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

[southernyahoo]

I spoke with Meldrum about submitting an interesting blood and hair sample with a pretty strong story behind how they were collected. He told me that their funding was somewhat limited and that they were screening heavily on their samples. So, here I sit with an "interesting bit of DNA" and really nothing to do with it...

CG

Yeah, I do expect they are screening heavily, and Meldrum is trying to help out on that front. If you had a few extra hairs, he would probably look at them. Hopefully, he is developing a better knowledge of the morphology that is more promising.

[Guest]

So what happens if the goverment ID'd bigfoot a long time ago, mapped their gene sequence, and stuck it in GenBank as some human Native American tribe or something? Sykes can be matching bigfoot samples all day and all we get is known human. Is that way too conspiratorial?

No matter how it was labeled, it would stick out like a sore thumb (probably) whenever compared with other modern human DNA. Imagine getting a 2 million year Last Common Ancestor result for at least a few of the genes, when all known varieties of modern human LCAs come under 200,000 years (except for the around 500,000 year LCA results we get for the little chunks of Denisovan and Neandertal floating around in some of us).

If there is a conspiracy and the Feds sequenced a really outlier hominin sequence, it is almost for sure not easily available in some public DNA library. Otherwise some graduate student would have made his bones by "discovering" it by now and it would be a big story in the news.

This all assumes, of course, that at least some of a Sasquatch's DNA is going to be pretty far removed from moderns.

[yowiie]

Yeah, one would think from the statement below they would be interested in samples that have already pointed in a positive direction.

http://www.wolfson.o...ic/GBFs-v/OLCHP

Perhaps there is a key in the terminology "formally undescribed species" or "cryptids". Maybe I'm not getting the message that my sample is no longer undescribed or from a cryptid.

After repeated emails from me to Sykes in regards to having my samples analised without any reply, makes you wonder if the guy is doing anything

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I know Oxford has received samples from the Olympic Project and Rhettman Mullis from Bigfootology. Both are legit research organizations.

[Guest]

I would point out that Sykes does this sort of thing as part of what he does for a living. Ketchum is a rookie in the field of describing new species genetically. Her previous lab work was "tab a into slot b" "cookbook" science following well-accepted paths. That I think is part of what is slowing her down.

Sykes is also in a much better position to "push" a study time-wise. I suspect that the heavy screening is to cut down on "we need more provenance" arguments from peer reviewers on the back end. He wants only the best, most perfect specimens both in terms of the actual specimen AND the "backstory" so he doesn't have to waste time arguing the shortfalls of either aspect.

At least that is what I suspect.

[Guest]

+1

Writing academic papers is an art in itself; it's not easy for a 'lay-person' just to pump out some data/facts and interpretations and expect it to pass muster. There's the whole stylistic element to learn and apply.

[Guest]

Another things I meant to mention earlier that I forgot is that (again, this is my suspicion, not something I can document) that Sykes knows better than to "over-claim" his results, which ties into the "art" of writing academic papers. Ketchum may have perfect data and be having to hone back what she is claiming the data is showing.

For an "initial" paper such as these studies, I wouldn't go much farther than "there is an as-yet undocumented species of higher primate living on the N American continent. I would NOT attempt a phylogenic placement or make statements about how close they might or might not be to Man, etc.

Let's just establish the basic fact that "they're out there" and worry about the "what are they" later after the firestorm over the first revelation dies down.

[southernyahoo]

Honestly Mulder, I don't think one could publish a paper which could show they are out there without being able to show their placement on the tree of life. Those two would go hand in hand.

[Guest]

^Simple. "We know it's a primate. We know it doesn't match any primate on record. Therefore it must be a new species of primate, of classification yet to be determined."

[southernyahoo]

That is basicly how it gets placed on the tree, using a measure of similarity.

[Guest]

^I'm talking about all this back and forth on "is it hominid?" "is it ape?", etc. It's enough that it's a new primate. That's what the study should focus on. We can do the "fine print" later.

[southernyahoo]

Well I think the fine print is necessary for the proof. Skeptics would need very defined terms to rule out variation in it's closest neighbors for one, then they might want to visit the fossil stash and associated DNA for matches there. It could very well rewrite what we think we know about some species of hominin known only from the fossil record. There would be glaring questions just screaming to be answered and a thirsty public wondering why they aren't answered already. I know, you have to draw the line somewhere and just get out with it, but it's not entirely Dr. Ketchums decisions on that I'm sure, since the Journal and reviewers are likely involved in deciding when enough is enough.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I think there is a certain standard right now for how much info is needed for acceptance of a new species in the science community and that standard probably varies. For the discovery of something like Sasquatch, I would assume it's very high.

[Guest VioletX]

I don't know about varying standards, I would hope that whatever would apply for anything else would apply to the Sasquatch.

By he way, did any of you see the very recent interview with Sykes, he made a statement that he did not think he would find anything. What do you make of that?

[Guest]

Did not see that. Got a linky, or at least remember where you saw it?