southernyahoo Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 scientific American dated Winter 2013 and titled “What Makes Us Human†http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-makes-us-human I recall the article from 2009 I believe, and the author was Catherine S. Pollard Phd. The paper focused on the rare stretches of DNA that differ between us and or nearest relative(chimps), and the specific functions of those genes. Perhaps there is a later version now in print with the same title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 8, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 8, 2013 Pollard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Ah Melba, can you just release the paper? Self publish it? We're taking a beating from a sick, twisted, serial red-neck hoaxer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Austin M., Without havin' ta go back, sounds like still nothin' ? Pat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Now we know how bigfoot feel when they're watching boring people. Might as well eat 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) Yep, 24+ hours without a post - I think the apathy reflects conventional wisdom, i.e. it aint' happenin'... I still hold some hope it will be released in any form. It still beckons - this thread and the promise of Bigfoot DNA revealed ... I suppose that unfulfilled promise is still enough to keep this thread pinned. I opened the first page by mistake and it starts with something like, "Is Dr. Ketchum being used?" .... ? Edited February 10, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 "Is Dr. Ketchum being used?" .... ? It's a ridiculous tag for this thread. It should read: "will it ever see the light of day?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 I wasn't trying to discourage discussion. I was going for humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Not too much left to discuss now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Back in October I quoted T S Eliot: Not with a bang, but a whimper. Looks like I was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 If there's a paper in peer review, I'm actually happier that MK is no longer availing herself as a target, because she has a knack for inviting that sort of thing. So, I'm fine waiting on this, and the passage of time doesn't diminish the odds of it being published, considering the magnitude of the study and it's subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 check your pm. i will walk you through the process of finding these hidden nuggets Thx SS, I appreciate the PM and the add'l time you spent sharing your strategy and approach. I think it's important that claims on both sides be verifiable and verified. With that said, I will be reminding folks that bring up the Bhutan sample that Sykes and Meldrum both 'claim' that it was later tested as bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 ^What - still no primary source on the retesting/new result Cotter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) I remember Sykes originally said it wasn't a bear or a human, but it seems that he made a mistake and later corrected it with further testing. What are the odds. Edited February 12, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 @ForestGuy, as OS had posted earlier the statements came from the ISU website (and other areas) indicating Meldrum and Sykes both agreed on the later testing. Short of contacting Sykes requesting the data, that's what we've got. I'm not one to bother folks on this as in my mind this hair doesn't really sway the argument either way. Sykes has much better things to do than to field questions from the likes of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts