ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "Bigfoot Files" , bigfoot , Brian Sykes , yeti

Reply
Old 19th October 2013, 09:34 PM   #161
OntarioSquatch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
The guy knows what he's talking about, but people are misinterpreting his words and basically don't understand what he's saying. You won't see anyone with a good understanding of genetics accusing him of lying.
OntarioSquatch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2013, 09:46 PM   #162
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,339
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
The guy knows what he's talking about, but people are misinterpreting his words and basically don't understand what he's saying. You won't see anyone with a good understanding of genetics accusing him of lying.
I'll agree with you on one point. I don't understand what Sykes is saying about these hairs.

But, I don't think it's entirely due to my lack of knowledge.

I wish he weren't selling a book and a TV show.

I wish the report, and a little peer review, had come out first.

This is already being used as proof that a giant bipedal ape could also hide from science, despite the fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with bigfoot.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 01:11 AM   #163
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I spoke with CWB the other night, he shares Shrike's opinion on the origin of the bear. It is a Himalayan bear with ancient polar bear ancestors.
That's rather definite, given that we are only talking about a trailer, and no-one has seen his evidence yet, but nevertheless.......

Don't you think it likely that Sykes would have checked his sample results against known bears in the area? If he hasn't, then I'd say that was a pretty big cock-up. But if he has, then this opinion is unlikely to survive the revelation of all the data, in my view.

Mike
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 04:52 AM   #164
Northern Lights
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 745
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I'll agree with you on one point. I don't understand what Sykes is saying about these hairs.

But, I don't think it's entirely due to my lack of knowledge.

I wish he weren't selling a book and a TV show.

I wish the report, and a little peer review, had come out first.

This is already being used as proof that a giant bipedal ape could also hide from science, despite the fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with bigfoot.
Yet. The second episode is about Bigfoot. i think it is suppose to air November 17th.
Northern Lights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 05:52 AM   #165
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,996
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
That's rather definite, given that we are only talking about a trailer, and no-one has seen his evidence yet, but nevertheless.......

Don't you think it likely that Sykes would have checked his sample results against known bears in the area? If he hasn't, then I'd say that was a pretty big cock-up. But if he has, then this opinion is unlikely to survive the revelation of all the data, in my view.

Mike
I guess we will see, I'm sure that Himalayan bears are already in GenBank. I assumed we didn't have the profile for the ancient polar bear and that this information was recently added to make the genetic connection to back up what the morphology indicates. I could have misunderstood what I read or what CWB said. Anyway, I'm sure that will be explained once the program airs.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 07:47 AM   #166
elkabong51
Scholar
 
elkabong51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
The guy knows what he's talking about, but people are misinterpreting his words and basically don't understand what he's saying. You won't see anyone with a good understanding of genetics accusing him of lying.
It sure seems like he is manipulating the media--I won't call him a liar but I will state that he is being a tad bit deceptive.
elkabong51 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 08:20 AM   #167
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by elkabong51 View Post
.........I will state that he is being a tad bit deceptive.
Presumably you have some evididence for this? I mean, unsupported assertions, and all that, when a man's professional reputation is at stake......
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 08:29 AM   #168
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,138
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
a man's professional reputation is at stake......
Presumably you have some evidence for this?

I mean beyond what somebody posts on an Internet forum.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 08:33 AM   #169
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 951
If Sykes is correct about the samples, we have a new cryptid that wasn't even on the radar.

While many folks have for a long time believed bear lay behind the legend of the yeti, I fail to see how Sykes can offer DNA bear samples as a definitive refutation of the yeti as ape myth. What if the samples had been of the known blue bear, rather than something exotic, would he then conclude the yeti mystery solved? Has the idea that he is replacing one cryptid (bipedal ape) for another (relict bear) given him more confidence to conclude the yeti is now a dead issue? Or is relying on the circumstances behind the hair finds, especially the odd animal mummified, to link the samples to the yeti?

While an interesting turn of events, Sykes, or a publicist, has promised a revelation that will be shocking and make us rethink human origins (or some such thing.) Certainly, the "yeti is a relict bear" roll out can't be that shocking revelation, can it? So, we have Bigfoot next. What's after that? I would think the programmers would leave the "shocking revelation" to the last episode.
jerrywayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 08:39 AM   #170
xinonix
Thinker
 
xinonix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 214
Perhaps sasquatch is a hybrid of a human and a bear.
xinonix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 08:42 AM   #171
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Presumably you have some evidence for this?

I mean beyond what somebody posts on an Internet forum.
Someone's professional reputation is the sum total of everything that is said about their work, is it not? You might exclude the internet from your definition, but I can't see any good reason why. If you accept this definition of mine, it is silly to ask for evidence that somone making a public slur is damaging their reputation, wouldn't you agree? Clearly the previous poster was casting aspertions on Sykes' work, indeed, coming close to calling him a liar. It only seems reasonable to ask where the evidence is for this when we have only got a few newspaper articles and an interview on which to make any judgements in this case.

Unless, of course, people have already made up their mind that any scientist who even looks at the subject is automatically worthy of contempt whatever they come up with. Surely no-one here would fall into that trap, would they?
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 08:46 AM   #172
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,442
Originally Posted by xinonix View Post
Perhaps sasquatch is a hybrid of a human and a bear.
I think it must be - since such a hybrid is impossible.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 08:47 AM   #173
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,634
Originally Posted by xinonix View Post
Perhaps sasquatch is a hybrid of a human and a bear.
Why don't you elaborate a bit?
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 08:47 AM   #174
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
........While an interesting turn of events, Sykes, or a publicist, has promised a revelation that will be shocking and make us rethink human origins (or some such thing.) Certainly, the "yeti is a relict bear" roll out can't be that shocking revelation, can it? So, we have Bigfoot next. What's after that? I would think the programmers would leave the "shocking revelation" to the last episode.
Well, now that we're into the guessing game, I'll predict that he find absolutely nothing to support the existence of BF in North American, but that he confirms that Orang Pendek exists (or existed recently) in Indonesia. I haven't got the first shred of evidence to back any of this up, but the "change our idea of human origins" thing (in terms) is intriguiing, especially as Sykes' speciality is human population genomics. He was given a supposed sample of Orang Pendek to test.

Last edited by MikeG; 20th October 2013 at 08:49 AM.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 08:57 AM   #175
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,138
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
the sum total of everything that is said
Who is doing the tallying and what do they plan to do about it?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 08:58 AM   #176
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by elkabong51 View Post
It sure seems like he is manipulating the media--I won't call him a liar but I will state that he is being a tad bit deceptive.
He's not lying just tweaking reality?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 09:00 AM   #177
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Who is doing the tallying and what do they plan to do about it?
If you seek a better understanding of reputation, and of mind-reading, then can I suggest Wikipedia as a place to start?
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 09:07 AM   #178
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by xinonix View Post
Perhaps sasquatch is a hybrid of a human and a bear.

Then why has no evidence for the existence of such a hybrid never been found? An abundance of bears and humans but no megatootsies. Did a bear rape a woman or did a man get very very drunk?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 09:07 AM   #179
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,138
The posters on JREF are not in control of Syke's professional reputation. That is something that would be handled by other professional geneticists.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 09:25 AM   #180
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The posters on JREF are not in control of Syke's professional reputation. That is something that would be handled by other professional geneticists.
Well, we differ in our definitions, that's all.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 09:40 AM   #181
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You haven't read the rest of the thread, have you?

You're the only one talking about yeti. The rest of us are talking about a bear.
The topic is: "Yeti is a hybrid bear."

Maybe you need to change the name?

Regardless, it still doesn't help the dubious provenance of the samples.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 09:49 AM   #182
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
....Regardless, it still doesn't help the dubious provenance of the samples.
Much discussed up-thread.

It doesn't matter if the provenance is the most dubious possible. You cannot fake hair, and you cannot fake DNA. So, either there is a new-to-science bear on the planet, or Sykes has stuffed up. There is no third way. There is no hoax possible, even if the backstory is complete hogwash.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 09:52 AM   #183
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,787
3. There was a new-to-science bear many years ago.

Mike, it would help for you to be a little more open minded so you could consider all the possibilities.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.

Last edited by GT/CS; 20th October 2013 at 09:53 AM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 09:58 AM   #184
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,138
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You cannot fake hair, and you cannot fake DNA.
You keep repeating this over and over as if somebody here is suggesting manufactured hair (nefariously faked) and manufactured DNA (nefariously faked). I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 10:46 AM   #185
Castro
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 676
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Much discussed up-thread.

It doesn't matter if the provenance is the most dubious possible. You cannot fake hair, and you cannot fake DNA. So, either there is a new-to-science bear on the planet, or Sykes has stuffed up. There is no third way. There is no hoax possible, even if the backstory is complete hogwash.
Would you call ABC Islands brown bears "new-to-science bears"? In that case I agree that Sykes might have found a "new-to-science bear", but I doubt that these ABC Islands brown bears will ever be considered as another subspecies of brown bear, in spite of the facts that they are "really weird genetically" and have "striking genetic similarities to polar bears".
http://news.ucsc.edu/2013/03/polar-bear-genomics.html
Quote:
...At the center of the confusion is a population of brown bears that live on Alaska's Admiralty, Baranof, and Chicagof Islands, known as the ABC Islands. These bears--clearly brown bears in appearance and behavior--have striking genetic similarities to polar bears.

"This population of brown bears stood out as being really weird genetically, and there's been a long controversy about their relationship to polar bears. We can now explain it, and instead of the convoluted history some have proposed, it's a very simple story," said coauthor Beth Shapiro, associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UC Santa Cruz.

Shapiro and her colleagues analyzed genome-wide DNA sequence data from seven polar bears, an ABC Islands brown bear, a mainland Alaskan brown bear, and a black bear. The study also included genetic data from other bears that was recently published by other researchers. Shapiro's team found that polar bears are a remarkably homogeneous species with no evidence of brown bear ancestry, whereas the ABC Islands brown bears show clear evidence of polar bear ancestry...

Last edited by Castro; 20th October 2013 at 11:22 AM.
Castro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 10:49 AM   #186
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
You keep repeating this over and over .....
I'm trying to start an internet meme Either that, or I've turned into Mulder.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 10:50 AM   #187
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
......Mike, it would help for you to be a little more open minded so you could consider all the possibilities.
Thank you so much for this well-meaning advice. Much appreciated.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 10:53 AM   #188
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
3. There was a new-to-science bear many years ago.....
I did in fact say virtually this a few pages back. Frankly, it is almost as exciting to think that a recently extinct bear has been uncovered as a new-to-science extant species.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 11:02 AM   #189
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,442
Is that what is being said though? That a recently extinct bear is being declared extant?

I read it as merely an clarification on the ancestry of Himalayan brown bear subspecies?
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 11:04 AM   #190
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by Castro View Post
Would you call ABC Islands brown bears "new-to-science bears"? ......
No idea. But thinking on the hoof......

Scientists have known about the existence of these bears for some while, I presume? (I've never heard of them). I presume that they have only recently discovered that they have substantial genetic differences from other brown bears? In which case, it would strike me on a first look that they aren't new-to-science, just that science might have to re-categorise them. Doesn't this happen all the time?

I guess the salient question is that when their DNA was tested, did they find it similar to other populations of known extant bears? Because this appears to be the crunch question for Sykes, in my view: has he compared his results with that of all possible local bear populations? If he hasn't, then egg-on-face and crescendo of yah-booing will result. If he has, and found nothing close, then kicking-and-screaming, some of you folks might just have to concede that there is a new bear on the scene.

The programme is on in an hour, and much of it seems devoted to a reporter checking out the source of the misinterpretation of the old Himalayan legends. I'll let you know what is revealed.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 11:06 AM   #191
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Is that what is being said though? That a recently extinct bear is being declared extant?......
No, sorry, that was just my poor grammar.

I was trying to say that if the hairs turned out to be from a new-to-science species which has gone extinct since the hair sample was taken, that would be almost as exciting as there being evidence of a new species still living.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 11:50 AM   #192
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,500
Scenario: scientist identifies odd genetic signature in a tissue sample and makes irresponsible statements to the media about it.

Interpretation 1: There's a whole new species out there that no one knew existed.

Interpretation 2: There's a level of genetic distinctiveness in the sample that it warrants elevation of the individuals that share that signature to full species status.

I find the suggestion of a unique and heretofore uncollected species of bear ranging from the Himalayan Highlands to the Bhutan bamboo to be highly dubious. Frankly, I think it's absurd.

I find the suggestion that there's some kind of odd ancestry among the brown bears of the Himalayas - including sufficient divergence and the presence of archaic forms that could be argued warrant full species status - to be completely plausible.

There are all sorts of cryptic "species within species" with fluid taxonomic status. For example, there appear to be as many as 10 different "types" among Red Crossbill in North America, and a case could be made for them to be 10 different species. Morphologically, though, they are just a handful of ill-defined subspecies. This is what it sounds like to me from the information we have at hand: Sykes found an odd genetic signature within brown bear samples that he thinks is distinct enough to be considered its own full species.


(Editorial: if this damages scientist's reputation then it's his own fault for issuing public statements about work that hasn't been peer reviewed.)
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 12:55 PM   #193
elkabong51
Scholar
 
elkabong51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 115
Have to agree with Shrike. I had a neutral opinion of Dr. Sykes going into the release of his paper/book/media event, but he seems to be veering away from real science. Hanging around with the likes of Rhettman Mullis, Smelja, and the like doesn't help one's reputation much...
elkabong51 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 01:06 PM   #194
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
I've just watched the UK Channel 4 program on Bigfoot Files and was very impressed with Oxford University's Prof Sykes hair DNA results. Two good specimens are "identical" in that they contain DNA from a species of polar bear that exited 40,000 years ago, matching a jaw bone found on Norway's Svalbard Island. I agree with his brown bear hybridization conclusion.

It's great news for cryptozoology overall. There is truth to the legends. A new species has been identified. It's alive and existing as we speak.

I doff my hat sir.
Alan Lowey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 01:08 PM   #195
elkabong51
Scholar
 
elkabong51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
He's not lying just tweaking reality?
I need to use my reading glasses more--I read this as 'twerking reality' and from there it was a short jump to Miley Cyrus dancing with a Yeti.

Tweaking reality is another matter. At best he is being coy about his results and I do have a problem with a scientist releasing bits and pieces of an upcoming paper to promote a TV show.
elkabong51 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 01:12 PM   #196
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Right, hot-foot from watching the Sykes documentary.....

He rules out any of the known bears in the area. It is not a black bear, brown bear or the other low altitude bear (is it the spectacled bear, I forget? *). It isn't a polar bear, but a descendant from a polar bear ancestor. They don't know what bear it is, and are postulating that it may be ancient pleistocene polar bear/ brown bear hybrid.

There was an awful lot of padding, but there was film of the hair sample from Ladakh being found and collected (I knew I had seen that before). The hunter's tale was unsubstantiated in any way, but the guy who collected it located the site roughly, and it was 800 miles away from Ladakh. The two samples were "identical" (in mtDNA terms). Sykes' words were "it is a polar bear" and "but not as we know it" (in terms, I can't remember his exact phrase).

They are still working on this, and, interestingly, re-tested the hair he famously tested years back ("unknown"...remember that one, the one the footers made such a fuss of?) and that was the same result: ancient polar bear DNA.

So, there are Sykes' testicles on the block. The whole world of genetics now holds a very big hammer poised over them, and no doubt will be awaiting the paper before deciding what to do. But he was unequivocal...this is NOT a bear species known from the area.

Mike

* ETA No, the sloth bear.

Last edited by MikeG; 20th October 2013 at 01:35 PM.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 01:12 PM   #197
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Much discussed up-thread.

It doesn't matter if the provenance is the most dubious possible. You cannot fake hair, and you cannot fake DNA. So, either there is a new-to-science bear on the planet, or Sykes has stuffed up. There is no third way. There is no hoax possible, even if the backstory is complete hogwash.
Of course that was my point, without provenance you have no way of knowing if that hair came from the Himalayas, North America or Mars. All you have is a random hair.

$5 says the DNA gets retested and the mystery hair turns out to be from a common bear. More than likely, a vintage fraud. Not the first time a Yeti scalp has turned out to be a cobbled together fake.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 01:13 PM   #198
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,741
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Of course that was my point, without provenance you have no way of knowing if that hair came from the Himalayas, North America or Mars. All you have is a random hair......
It doesn't matter where it came from. It matches nothing else on the planet. How clear is that for you?
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 01:17 PM   #199
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Edited by LashL:  Edited to remove breach of Rule 0 and Rule 12.


You don't even accept evidence provided by an expert Professor from Oxford University using the latest DNA analysis!

Last edited by LashL; 20th October 2013 at 03:08 PM.
Alan Lowey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2013, 01:17 PM   #200
aboman
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 27
Apparently he has been hanging out with these guys too:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


From skimming through it looks like it starts like a 'Seven daughters of Eve' type presentation then leads into yeti around 33 minutes in.

Yes, those are the guys from the Penn and Teller episode:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
aboman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.