Ketchum DNA Paper?

No, I haven't read the paper. Mostly because I'm not qualified to determine whether or not Ketchum's conclusions and methodology are sound.

As I said above, Ill wait to see what qualified experts make of it.

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

I think you are missing the point here. ID is not a field of scientific enquiry, but rather a very weak hypothesis (at best) regarding the field of evolutionary biology. For an ID paper to qualify as being peer reviewed it must be subject the scrutiny of recognised experts in evolutionary biology. For that peer review process to be considered unbiased, these experts must include individuals who are not ID proponents.

I'm not trying to start an argument - those are just the facts.

The same goes for the Ketchum paper. We simply cannot trust the findings of the paper if it has only been peer reviewed by those involved with the research (which is what appears to have happened). If Ketchum's methodology and conclusions are sound then there is no reason why her paper should be rejected by a major publication (which is where this kind of thing belongs).

The chances are that we are dealing with bad science on Ketchum's part and the issue of BF being a contentious subject is a feeble excuse.

Woodwose wrote:No, I haven't read the paper. Mostly because I'm not qualified to determine whether or not Ketchum's conclusions and methodology are sound.

As I said above, Ill wait to see what qualified experts make of it.

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

I think you are missing the point here. ID is not a field of scientific enquiry, but rather a very weak hypothesis (at best) regarding the field of evolutionary biology. For an ID paper to qualify as being peer reviewed it must be subject the scrutiny of recognised experts in evolutionary biology. For that peer review process to be considered unbiased, these experts must include individuals who are not ID proponents.

I'm not trying to start an argument - those are just the facts.

The same goes for the Ketchum paper. We simply cannot trust the findings of the paper if it has only been peer reviewed by those involved with the research (which is what appears to have happened). If Ketchum's methodology and conclusions are sound then there is no reason why her paper should be rejected by a major publication (which is where this kind of thing belongs).

The chances are that we are dealing with bad science on Ketchum's part and the issue of BF being a contentious subject is a feeble excuse.

No its NOT facts. If Evolutionists already look down at ID why would ID want them to Peer Review. Do Evolutionists have their Papers Peer Reviewed by the ID people or even the Church? So in your View of Peer Review they should be sending them to those places for Peer Review.

Your definition of Peer Review does not follow what Peer review Definition is.

Define Bad Science?

The same goes for the Ketchum paper. We simply cannot trust the findings of the paper if it has only been peer reviewed by those involved with the research (which is what appears to have happened). If Ketchum's methodology and conclusions are sound then there is no reason why her paper should be rejected by a major publication (which is where this kind of thing belongs).

No Reason why? Really? Do Scientists accept Bigfoot? Do you think any Publication will stake their reputation on Putting out a paper on a Creature that Main stream Science doesn't accept?
Sorry even if her science is sound I don't see a MAJOR publication printing it until more people accept the creature.

CMcMillan wrote:No its NOT facts. If Evolutionists already look down at ID why would ID want them to Peer Review.

I didn't mention 'evolutionists'. ID specifically proposes that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is incorrect and that evolution occurred via some -as yet to be specified - alternative mechanism that was guided by a 'creator'. ID does not deny the phenomenon of evolution and as such it must stand up to the scrutiny of experts in the fields it applies to i.e. evolutionary biology.

Do Evolutionists have their Papers Peer Reviewed by the ID people or even the Church?

If an ID proponent is an expert in the field of evolutionary biology then I see no reason why they could not be called upon to take part in peer review regarding papers written by 'evolutionists'. I think that would be especially true if a paper was presented as a refutation of ID.

The church is an irrelevance as it has nothing to do with science in any shape or form. That would be like asking a panel of chefs to judge the ability of surgeon.

Your definition of Peer Review does not follow what Peer review Definition is.

I'm not playing dictionaries at dawn.

In laymans terms peer review simply refers to the process of submitting scientific findings to other scientists (i.e. peers) for review and testing. In practice the scientists involved in reviewing papers must be drawn from appropriate fields - for Ketchum that would include gentecists, primatologists and scientists from various other fields.

How else do you suggest we test claims made by scientists?

Don't you think that Ketchum has shot herself in the foot and undermined her claims by not having her findings tested properly and according to the standards all other scientists are expected to meet?

Define Bad Science?

Sloppy experiment design and parameters, flawed methodology, reaching conclusions not suggested by the evidence etc.

Do you think any Publication will stake their reputation on Putting out a paper on a Creature that Main stream Science doesn't accept?

Yes if the science is sound. What do they have to lose? I suggest that there is far more to be gained by being the publication that backs such an amazing claim.

Sloppy experiment design and parameters, flawed methodology, reaching conclusions not suggested by the evidence etc.

So how is Melba's Experiments flawed?
Did you read the paper? do you know anything about DNA or are you taking other peoples words who haven't read it yet?

Yes if the science is sound. What do they have to lose? I suggest that there is far more to be gained by being the publication that backs such an amazing claim.

Really?
Why do we not have more people researching Bigfoot then who are more scientific?
I mean We have one professor who seems to have collected good information. Yet we don't have courses on Bigfoot or cryptids. We don't have main stream science actually involved.

Oh wait someone needs to PROVE before science will accept
that is your answer why they won't publish it.
Look at freaking news reports how the reporters and people snicker and laugh about "bigfoot" sightings

CMcMillan wrote:ITS PEERS in your respected field.

In the case of ID that field would be evolutionary biology. ID is not a field, it's an hypothesis.

In the case of Ketchum there are multiple fields.

So how is Melba's Experiments flawed?
Did you read the paper? do you know anything about DNA or are you taking other peoples words who haven't read it yet?

I have already said that I haven't read the paper and that I'm not qualified to to judge it's veracity. I'm just saying that when reading the article I linked to, it isn't looking good.

For example if it is true that a minimum requirement for any DNA based paper is that DNA samples are logged with a database, then Ketchum has seemingly faltered at the first hurdle.

Why do we not have more people researching Bigfoot then who are more scientific?

Because it's a fringe interest that has little in terms of evidence that satisfies the criteria needed to establish the existence of a new species.

IMO there is however sufficient evidence to warrant further research and it's unfortunate more scientists are unable or unwilling to look at the subject. Funding is a major issue and there are very few individuals or institutions that are willing shell out large amounts of money on research that may not produce any results.

None of this means that science is dismissive of BF; many academics are certainly open to the possibility that BF and similar cryptids exist. Nor does it mean that science will reject irrefutable evidence that BF exists. Good scientific evidence that can withstand the rigours of peer review must be accepted even if it challenges the status quo.

When it comes to Ketchum the implications are that it's likely her paper was rejected because it did not pass muster. This might be an erroneous conclusion and I reserve final judgement until qualified experts have had the chance to look over the paper.

My suspicion is that the published paper will contain insufficient information regarding Ketchums evidence and methodology. She will then use this ambiguity to drag this on as long as she can.

In the case of ID that field would be evolutionary biology. ID is not a field, it's an hypothesis.

ID is a field of study by some.
Just because you don't like the field of study doesn't make it not one.

Because it's a fringe interest that has little in terms of evidence that satisfies the criteria needed to establish the existence of a new species.

See you answered your own question WHY another Journal would not Publish this.

My suspicion is that the published paper will contain insufficient information regarding Ketchums evidence and methodology. She will then use this ambiguity to drag this on as long as she can.

Bingo!

CMcMillan wrote:

In the case of ID that field would be evolutionary biology. ID is not a field, it's an hypothesis.

ID is a field of study by some.

How can it be a field/branch of science when it's barely an hypothesis - it cannot even hypothesise (let alone demonstrate) an alternative mechanism to natural selection?

But I digress (reminder to self to get back on topic).

See you answered your own question WHY another Journal would not Publish this.

Not at all. Any journal worth it's salt will publish something as amazing as proof that BF exists. It's a no brainier as the rewards and prestige will be almost unparalleled. Do you not remember what happened with cold fusion?

Publishing a controversial theory backed by sound science is a huge pay day. However there is a lot of risk and in that respect and I imagine that the peer review standards are going to be that much higher when it comes to BF.

Not registering DNA with Genbank fails Ketchum before she even gets to face the full rigour of genetic, primatologist and evolutionary biology experts.

How can it be a field/branch of science when it's barely an hypothesis - it cannot even hypothesise (let alone demonstrate) an alternative mechanism to natural selection?

But I digress (reminder to self o get back on topic).

Then by your formula.
Big Bang can not be a field of study, Evolution can not be a field of study,.
Since the "evidence" for both is at best debatable.

CMcMillan wrote:

How can it be a field/branch of science when it's barely an hypothesis - it cannot even hypothesise (let alone demonstrate) an alternative mechanism to natural selection?

But I digress (reminder to self o get back on topic).

Then by your formula.
Big Bang can not be a field of study, Evolution can not be a field of study,.
Since the "evidence" for both is at best debatable.

The Big Bang isn't a field of study in itself, it's a theory within the field of cosmology. Evolution is a theory within the fields of biology & palaeontology.
The evidence for both is overwhelming, by the way, which is why they're theories and not hypotheses.

Words in this discussion which you don't properly understand: hypothesis, theory, evidence, field.

Just to be clear though, evolutionary biology is a field of science, which deals with how organisms are observed to evolve and change.

The theory of evolution is a theory within this field that explains why/how this occurs. ID is a competing hypothesis within this field that has yet to be proven.

Both ID and Ketchum's paper fall within the field of evolutionary biology (and other relevant fields) and must necessarily be tested by scientists from within this field before being accepted as factual theories. In order to rule out bias this testing must be carried out by people not involved in the original research or already committed to accepting the proposed theories.

It's as simple as that.

Squatchmaster G wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:

How can it be a field/branch of science when it's barely an hypothesis - it cannot even hypothesise (let alone demonstrate) an alternative mechanism to natural selection?

But I digress (reminder to self o get back on topic).

Then by your formula.
Big Bang can not be a field of study, Evolution can not be a field of study,.
Since the "evidence" for both is at best debatable.

The Big Bang isn't a field of study in itself, it's a theory within the field of cosmology. Evolution is a theory within the fields of biology & palaeontology.
The evidence for both is overwhelming, by the way, which is why they're theories and not hypotheses.

Words in this discussion which you don't properly understand: hypothesis, theory, , field.

I understand the words very well. I gave a definition of several which you refuse to give me your version of the definition since you seem to think Science has changed the definitions.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/field+of+study


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology


Evidence:ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.
Idiom:
in evidence
1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.


hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

Now
Do SOME Scientists just study Evolution as a whole? Why the answer would be YES they do so it is a Field of STUDY.
Do SOME Scientists just study causes and effects of the BIG Bang Theory. The answer is YES so it is a Field of Study.

Oh Look

Bachelor degrees in Evolutionary Biology: A program that focuses on the scientific study of the genetic, developmental, functional, and morphological patterns and processes, and theoretical principles; and the emergence and mutation of organisms over time. Includes instruction in molecular and morphological systematics; genetics and development; evolutionary transformation; paleobiology and paleontology; morphogenesis; mutation; locomotor, biomechanical and craniodental form and function; evolutionary theory; and systematic biology.

oh look at this
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

We have, however, come a long way from the mystical beginnings of the study of ... The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble

At no point on that wiki page does it state that ID is a scientific field.

If you think that ID has some validity then I respect your right to hold that belief. Your are entitled to your own beliefs and I am obliged to respect those beliefs. However you are not entitled to your own facts.

So not 1 Scientist JUST STUDIES the BIGBANG or the Theory of Evolution?
They don't just concentrate on that do they

Of course there are scientists that concentrate on a specific theory or hypothesis. When it comes to scientific terminology that does not make their area of interest a recognised field or discipline.

The Big Bang Theory and the TOE are not fields of science - they are theories concerning specific fields of science. Cosmology, astronomy and theoretical physics are fields of science (the Big Bang is an theory concerning these fields) and biology, zoology and evolutionary biology are fields of science (the TOE is a theory concerning these fields).

Similarly ID is an hypothesis pertaining to evolutionary biology. ID is also concerned with paleontology, paleoanthropology and geology and necessarily falls under those fields also.

In pointing this out no one is attacking your beliefs. We are just attempting to explain how science works and how your analogy regarding ID and the Ketchum paper is erroneous. We are also trying to highlight some reasons to be concerned about the Ketchum paper. As an individual attempting to make a reasoned assessment of the paper, these are factors that you should appreciate and be aware of.

As it stands Ketchum's paper cannot be accurately assessed unless it is reviewed by an independent and unbiased panel of scientists who are experts in the various fields that apply to the research.

If the paper has only been reviewed by the authors and people involved in the research, then this criteria has not been met and the paper cannot claim to have been peer reviewed.

Do you think we should take Ketchum at her word, or do you think that her findings should be independently verified? It's no different to the recent Dyer or Smeja fiasco - we cannot accept their stories until they have been independently verified. That is all that is being said here with regard to Ketchum and the issue of peer review.

I'm sorry if this upsets you, but I believe that if you sit back and take on board what I have said, you will appreciate that I am correct and that I only have the best interests of BF research in mind.

NO your NOT correct!
I just fixed my Post to prove you are NOT correct.

Of course there are scientists that concentrate on a specific theory or hypothesis. When it comes to scientific terminology that does not make their area of interest a recognised field or discipline.

You are wrong because PEOPLE do spend a LIFE TIME in the Study of the BIGBANG or even Evolution. That is the Field Of Study!
Yes it is a smaller subsect of a wider field. But in it self it is a concentration and Field of Study.
Foot Doctor, Plastic Surgeon, Heart Surgeon, Brain Surgeon, Pediatrics
These are Specialized Field of work and Study involving Medical Fields of study.

Also I have not said that Ketchums PAPER shouldn't be reviewed.
Now that it is out People can review it for all they desire.
I don't like Her Conclusions she makes. I think that is what hurt her paper. If she just laid out the Data in a way to show that we have a Unknown creature and this is the DNA she is picking up.
But regardless she has Put it out more than I can say for others who have not.
So In your view of Sykes paper and research confirms Melba's then is her data bad? Or will it be considered good?

I am saying you can not sit here and Say that it MUST have a Peer Review to be valid.
If that is the case then ID has been PEER reviewed.
Again the definition of a Peer Review applies here.

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal. The work may be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review.

peer review
noun
evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in the same occupation, profession, or industry.

So Papers on the Theory of ID have performed Proper Peer Review to all accepted Definitions of the words Peer Review

In pointing this out no one is attacking your beliefs. We are just attempting to explain how science works and how your analogy regarding ID and the Ketchum paper is erroneous. We are also trying to highlight some reasons to be concerned about the Ketchum paper. As an individual attempting to make a reasoned assessment of the paper, these are factors that you should appreciate and be aware of.

No your not explaining how Science Works.
You are treating and defining things with a slanted View on what you THINK science should be.
You are treating Science as a Region and the words to have different Meanings in the science field.
You have refused to provide the Definitions of the words because you can not. They mean what I have defined.
Science and Theories are not absolutes. People like you are the exact same type of people who laughed at the possibility of the Earth Being round or that we circle the sun. You are ridged in your VIEW of Science.
You only want to deal with what SCIENCE tells you is Fact instead of seeing that Current SCIENCE maybe incorrect.

And for your Information.
I am not a religious believer in Intellectual Design.
I like to keep an open mind and look at all views of something.
I don't take ID as the end all be all. I think its an interesting concept and I can see where it may be Probable to be.
We have done "basic" genetic manipulation of animals for 1,000 of years. We breed certain cats, and dogs, and other animals to produce certain traits. We have created Killer bees. These are all small forms of our ID.
Look at some Dogs now these days what are they called Designer Dogs. A chiiweenie is a Designer dog.

CM,

I'm sorry but I think that you have completely overlooked the fact that there is a significant difference between a theory or hypothesis and a field of science.

As has already been said, theories and hypothesese are essentially ideas or working models that explain how a field of science operates. The Big Bang Theory explains how the phsyics of the universe came into being, whilst phsysics is a field of study that describes how the universe is observed to operate. The same goes for the TOE and ID.

Scientific fields describe 'what is' and theories/hypotheses describe 'how it came to be'. ID is not a scientific field because it looks at 'what is' (i.e. existing scientific fields) and attempts to explain 'how it came to be'.

In terms of peer review this means that ID must be peer reviewed by a panel of independant scientists from the various fields that ID speculates about. To my knowledge this has never occured and ID has therfore never been peer reviewed. The same goes for the Ketchum paper as the data has seemingly never been examined by anyone outside her research group.

The Sykes paper cannot confirm Ketchum's finding because it is not dealing with the same data (if it were the Sykes paper could be counted as a form of peer review for Ketchum). Sykes may reach similar conclusions, but without the Ketchum paper being submitted for independant appraisal, her finding could still be bogus. Pseudo science that just happens to reach the right conclusions is still pseudo science - rember that even a broken clock still tells the right time twice a day.

CMcMillan wrote:No your not explaining how Science Works.
You are treating and defining things with a slanted View on what you THINK science should be.
You are treating Science as a Region and the words to have different Meanings in the science field.
You have refused to provide the Definitions of the words because you can not. They mean what I have defined.
Science and Theories are not absolutes. People like you are the exact same type of people who laughed at the possibility of the Earth Being round or that we circle the sun. You are ridged in your VIEW of Science.
You only want to deal with what SCIENCE tells you is Fact instead of seeing that Current SCIENCE maybe incorrect.

I'm sorry but I have done nothing of the sort.

From experience I think you have false preconceptions about science because it does not accept your beliefs. You are then projecting these preconceptions onto me with absolutely no basis in what I have stated.

Can we please stick to what I have actually written and try and keep this on the subject of BF.

I have made my case very clearly and explained why we should have serious doubts about the Ketchum paper. You will not entertain the possibility that you are mistaken and whilst you disagree with my reasoning you have your own doubts about Ketchum. We have both made our positions very clear, so maybe we should leave it at that rather than going around in circles?

Squatchmaster G wrote:Wow, CMcMillan is having a meltdown.

In fairness I know how touchy CM can be about ID and I should probably have left the subject alone.

Squatchmaster G wrote:Wow, CMcMillan is having a meltdown.

So when are you going to give your definitions which Pinkerton asked for?
Why can't you simply define your idea of what the terms mean?


And no I don't have a Meltdown because I may or may not Believe in ID.

I had a melt down because you both are twisting the Accepted definitions of the words you are using to FIT your argument.

From experience I think you have false preconceptions about science because it does not accept your beliefs. You are then projecting these preconceptions onto me with absolutely no basis in what I have stated.

Really please Explain my Belief since you seem to THINK you know it.

CMcMillan wrote:A Plastic Surgeon gets other Plastic Surgeons to Peer Review they do not get a foot doctor to.

No, the editor of the journal selects someone appropriate to review the paper. The person who wrote the paper doesn't get to choose who reviews it.

Squatchmaster G wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:A Plastic Surgeon gets other Plastic Surgeons to Peer Review they do not get a foot doctor to.

No, the editor of the journal selects someone appropriate to review the paper. The person who wrote the paper doesn't get to choose who reviews it.

Yes I know that.
But they aren't sending a Plastic Surgeon Paper to a foot doctor.
PEERs in the field of study
You can't seem to grasp that can you.