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

[southernyahoo]

 

I think that Sykes has no big, secret results that prove the existence of bigfoot.  No one would fund these shows and allow the payday to be deferred to a scientific paper.

 

If I were to speculate on unreported samples, I'd guess wildly that they were redundant or didn't pass quality control.  We'll probably find out eventually.

Has it occurred to you that Sykes isn't about the payday where it involves his science publications, and that scientists are typically prohibited from making premature claims about their work in review?

Speculate about his work and or the unreported on samples all you want, but don't claim there is no further results until you hear it from Sykes. If there was none, he would just say so.

[Guest Llawgoch]

 

Has it occurred to you that Sykes isn't about the payday where it involves his science publications, and that scientists are typically prohibited from making premature claims about their work in review?

Speculate about his work and or the unreported on samples all you want, but don't claim there is no further results until you hear it from Sykes. If there was none, he would just say so.

 

Why would he announce the sensational bear result and not the sensational Bigfoot result?

[southernyahoo]

Don't know. A bear reseult isn't nearly sensational as an undiscovered hominin would be, and it wasn't what he was looking for. So he might not even be writing that up, since the bear is simply related to ancient breed. It might be worthy since it could matter in terms of conservation for the species, but it's likely to be one we've already documented there right?

[Guest Llawgoch]

Don't know. A bear reseult isn't nearly sensational as an undiscovered hominin would be, and it wasn't what he was looking for. So he might not even be writing that up, since the bear is simply related to ancient breed. It might be worthy since it could matter in terms of conservation for the species, but it's likely to be one we've already documented there right?

 

Whoah.  No.  This is a species of bear we've believed to be known only from the fossil record.  One of the biggest things to hit zoology in decades.  There's no chance that he wouldn't write that up if he was sure.

 

The reason nobody's making a big fuss about it is because it hasn't been published, and until it is, it hasn't happened in scientific terms.  He may of course realize or have already realized that he made some sort of mistake, so he won't be writing it up. But it clearly shows that Sykes is not averse to announcing sensational results before they are published scientifically.  

[indiefoot]

When Sykes says what he's doing, we'll know what he's doing.  I see no reason a man of his standing and public profile would leak information through Rhettman Mullis.

 

Then were all of those photos of him hanging out with Rhettman when he was here in the U.S. photoshopped?

[Guest Llawgoch]

Then were all of those photos of him hanging out with Rhettman when he was here in the U.S. photoshopped?

 

I have often talked to people I have little or no respect for.  I'm not saying he has little or no respect for Mullis, I am just saying that proves absolutely nothing.

[southernyahoo]

Whoah.  No.  This is a species of bear we've believed to be known only from the fossil record.  One of the biggest things to hit zoology in decades.  There's no chance that he wouldn't write that up if he was sure.

 

The reason nobody's making a big fuss about it is because it hasn't been published, and until it is, it hasn't happened in scientific terms.  He may of course realize or have already realized that he made some sort of mistake, so he won't be writing it up. But it clearly shows that Sykes is not averse to announcing sensational results before they are published scientifically.  

 

It could simply mean that he found a maternal lineage that was thought to have gone extinct and simply survives in some line of known bears in the region, so it may not be a species completely unknown to science. It would need to be further checked and perhaps repeated by others to confirm the find, and even then it might not point to a new species of bear per se' if it could cross breed with other bears.

 

Yes it might be worth writing up, but the conclusion may not be all that sensational.

 

You'll note a similarity with what we find in the ancient hominins in terms of the genetic evidence but much more sensational, since it relates to our origins. 

[Guest]

"Where's the Beef?"

[Guest DWA]

Whoah.  No.  This is a species of bear we've believed to be known only from the fossil record.  One of the biggest things to hit zoology in decades.  There's no chance that he wouldn't write that up if he was sure.

 

I'd agree with this.  That to me was HUGE, bigger in fact than a 'primate' finding, for which evidence has prepared me.  I was in no way prepared for that bear.  That is just de facto and patently amazing...but most in this field don't know enough about critters in general to know that.

 

The reason nobody's making a big fuss about it is because it hasn't been published, and until it is, it hasn't happened in scientific terms.  He may of course realize or have already realized that he made some sort of mistake, so he won't be writing it up. But it clearly shows that Sykes is not averse to announcing sensational results before they are published scientifically.  

 

No one should have any problems with what Sykes is doing.  He made a notable result known when he felt reasonably sure of what it was; and he is testing what people bring to him to test.

[Guest spurfoot]

I am guessing, it is only a guess, that Prof. Sykes has encountered some rejections of his scientific paper and has resubmitted elsewhere.   It is unlikely there is anything wrong with the paper.   The Establishment simply does not want the topic discussed because of the social controversies.   Anyone on this forum could easily name a few reasons for the coverup.  We are forbidden to discuss them.

[Guest]

This sounds familar... oh dear

[Sunflower]

Hmmmmmmmm, is this a rerun from a previous study?

[Guest]

Sykes book on the Yeti is set to be published in September.

https://www.hodder.co.uk/books/detail.page?isbn=9781444791259

[Guest]

It simply means I think Sykes will find what Ketchum found, "supposing he has similar samples" and will either reject that , or confirm her findings. If I can make sure of it by sending him some, I will.

Syke's samples aren't mostly bleach.

[bipedalist]

The following is directly from Nature Magazine today.... More fuel for the fire... I like this !!!

 

 

New genome sequences from two extinct human relatives suggest that these ‘archaic’ groups bred with humans and with each other more extensively than was previously known.

• Humans interbred with a mysterious archaic population
• How the capacity to evolve can itself evolve
• The weak statistics that are making science irreproducible

The ancient genomes, one from a Neanderthal and one from a different archaic human group, the Denisovans, were presented on 18 November at a meeting at the Royal Society in London. They suggest that interbreeding went on between the members of several ancient human-like groups living in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago, including an as-yet unknown human ancestor from Asia.

“What it begins to suggest is that we’re looking at a ‘Lord of the Rings’-type world — that there were many hominid populations,†says Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London who was at the meeting but was not involved in the work.

The first Neanderthal¹ and the Denisovan² genome sequences revolutionized the study of ancient human history, not least because they showed that these groups interbred with anatomically modern humans, contributing to the genetic diversity of many people alive today.

All humans whose ancestry originates outside of Africa owe about 2% of their genome to Neanderthals; and certain populations living in Oceania, such as Papua New Guineans and Australian Aboriginals, got about 4% of their DNA from interbreeding between their ancestors and Denisovans, who are named after the cave in Siberia’s Altai Mountains where they were discovered. The cave contains remains deposited there between 30,000 and 50,000 years ago.

Related stories

• New DNA analysis shows ancient humans interbred with Denisovans
• First Aboriginal genome sequenced
• Ancient DNA reveals secrets of human history

More related stories

Those conclusions however were based on low-quality genome sequences, riddled with errors and full of gaps, David Reich, an evolutionary geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts said at the meeting. His team, in collaboration with Svante Pääbo at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, have now produced much more complete versions of the Denisovan and Neanderthal genomes — matching the quality of contemporary human genomes. The high-quality Denisovan genome data and new Neanderthal genome both come from bones recovered from Denisova Cave.

The new Denisovan genome indicates that this enigmatic population got around: Reich said at the meeting that they interbred with Neanderthals and with the ancestors of human populations that now live in China and other parts of East Asia, in addition to Oceanic populations, as his team previously reported. Most surprisingly, Reich said, the new genomes indicate that Denisovans interbred with another extinct population of archaic humans that lived in Asia more than 30,000 years ago, which is neither human nor Neanderthal.

The meeting was abuzz with conjecture about the identity of this potentially new population of humans. “We don’t have the faintest idea,†says Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the London Natural History Museum, who was not involved in the work. He speculates that the population could be related to Homo heidelbergensis, a species that left Africa around half a million years ago and later gave rise to Neanderthals in Europe. “Perhaps it lived on in Asia as well,†Stringer says.

Sorry Apehuman... I didn't read since last night before I posted.. you stole my thunder !!!!

 

Llawgoch.... I think you're losing this one.

Along these same lines here is a good video series on the Neanderthal/Denisovan issues (Svante Paabo):

http://www.biocenturytv.com/player/3544074215001/3545758810001?utm_medium=web&utm_source=video_link&utm_campaign=bctv_link_to_program