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

[Guest]

If the results all came out as known animals, why would he bother writing up and submitting the results?

[WSA]

From talking to and listening to others my understanding is that Sykes wikk not be doing comparisons to or working with her. IMo it wouldn't hurt but what do I know really just seems that a comparison wouldn't hurt.

Not to say Drs. Sykes and Ketchum would collaborate....don't believe that is in the cards. What I mean is someone putting each of their mDNA and nDNA sequences side by side and comparing them. Anyone so inclined, with the requisite skill, could do that. 

[southernyahoo]

 

i think the problem a problem could be that there is no comparable dna so the results show 'unknown species' which is the best result result we can hope for i reckon but also very frustrating. i am no genetic expert though so hopefully i am missing something in my laymans understanding.

I think it depends somewhat on what type of analysis and loci you are using, but species ID is generally based on a percent similarity to knowns in a data base.You shouldn't get a 100% match (in certain analyses) unless you've found an exact individual sequenced before. Chimps are closest to humans within a couple percent so we would expect to be breaking down 1 to 3 percent of the genome to find a new species. So when the results are within this range and closest to one great ape or the other it can be placed on the phylogenetic tree of life, which gives us a general description and a distinction at the same time.

[Guest Darrell]

If the results all came out as known animals, why would he bother writing up and submitting the results?

To show that bigfoot, in reality, is just a myth or social phenomina?

[Guest]

i think the problem a problem could be that there is no comparable dna so the results show 'unknown species' which is the best result result we can hope for i reckon but also very frustrating. i am no genetic expert though so hopefully i am missing something in my laymans understanding.

 

It's very simple: if it's not from any known critter, it must logically therefore be from an unknown critter.  The DNA does not stop being DNA simply because it does not (yet) have a GenBank sample admitted.

To show that bigfoot, in reality, is just a myth or social phenomina?

 

The absolute worst case that he could make from a negative finding is that he found no novel primate samples among those submitted.

 

Nothing more.  Nothing less.

[Guest]

To show that bigfoot, in reality, is just a myth or social phenomina?

But he's a DNA guy, not a psychology guy. Interesting theory though.

Edited August 12, 2013 by maddog23

[Guest]

From talking to and listening to others my understanding is that Sykes wikk not be doing comparisons to or working with her. IMo it wouldn't hurt but what do I know really just seems that a comparison wouldn't hurt.

 

Unfortunately, the Ketchum "well" has been so thoroughly poisoned (both by Skeptics and by some of her own actions) that no one is realistically going to touch it with the proverbial 10m cattle prod.

[bipedalist]

And maybe that is the way it was meant to be and is not such a bad thing. 

[Guest]

^NO.  Emphatically NO.  Any debunking of the study should be as rigorous and scientific as the study itself.

 

Integrity of process is important.  "Science" has been allowed too long to rest on the fallacy of: "We say it isn't...prove us wrong!"

 

Proof is not something only to be demanded of one side.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Any debunking of the study should be as rigorous and scientific as the study itself.

The Ketchum study wasn't exactly scientific.

[Guest]

^Please present your peer-reviewed, multi-year, multi-author study to demonstrate that.

 

ONE standard for BOTH sides.  Ketchum put her cards on the table however strong or weak they may be.

 

Skeptics put NOTHING on the table.  They just declared themselves the "winner of the hand".

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I understand you don't like the attitude of some skeptics, but there isn't any need to publish a study that explains why another study is false. It's never worked that way in the past, so I don't see why it would need to be that way now. The sequences she self-published were searched through Genbank and didn't show anything novel. So I think the real question is, what supporting evidence has Ketchum presented that would actually need to be refuted?

[Guest]

^there is is you want to have any standard of intellectual honesty.  ONE standard for ALL, or "science" is anything BUT.

[southernyahoo]

Sykes' results will inevitably be compared to what Ketchum found. This community will hope that he finds something entirely different, but the odds don't look good to me.

[Guest Darrell]

^Please present your peer-reviewed, multi-year, multi-author study to demonstrate that.

 

 

Wow thats a very generous way to describe that report. Maybe you just cant be objective anymore Mulder.