The Sykes / Sartori Report - Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project

[Guest SDBigfooter]

If we can't come to any useful conclusions about DNA material without a type specimen then what does that say about our own understanding of DNA material?

I'm not saying she has it, but that should say something if it is legitimate.

 

Maybe someone else will validate her findings.  That is all.

 

Until then, not much else to say about it.

[Guest DWA]

It just says it isn't absolute, that's all.  When one has DNA with no identifiable referent...how can one say what it is?

 

I'm not sure where the fiction got started that something unknown can have its pic painted from its DNA signature.

[Guest]

If we can't come to any useful conclusions about DNA material without a type specimen then what does that say about our own understanding of DNA material?

 

That is because scientists HAVE type specimans for things that have been discovered by DNA. Type specimans as in actual bones and remains which we have none of in the case of Bigfoot.

 

Ketchum kept rambling on about the Lesula monkey DNA and how they justified it's existance using far less base pairs than her study provided. Of course she never mentions that type specimans for them exist and are in captivity as well as many striking close up pictures and videos of them.

Edited December 21, 2013 by BipedalCurious

[JDL]

I don't know what to make of the Ketchum Study at this point.  I've got to say that most of what I've heard is not confidence inspiring.

 

I do think it probable that we already have type specimens in hand, but have a problem analyzing them due to their nature.  I believe it highly likely that they are near-human enough to confound any analysis that does not seriously take that possibility into account.

 

Before I knew they had a name, I was convinced they were simply some sort of hair covered people.  They never came across as apes to me and the resemblance to apes didn't extend beyond the superficial hair.  The ones I encountered acted like aboriginal people.  They displayed behavior and emotions very like our own.

 

So I do believe that they are not that different from us at the genetic level.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Those first two sentences.  Let's just say I wasn't exactly inspired by Ketchum's leadup to get my battlefield commission in genetic analysis.

[georgerm]

If one can't remember where one got one's information, then one has to understand that one's argument is going to be seen as lacking and emotionally based.  Using catch phrases like "Ketchumites" is a convenient way to avoid backing up one's arguments with facts.  That particular phrase is always attached to an emotion-based argument from my observation.  It's one of the cues I use to dismiss a position being presented.

 

Very well stated.

 

In the meantime what is Sykes up to?  I hope he is not done and stays on the genetic path to discovery.

[southernyahoo]

 

I do think it probable that we already have type specimens in hand, but have a problem analyzing them due to their nature.  I believe it highly likely that they are near-human enough to confound any analysis that does not seriously take that possibility into account.

 

 

 

^^ I think that is the truth.

[Guest]

It's not "cut and dried" when there is no type specimen.

 

If Ketchum is right - which appears doubtful - she's guilty of the worst presentation of a major scientific find in history.

The DNA IS the type specimen.

DNA comes from blood/hair/tissue.  Blood/hair/tissue comes from critter.  DNA=critter.

[MIB]

Hmmmm ... I have to agree with Mulder's assertion of DNA = critter.   And, at the same time, DWA's assessment of Ketchum's presentation of a scientific find. 

 

For DNA to do the job alone, the tests are going to have to show a clear difference between our DNA and bigfoot DNA, despite how close they likely are, and there's going to have to be enough DNA that the tests can be repeated over and over with the same outcomes.

 

That's a pretty tall order.   It's possible that despite our advances we don't have the testing technology yet.    It may be that in that context, "not cut and dried" is an accurate assessment.   Semantics. 

 

MIB

Edited December 24, 2013 by MIB

[Guest]

The DNA IS the type specimen.

DNA comes from blood/hair/tissue. Blood/hair/tissue comes from critter. DNA=critter.

This would reinforce the Type Specimen Mulder refers to

Dr. Melba Ketchum

Oct 31 ·

Our person at the genome center is attempting to upload the three whole genomes to GenBank. Wish us luck now that we have a species name to apply. If not, we are going to try to upload to UCSC.

[Guest DWA]

The DNA IS the type specimen.

DNA comes from blood/hair/tissue.  Blood/hair/tissue comes from critter.  DNA=critter.

The problem is:  from the blood/hair/tissue of what?

 

Nobody will be satisfied with a DNA result - and 'unknown primate' has come back more than once - when we won't be able to point to what it is.

 

I'm not aware of any species accepted based on a DNA read.

[Guest]

This would reinforce the Type Specimen Mulder refers to

Dr. Melba Ketchum

Oct 31 ·

Our person at the genome center is attempting to upload the three whole genomes to GenBank. Wish us luck now that we have a species name to apply. If not, we are going to try to upload to UCSC.

So Ketchum can just upload whatever she wants and call it "Unknown Critter Like Species"

Mulder is again moving the playing field so that the ball lands in whatever bounds of fair play that works out best for Ketchum. Unfortunately this is not how science works. DNA is not in itself a specimen but instructions for how parts of a specimen are built.

Edited December 24, 2013 by BipedalCurious

[Guest]

The problem is:  from the blood/hair/tissue of what?

 

Nobody will be satisfied with a DNA result - and 'unknown primate' has come back more than once - when we won't be able to point to what it is.

 

I'm not aware of any species accepted based on a DNA read.

 

 

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

[Guest]

it does seem we will have the type specimen before they are proven, in the ancient genomes... that missing erectus, or "mystery hominin" DNA was present at 8% in Denisovas, more than in Neandertal....    

 

no DNA of Red Deer Cave people yet..but my bet...well... in a few years we will have the needed data/techniques...and a living erectus among us...proven...then what?  

 

I personally hope those who aren't on the proof train, or Youtube train, are out there..making contact and trying to find a way to bridge the two worlds for understanding.....I know of some...  but translating that to others..not really....  and this hurdle occupies my thoughts..

 

proven means little without understanding, compassion, policy....   and proven without policy/regulation...might be worse than bigfootery and Finding Bigfoot. (or any ridicule..)..    

 

hard to believe even experiencing it..over and over.. but the only bio form that fits the experience/evidence and is not  far fetched

(really - considering the alternatives) is surviving erectus or archaic humans... and evidence that supports that...is abundant...but often ignored...

Edited December 24, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest DWA]

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

Well, not really, and it doesn't apply to this discussion.

 

We did have physical parts that were accepted by the community as evidence of a hominin.  Where are those parts in the current review?  (Hair doesn't cut it; neither does tissue.)   Also, and people tend to gloss over this critical point, paleoanthropology is in the business of accepting bones, as they'll never see the animal alive.

 

For a physical part of a sasquatch to survive the chain of custody to scientific confirmation is gonna require the community to accept the possibility - which is gonna be hard without something that we can clearly see is or was a living animal.  The bar's too high for much less to fly.