G wrote:Can you point me in the direction of some formal ID papers which have been peer reviewed? I want to check this stuff out.

As far as I am aware (I'm happy to stand corrected) supposedly peer reviewed ID papers have only ever appeared in journals that are peer reviewed only by other ID proponents*. ID proponents have however had non-ID papers published in reputable journals (this fact is often misconstrued to mean that ID has been peer reviewed).

*Maybe that's where Ketchum got the idea to set up Denovo?

This article pretty much sums up how I see the Ketchum paper as it stands:

http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/ketchum-bigfoot-dna-paper-released-problems-with-questionable-publication/

I suppose we will have to wait and see what the experts have to say......but it doesn't sound promising.

Of course you would show UP.

Yea everyone commenting on the "Paper" hasn't read it.
Because they don't want to pay the money.

And Wood isn't A peer Review a review of people who are similar to you work
Oh look a definition:

Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field1.

http://www.linfo.org/peer_review.html

So why would someone who is not in the field of ID be part of a peer review?

Oh Just incase
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer%20review

: a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field

But let me guess Science has some other Definition for Peer Review?