It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I have also looked at the other sequences provided me by Lloyd earlier in 2012 and as far as I can tell what I was provided looked far more like metabolite genes from bacteria and not "mitochondrial" as was proposed. This contamination possibly occurred during the "washing" the skull underwent after it was initially buried by the original discoverer (according to Lloyd) and then washed downstream post a rainfall/deluge (again as related to me personally by Lloyd). Plenty of opportunity to get contaminated if you are washed out -- from being buried in the ground near a stream -- and then found downstream and dug up from the mud. Possibly the skull was washed at other times-- giving plenty of time for bacteria to grow on remaining organic materials from the skull. This would provide a treasure trove of contaminating DNA.
Having now been asked several times about my commentary in emails from bloggers, I will go further. I am supportive of the goals of the project, but I can categorically state that the FoxP2 sequence analysis above is amateur... and wrong. I am more than willing to have an open debate with the geneticist who makes the claims herein. Is he willing to step forward and openly reveal himself and have this debate?
Anyone with knowledge of evolutionary genetics would not make this mistake. It calls into question the judgement of the team, and makes it look (to me) like the team is using this simply to raise money from those who don't know the difference between opinion and fact.