New Development in the Controversy of the ‘Yeti’ Hair Samples — Here’s the Latest

In

this undated photo made available by Britain’s Channel 4 television of

Oxford University genetics professor Bryan Sykes posing with a prepared

DNA sample taken from hair from a Himalayan animal.

Excerpt from theblaze.com

A new study that re-analyzed so-called “yeti” hair samples from previous research that had identified them as belonging to an “anomalous ursid” might

have disappointing news for those who thought the findings last year

meant a “bigfoot” of sorts was still out there. Yet, the author of the

original findings stands by his claims.

Research published in the journal ZooKeys found that the hair samples said to be from Central Asia and the Himalayas belong to a known species in those regions.

“We have concluded that there is no reason to believe that the two

samples came from anything other than brown bears,” the authors wrote in

the study abstract.

These authors used mitochondrial 12S rRNA sequencing on the same

samples that Oxford University’s Bryan Sykes and his fellow authors used

in their study published last year. The issue Eliecer Guiterrez, a

postdoctoral researcher at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural

History, and his colleagues found with Sykes research was that his team

used a fragment of DNA.

“We made this discovery that basically that fragment of DNA is not

informative to tell apart two species of bears: the brown bear and

[modern-day Alaskan] polar bear,” Gutierrez told Live Science.

At the time of his 2014 study, Sykes et al. wrote “[…] it is

important to bear in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence and this survey cannot refute the existence of anomalous

primates, neither has it found any evidence in support. […] The

techniques described here put an end to decades of ambiguity about

species identification of anomalous primate samples and set a rigorous

standard against which to judge any future claims.”

And Sykes still holds his ground, despite the more recent findings.

“What mattered most to us was that these two hairs were definitely not from unknown primates,” Sykes told Live Science in light of the recent research. “The explanation by Gutierrez and [Ronald] Pine might be right, or it might not be.”

To NBC News, Sykes said that Gutierrez’ findings are “entirely statistical.”

“The only way forward, as I have repeatedly said, is to find a living

bear that matches the 12S RNA and study fresh material from it,” he

continued. “Which involves getting off your butt, not an activity I

usually associate with desk-bound molecular taxonomists.”

Daniel Loxton, an editor for Junior Skeptic, which is produced by

the Skeptics Society, told Live Science that people will continue to

believe in and seek out yetis, bigfoots and the like, because they

are”fascinated by monsters, and they’re fascinated by mysteries in

general.”

Blake Smith, in a blog post for the Skeptics Society

laid out the whole saga involving Sykes research and the more recent

analysis by Guiterrez. Smith ultimately concluded that he’s “still

convinced that Yeti and Bigfoot are not to be found in the forests and

mountains of the Earth, but in the minds of people.”

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AscensionEarth2012/~3/5jaTGh3RjRY/new-development-in-controversy-of-yeti.html

[ Add Comment ]

New Development in the Controversy of the ‘Yeti’ Hair Samples — Here’s the Latest