Jump to content

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

Guest gershake

By Guest gershake
in General Bigfoot Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

BobZenor Yowie

BobZenor

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sykes isn't pure mainstream either. He has some streaks of hype, pushing theories already disproved by published studies.

He also made some false statements regarding haplotypes and which ones are normal in North America. He wrote a book on the disproven Solutrean hypothesis. He attributed haplotype X completely wrong.

November has come. Curious to see what does get released.

I remember reading about a study where they "disproved" the Solutrean theory a while back. It did no such thing. Sykes just said what he thought was the most likely the reason for it at least in the video. He certainly wasn't pushing some personal racial agenda considering the other remarks in the video but he apparently didn't agree with the study. What really irritated me about the study was the claim that it disproved that Solutreans made it to America. Not only didn't it prove that, which would be completely impossible in a genetic study of that kind without DNA from Clovis people, it didn't even prove that all Clovis weren't completely Solutrean. All Sykes said was that it was most likely in his opinion that some Europeans made it to America 10,000 years ago. I assume that he was rounding the number considering the lack of precision of such an estimate based on genetics. Clovis is a bit older than that though. They were likely the first population whoever they were. I liked the guy because he sounds like he is just interested in what happened and not agendas like the people that the study apparently had when they said they "proved" something. The evidence is primarily in the tools not the genetics of modern people.

Sykes video I mentioned:

What could this possibly prove?

http://en.wikipedia....group_X_(mtDNA)

"Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models."

Mitochondrial DNA don't recombine. There are 5 main haplogroups if you include X. The only indication they could possibly get is how much they changed compared to modern populations. Considering the tiny size, they are probably talking about 1 or 2 haplogroup x samples. That level of abstraction isn't even possible with thousands of samples. Are they trying to claim they can date the relative changes that accurately? Fat chance of that being true. That is the bottom line to it being a single migration near as I can figure. That is insane to even assume you could do that. To claim it as proof baffles my admittedly damaged brain. I read a study a while back that they disproved the Solutrean theory and it seemed like the main point of news article talking about this or a similar study. Why would anyone take that seriously? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. Him apparently ignoring that would be a major plus to me.

Edited by BobZenor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here are a couple of studies to check out BobZenor.

An article in the American Journal of Human Genetics by researchers in Brazil argued against the Solutrean hypothesis. "Our results strongly support the hypothesis that haplogroup X, together with the other four main mtDNA haplogroups, was part of the gene pool of a single Native American founding population; therefore they do not support models that propose haplogroup-independent migrations, such as the migration from Europe posed by the Solutrean hypothesis."

http://www.sciencedi...002929708001390

In a 2011 article in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, researchers in Italy reported that "Our findings have also a second important implication. Taking into account that C4c is deeply rooted in the Asian portion of the mtDNA phylogeny and is indubitably of Asian origin, a scenario in which C4c and X2a are characterized by parallel genetic histories definitively dismisses the controversial Solutrean hypothesis of an Atlantic glacial entry route into North America for X2a (Stanford and Bradley, 2004; Straus et al., 2005)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22024980

ETA:

The Brazilian researchers published two studies by the same name and almost the same subject. So that is 3 published studies that I am aware of against the Solutrean Hypothesis.

Edited by Woodswalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

^And all that genetic argumentation still cannot explain the physical artifacts that buttress the Solutrean hypothesis. Not that the genetic argumentation is all that definitive. They offer no alternative explanation for the presence of genetics specifically identified with the Solutreans in the N American gene pool.

But that's taking us off topic even further. The main point remains that Sykes has better "cred" as a genetics researcher than Ketchum.

Edited by Mulder
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BobZenor Yowie

BobZenor

Posted
Posted (edited)

Even if they somehow could date them at the same time it doesn't prove they didn't come by different routes. Think about what it would require to date a migration like that. You need to know the exact mitochondrial makeup of the original population over 13,000 years ago. You also have to know exactly how isolated all the founder populations were. Comparing it only to modern populations doesn't work because humans move around and it isn't like we are talking about a whole bunch of different species here. The first one seems to be the one from my example that makes absolutely no sense to me though I think I know what they are claiming.

The second one seems to have better logic but it is still a stretch. They are saying the X is closely related to C and C exists in Asia and America. X only exists farther west into Europe though in modern populations. That is critical if what Sykes said in the video and other sources are correct and they don't exist in Asia at least not far. If they said it was possible that an unknown population of haplogroup X likely existed in a hypothetical founding population since they were closely related I certainly wouldn't argue. They claim something to the effect that it disproved the Solutrean theory. It doesn't even suggest that let alone prove it from what little is in the abstract.

Edited by BobZenor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

You are arguing with published genetic studies. What do you offer in return? Or are published studies not good enough now? You are trying to re abstract the studies into ones that sound less destructive to the hypothesis? You also should read the whole report if you want to be doing it right Bob!

Where are the links to the studies supporting the hypothesis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

^The genetics don't explain the artifacts, for one.

For another, the studies you cite, depsite their authors' claims, don't rule out a European origin for the genome in quesiton. We know it exists in Europe, because the Solutreans have it. Just because a population in Asia ALSO has it doesn't mean it came from said Asians, considering the artifact evidence that bolsters the Solutrean claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

^The genetics don't explain the artifacts, for one.

For another, the studies you cite, depsite their authors' claims, don't rule out a European origin for the genome in quesiton. We know it exists in Europe, because the Solutreans have it. Just because a population in Asia ALSO has it doesn't mean it came from said Asians, considering the artifact evidence that bolsters the Solutrean claim.

So you guys believe DNA results from an unpublished study but reject DNA results for an actual peer-review study?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

Guest OntarioSquatch

Posted
Posted

What took Dr. Ketchum years, might take Dr. Sykes months. Judging by the samples he has received, I think he too will make the DNA discovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...