Sykes results are in

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Prof Sykes added: “Bigfootologists and other enthusiasts seem to think that they've been rejected by science. Science doesn't accept or reject anything, all it does is examine the evidence and that is what I'm doing.”


Let the crow eating begin.

www.independent.co.uk...
edit on 16-10-2013 by muircertach because: spelling mistake




posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by muircertach
 


A rare bear? Really?

New DNA research may have finally solved the mystery of the yeti. Tests on hair samples were found to have a genetic match with an ancient polar bear, with scientists believing there could be a sub species of brown bear in the High Himalayas that has been mistaken for the mythical beast.

Yetis, also known as the “Abominable Snowman” or “Bigfoot”, have been recorded for centuries in the Himalayas, with local people and mountaineers claiming to have come face-to-face with hairy, ape-like creatures.

Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at the Oxford University, set out to collect and test “yeti” hair samples to find out which species they came from. In particular he analysed hairs from two unknown animals, one found in the Western Himalayan region of Ladakh and the other from Bhutan, 800 miles to the east.

After subjecting the hairs to the most advanced DNA tests available and comparing the results to other animals' genomes stored on the GenBank database, Professor Sykes found that he had a 100 per cent match with a sample from an ancient polar bear jawbone found in Svalbard, Norway, that dates back at least 40,000 years - and probably around 120,000 years - a time when the polar bear and closely related brown bear were separating as different species.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Thorneblood
reply to post by muircertach
 


A rare bear? Really?


Would seem so. This is a brutal day for footers.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Maybe I'm just a glass half full type of guy, but rather than be upset about not having evidence of a yeti. Shouldn't we be excited about evidence of a previously believed to be extinct species of bear now known to be living at whatever time that specimen was collected?



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   

watchitburn
Maybe I'm just a glass half full type of guy, but rather than be upset about not having evidence of a yeti. Shouldn't we be excited about evidence of a previously believed to be extinct species of bear now known to be living at whatever time that specimen was collected?


Nope not the case.

The professor said: “This is an exciting and completely unexpected result that gave us all a surprise. There's more work to be done on interpreting the results. I don't think it means there are ancient polar bears wandering around the Himalayas.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


No, no we shouldn't. Yeti's are cooler then hybrid bears.....just saying.




posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by muircertach
 


Bummer.

What if we engineer a bear with a gorilla?

Would that make for a Yeti?



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
If an ancient polar bear sub species can allude capture or detection then this gives more credence to a Yeti or Sasquatch also existing undetected.

This finding doesn't automatically say this bear is what everyone has been seeing and identifying as a Yeti.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

watchitburn
Maybe I'm just a glass half full type of guy, but rather than be upset about not having evidence of a yeti. Shouldn't we be excited about evidence of a previously believed to be extinct species of bear now known to be living at whatever time that specimen was collected?


Im pretty much with you on this. As one postered stated it doesn't necessarily mean there are extinct unexplained polar bears running around like in lost


But what I think it does warrant is more searching an investigation on the conditions and circumstances that brought these samples about. If they found them stuck in trees and brush then we may have something really interesting to look into.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   

TheLieWeLive
If an ancient polar bear sub species can allude capture or detection then this gives more credence to a Yeti or Sasquatch also existing undetected.

This finding doesn't automatically say this bear is what everyone has been seeing and identifying as a Yeti.


Hardly undetected,just unclassified. No this pretty much rules out an amazing ape man.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Just throwing this out there: Is it possible that the jaw bone was misidentified as belonging to an ancient polar bear to begin with? Did they use DNA samples of other ancient polar bears to confirm the jaw bone or was it classified based on the notion that Yeti's don't exist so it must be something else like an ancient polar bear since it was evidently not from a common polar bear in recent times?

Just trying to play devil's advocate by posing a question from another logical point of view!



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   

muircertach


Let the crow eating begin.





Strange that, as to which side of this subject, after all the promises, is now sitting down to a plate of humble pie.....


Surely this means that the Yeti's closest evolutionary ancestor is a bear? Or the Yeti is a 100% bear hybrid.....?


Sorry, just trying to pre-empt the special pleading fallacies.....



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by muircertach
 




Explain how this sample found rules out the existence of anything. This finding only proves another species of bear is out there. That's it, nothing more or less.
edit on 17-10-2013 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Has this research been published in a paper? Has it been peer reviewed yet?

Guess I'm not surprised to see the ancient polar bear believers drink the koolaid so fast.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


Thanks for the laugh :-)

Not sure how I missed that one..



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   

TheLieWeLive
reply to post by muircertach
 




Explain how this sample found rules out the existence of anything. This finding only proves another species of bear is out there. That's it, nothing more or less.
edit on 17-10-2013 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)


True. It does mean there is zero evidence for bigfoot/yeti. At some point the lack of evidence is evidence itself.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Evidence to most is a dead body in part or whole. The same way the world learned of Panda bears. A black and white vegetarian bear that was legend to the natives and fantasy to everyone else. That is until one was killed and displayed to the world of disbelievers.

Evidence to me starts with the numerous eyewitness reports of an up close and personal interactions with a creature they are told to believe is just fantasy. Again a legend to the natives and fantasy to everyone else except the ones who run into one.
Yeti, Bigfoot, whatever you want to call it has been sighted or is legend all over the world. Just because we don't tangibly have one to marvel over in a nearby zoo doesn't make it any less non existence than a Panda bear was before it was officially discovered.

Scientifically we know there was once a giant ape so why is it so hard to believe a few of them still live? Named Gigantopithecus and standing upwards of 9 feet tall and weighing over 1000lbs this ape matches the description of a bigfoot very, very closely. If a long thought extinct bear could still live on couldn't the same be possible for a giant ape?



edit on 19-10-2013 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join