Taking Stock Of Cryptid Hominids

[SWWASAS]

People defend Sykes as genuinely interested in finding BF DNA but I get the impression from his own words that he considers himself world crypto debunker.   Consider what would happen to his reputation at this point if someone validated DNA as being from some unknown primate with several independent labs in a sample that he previously said was a bear.     The samples that bother me most are the ones he for some reason decides not to test.     That has happened to forum members.    To throw out experimental data because you don't believe the results is one of the great dangers of doing experimental science.      It happens all the time.   There are a lot of discoveries that were missed by scientists who thought they had bad data but the data was good and someone else recognized the significance and got credit for the discovery. 

[yowiie]

Sykes's involvement was only to get some limelight, nothing more. I have no doubt he was sent legit bf samples, hopefully the people who sent those samples to him, still have part of there sent sample to be analised elsewhere, only then will Sykes be proven wrong

[BigTreeWalker]

Todd Disotell said to do this.

https://www.easy-dna.com/animal-dna-tests/

Those tests look pretty specific. In other words they are looking at particular known species, dogs, cats, birds. So to find what they are looking for they probably only test small portions of the DNA. Todd Disotell being an expert in DNA must know those are only limited tests. Unless they also have a primate test they can do.

[norseman]

He does.

Its trickery for bargain basement prices. He claims they would still be able to tell you what it was.

[hiflier]

I've said this a couple of times before but what's one more, eh? If the tests come back Humam but show the genetic markers for night vision as well (tapetum lucidum) then you've got something.

[norseman]

We have something if it shows ANY sort of new primate species not know to science......

[hiflier]

Of course. But see post #95 again. I really don't think anyone is fully understanding what it is saying. There's all this DNA that's supposedly been tested that has Human contamination in it but if those samples are saying Human but the markers are also present that say tapetum lucidum then what else id the sample telling us. Why haven't I ever heard about whether any DNA tests that come back Human show strong Rhodopsin presence of regressed opsin S genes? Perhaps because there has been nothing remarkable to report? Who would one ask about that....DR. Sykes? Dr. Ketchum? Dr. Disotell. If they know would they tell us?

Edited April 6, 2016 by hiflier

[norseman]

1) The scientific consensus is that the samples that have come back human were contaminated.

2) I have no use for Dr. Ketchum, I think her method is flawed and does not conduct good science. But I would not hesitate to contact the other two about your questions of Rhodopsin.

3) Sykes told us we have a undiscovered Bear in the Himalayas. Why wouldnt he tell the truth? Or Disotell? Disotell has plenty of primate discoveries under his belt. But Ketchum I believe manipulates her data to support her hypothesis. And not the other way around as it should be. One should manipulate the hypothesis based on the data at hand. I've shown before that Ketchum's data does not make viable evolutionary sense. And she is not in possession of a complete genome.

[southernyahoo]

DNA testing doesn't automatically sequence the entire genome. It sequences short segments at a time. With an unknown sample, one has to start with a universal mammalian primer when you have a hair sample. From there, the results steers your investigation further with species specific primers, more tests, further sequencing of the mitochondria for starters. The testing won't suddenly uncover all an animals secrets of it's origin beyond a high similarity to a known, like human, bear, cow etc. Once you have the closest known, then you can compare to that specific data and further sequence the entire mitochondria, provided the scientists haven't called "no joy" and abandoned the project citing contamination when human results arise.

[norseman]

Right, and when you have segments of Possom mixed in with segments of Human?

As a scientist your first hypothesis should not be that you have a hybrid on your hands.

[Yuchi1]

DNA testing doesn't automatically sequence the entire genome. It sequences short segments at a time. With an unknown sample, one has to start with a universal mammalian primer when you have a hair sample. From there, the results steers your investigation further with species specific primers, more tests, further sequencing of the mitochondria for starters. The testing won't suddenly uncover all an animals secrets of it's origin beyond a high similarity to a known, like human, bear, cow etc. Once you have the closest known, then you can compare to that specific data and further sequence the entire mitochondria, provided the scientists haven't called "no joy" and abandoned the project citing contamination when human results arise.

 

IIRC, this is what Dr. Ketchum initially ran into so she decided to run the entire genome which yielded the mitochondrial DNA as human and the nuclear as unknown species. This work was then sent out for independent analysis to other laboratories with the results validating the initial findings with the body of work being sent to at least two (2) international publications for review. Their scientists reviewed the results and declared them "too controversial" for publication and also refused to conduct their own DNA analysis (IMO) because had they done so and such validated the original findings, they would have been under tremendous pressure to publish. This...is one of the reasons why I have a degree of jaundiced view toward much of the scientific community.

 

Now, say what you wish about Dr. Ketchum however, the evidence is the evidence and those people cited above know where it led them. IMO, a lot of the vitriol she received, after the fact, was designed as CYA for those that might risk credibility and a lot like the political M.O. of, deny, deny, deny and then make counter accusations.

[bipedalist]

Of course. But see post #95 again. I really don't think anyone is fully understanding what it is saying. There's all this DNA that's supposedly been tested that has Human contamination in it but if those samples are saying Human but the markers are also present that say tapetum lucidum then what else id the sample telling us. Why haven't I ever heard about whether any DNA tests that come back Human show strong Rhodopsin presence of regressed opsin S genes? Perhaps because there has been nothing remarkable to report? Who would one ask about that....DR. Sykes? Dr. Ketchum? Dr. Disotell. If they know would they tell us?

 

Ketchum claimed she had part lemur findings, that certainly would have had some form of specialized night vision sequences.   These are being found to extend into the ultraviolet to find food at night for certain creatures:   (scroll down below the aye-aye picture in this blurb to read more about lemurs)

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141128-these-animals-see-colour-at-night

[norseman]

Possoms and Lemurs have awesome night vision.

But how could either of those show up in DNA sample with human DNA and anyone take it seriously that it represents a new hybrid species?

This was at the heart of Disotell's rejection of Ketchums paper.

[Incorrigible1]

Hey, some of my best Tar Pit friends surely have lemur DNA.

[bipedalist]

Didn't say I understood it, just taking her at her word;

it probably went something like this, a SNP SNP here, a SNP SNP there,

Here a SNP, There a SNP, Everywhere a SNP SNP, .........:

Edited April 6, 2016 by bipedalist