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

[Guest]

^

The entire genomes are not sequenced and matched. Sykes uses a specific section of the mtDNA for species identification. This section is unchanged/matches the Svalbard sample and Sykes samples. This section of DNA changes very slowly over generations, and is inherited to all offspring from the mother. Sykes thus believes that the Yeti samples belong to a descendant of an ancient polar bear / brown bear hybrid. Those descendant bears probably look very much like other Himalayan brown bear in the area, and may actually be part of those populations.

[Guest DWA]

^^which leads me to believe:  if we get all these DNA samples typed out to something....we're still not done with figuring out what yeti is, because the reports I'm familiar with - and the animal that's been conjectured from them - sure aren't describing bears.

 

I mean, if you can't point to an animal that sample came from, isn't it possible that someone saw a yeti; looked for evidence other than the sighting...and found bear hair?

 

Yes, it is.

Edited October 22, 2013 by DWA

[southernyahoo]

The entire genomes are not sequenced and matched. Sykes uses a specific section of the mtDNA for species identification. This section is unchanged/matches the Svalbard sample and Sykes samples. This section of DNA changes very slowly over generations, and is inherited to all offspring from the mother

 

 Would that be the cytochrome b gene or the CO1 gene?

 

I get that it is conserved, but I seem to be lost as to how it is concluded a hybrid, without more data. Since the mtDNA segment is conserved , doesn't recombine, and clearly different from present polar bears and brown bears then it is a distinct species of bear descended from the common ancestor.

[Guest Darrell]

So here is my question: As "science" takes a look at this phenomina and keeps hitting a dead end as far as evidence, will there still be such angst against the establishment as a whole? The argument that science isnt taking a serious look at the phenomina isnt going to work if the evidense provided isnt what it is proposed to be.  Its already starting in that Sykes, in the yeti case at least, has taken evidence and studied it but hasnt come to the conclusion of the proponent side has.  I think it will always come down to what an individual wants to believe more than anything else.

[Guest DWA]

Until mainstream organizations stop leaving this to amateurs and go into the field, full time, to do what, say, NAWAC is doing, then "science" isn't looking at this to any meaningful extent.

 

When I first heard about Sykes and Ketchum, my first thought was:  a start, but it isn't gonna prove anything.  Because it won't.

[Guest SDBigfooter]

Nice try Darrell...Just give up on your whole "when are you all going to learn" argument.  Well, if Sykes has absolutely nothing, I guess you can try again. 

 

Anyways, both of these specimens were basically known to be bears.  Why is that so hard to comprehend?  One, the guy is able to view and admits it looks like a bear.  Then it tests as bear?  Shocking.

 

The other?  We have another wierd looking bear guys, and you can even see it.  Oh it tests positive for bear too?  No way!?!!!?

[Guest Urkelbot]

I don't think the angst will ever end until a positive result. A few more negative DNA series and you will hear more shouts of "conspiracy conspiracy".

[Guest Darrell]

So what would make the proponent camp satisfied? What if there is an effort to the scale that meets the requirements but doesnt find anything? 

[Rockape]

So here is my question: As "science" takes a look at this phenomina and keeps hitting a dead end as far as evidence, will there still be such angst against the establishment as a whole? The argument that science isnt taking a serious look at the phenomina isnt going to work if the evidense provided isnt what it is proposed to be.  Its already starting in that Sykes, in the yeti case at least, has taken evidence and studied it but hasnt come to the conclusion of the proponent side has.  I think it will always come down to what an individual wants to believe more than anything else.

 

I give them a "A" for effort in this study, at least they have tried, but we still don't know if there is nothing at all there, so it still has a chance at something positive for BF.

 

The thing is, to me, that if BF does exists they are extremely rare, so naturally there will be a lot of dead ends. I'm not sure where we finally say it's over.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Nice try Darrell...Just give up on your whole "when are you all going to learn" argument.  Well, if Sykes has absolutely nothing, I guess you can try again. 

 

Anyways, both of these specimens were basically known to be bears.  Why is that so hard to comprehend?  One, the guy is able to view and admits it looks like a bear.  Then it tests as bear?  Shocking.

 

The other?  We have another wierd looking bear guys, and you can even see it.  Oh it tests positive for bear too?  No way!?!!!?

 

No, one sample came from a stuffed bear which  was supposedly seen by a Frenchman in a remote village.  The other sample came from a tree wheere yetis were supposed to den up; nobody saw the animal.

[Guest Darrell]

Im very curious to see the NA results.

[Cotter]

^As am I.

 

As far as answering your question about 'what if they come back negative'.

 

Quitters never win, and winners never quit.

 

:-)

[southernyahoo]

^Sykes would already have those from his last study, DNA USA where he identified the haplogoup x. Perhaps he has more to add to that, though it would be a bit shocking to come from "thought to be" BF samples.

[Guest crabshack]

"...the samples perfectly matched with a DNA sample from a polar bear, which lived on earth more than ten thousand years ago."

 

 

Tin foil/ off the deep end, far out moment......on,

 

Interesting that the man like monster that roams a high very cold mtn range would be manufactured with that trait.

 

Ok, back to our regular scheduled program, carry on.

 

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Well this is why I say DNA proves nothing unless you can point to the big guy and say "that's who I got it from."

 

The potential for contamination, deception and plain-old let's send this to Sykes tee-hee make any kind of chicanery possible.  That's eliminated with a type specimen, for which DNA can now be used to do stuff like filling in the range map, as it's now the signature that "this is that."