PDA

View Full Version : Bryan Sykes new book



dp
04-09-2015, 07:33 PM
Sykes, Bryan "The Nature of the Beast: The first scientific evidence on the survival of apemen into modern times" London: Coronet Hodder & Stoughton (https://www.hodder.co.uk/books/detail.page?isbn=9781444791242) c) 2015.
Page count: 432
Publication date: 17 Sep 2015
Paperback: 8.99
ISBN: 9781444791242

Click on the Hodder & Stoughton to go to their page on the book. There is also a preview Kindle listing on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-Beast-mysterious-creatures-ebook/dp/B00J37958E

VinceT
04-10-2015, 03:52 AM
http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/04/sykes-reputation-and-his-yeti-project-get-slammed/
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/stories
http://biochemistri.es/post/115493784606/debunking-bryan-sykes-times
http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=4885

falconson1
04-10-2015, 07:54 PM
The scientist has taken a very steep tumble from the days when he operated the first mtDNA and Y chromosome testing service (Oxford Ancestors), who when others were testing 67 plus markers, stuck to his venerable 10 Y-STR markers and mtDNA HVR1 - and in so doing made some serious errors (recall the English fellow Dr. S termed a descendant of Ghengis Khan - but with SNP testing by a reputable firm was found to be "plain old" R1a). His published work on the S.... and other British surnames was pioneering for us genetic genealogists. He was a major competitor when we stated our DNA testing corporation. OA is somehow still in business, although how many kits a year are processed is unknown to me - apparently he opts for "elegant simplicity" (according to the website). More gaffs ......................... The whole embarrassment over the Yeti - Bigfoot thing. I always wondered how he kept his affiliation with Oxford - but one of the articles says they since 2007 he has not been a faculty member, let alone a member of the "Institute" that Dr. S admits inventing to "round out" his credentials. A piece of work - but I did enjoy his feather weight "Seven Daughters of Eve" (I think the first book published for a general audience on mtDNA) and "American DNA" books (the latter published recently). His academic credentials seem very solid indeed - I can't understand the directions he chose - considered among fellow geneticists to be something of a showman and publicity hound. Interesting chap. Hopefully he can find his way in less controversial directions - although like myself, seems to be getting "a little long in the tooth", and retirement may be looming largely.

David Mc
04-10-2015, 08:05 PM
If I were to guess the "why"s of all this, I would say "money." He might be humiliating himself, but he's getting rich doing it.

dp
04-10-2015, 09:53 PM
If I were to guess the "why"s of all this, I would say "money." He might be humiliating himself, but he's getting rich doing it.

If I could hit thanks twice I would. dp :-)

lgmayka
04-11-2015, 12:08 AM
In one sense, Sykes' attitude is admirable: He wants to subject alleged discoveries to rigorous scientific testing, instead of refusing to examine them out of haughty narrowmindedness. He apparently had the courage and drive to find and test descendants of Zana, the famous 19th-century "wild woman" of the Caucasus, and from them to back-estimate her own DNA. He reportedly found (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/44347/20150406/dna-test-suggests-russian-apewoman-zana-was-not-human-and-yeti-may-not-be-a-myth.htm):
---
Sykes explained that while the woman, said to stand 6 feet 6 inches tall, was genetically 100 percent African, she showed little physical or genetic resemblance to any group living in modern Africa.
---

This is quite newsworthy in itself, if verified. It means that Zana had a DNA profile that falls into the African category but is nevertheless clearly distinct from any known present-day African population.

Sykes' problem, of course, is that he not only tolerates pop-sci overhyping and distortion, he actually encourages and participates in it, thereby greatly reducing his own credibility and--much worse--diminishing scientific interest in his alleged discovery. Attempting to connect Zana to an "abominable snowman" is logically inexcusable, and a grave insult to her descendants.

We can only hope that Sykes will publish a paper with all supplemental data necessary for others to independently confirm or refute his claim--just as most researchers are doing for ancient DNA.

DebbieK
04-11-2015, 12:05 PM
Both Sykes and the publishers seem to be exaggerating and over-hyping the Zana story. The book provides no evidence to support any of the claims made in the press and also fails to mention the two papers that were critical of the ancient polar claims.

According to the book mtDNA testing was done on a tooth extracted from a skull purporting to belong to Zana's son Khwit. The haplogroup was L2c. Sykes says he checked the available databases but there were no sequences that matched exactly. However, he doesn't say which databases he searched. He also did DNA testing on six of Zana's descendants who were found to have between 3.7% and 8.8% African DNA. He then goes on to say "I hope to know soon whether Zana was indeed a survivor of an antique race of humans". There is supposedly going to be a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it seems rather odd to speculate against the evidence in a book before the paper has appeared.

lgmayka
04-11-2015, 11:05 PM
He also did DNA testing on six of Zana's descendants who were found to have between 3.7% and 8.8% African DNA. He then goes on to say "I hope to know soon whether Zana was indeed a survivor of an antique race of humans". There is supposedly going to be a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it seems rather odd to speculate against the evidence in a book before the paper has appeared.
I was wondering how you could have already read it, when it is scheduled for publication in September (https://www.hodder.co.uk/books/detail.page?isbn=9781444791242). But that is merely the paperback edition. Amazon is currently selling the hardcover edition (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1444791257/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=), and it already has one (mostly favorable) review.

In regard to the issue you bring up, the question is whether:
- His analysis of the African DNA is already complete, but his comments about the results have to remain ambiguous until publication of the paper? Or
- His analysis of the African DNA is nowhere near complete, and he is hawking the book in order to raise money for the analysis, paper-writing, etc.

Of course, citizen scientists would prefer that he simply release any data he has as quickly as possible, but if he serious about publication in a peer-reviewed journal he can't do that yet.

DebbieK
04-11-2015, 11:14 PM
The book is already out in the UK and was published last week:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nature-Beast-Evidence-Mysterious-Creatures/dp/1444791257/

I was actually sent a PDF copy of the book by The Sunday Times as they originally wanted me to comment on it. In the end they only cited Tom Gilbert.

Hando
04-13-2015, 01:33 AM
I took Oxford Ancestor's MtDNA test and all they told me was I was descended from Ursula. I mean that is not at all useful is it. When I asked Hillary Prince if I could upgrade that or get more specific details she was unfriendly and unhelpful. So I had to google what Haplogroup Ursula was. Total amateur hour.

VinceT
04-13-2015, 01:56 AM
"Ursula" is more commonly known as haplogroup U5, although initially it was meant to embrace haplogroup U in entirety. That system kind of fell apart when haplogroup K ("Katrine") was later discovered to have descended from haplogroup U8, while super-haplogroup U has at least 7 other primary descending lines apart from U5 and K.

GTC
04-13-2015, 03:34 AM
All members are reminded to remain on topic, and to keep the tone of posts civil.

DebbieK
04-13-2015, 08:42 AM
Hando, You can upload your Oxford Ancestors results to Mitosearch to look for matches:

http://www.mitosearch.org/

It's too late now but you could have purchased a full mitochondrial sequence test from Family Tree DNA for much less than the price you paid for a low-resolution HVR1 test from Oxford Ancestors.

dp
04-13-2015, 07:27 PM
Cool I'm glad I started the thread last week when I did. Since they didn't use your comments can you post them here??
dp :-)

The book is already out in the UK and was published last week:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nature-Beast-Evidence-Mysterious-Creatures/dp/1444791257/

I was actually sent a PDF copy of the book by The Sunday Times as they originally wanted me to comment on it. In the end they only cited Tom Gilbert.

DebbieK
04-13-2015, 07:36 PM
David, I spent about an hour or so scanning through the book but in the end the reporter didn't call me back for my comments. I sent him details of the two papers that criticised Sykes's methodology and I know he spoke to one of those scientists though again he didn't use his comments. The reporter spoke to a lot of people to make sure he got his facts right.

crossover
08-28-2015, 01:48 AM
i don't know why people still think the 'zana' lady is a neanderthal/arhciac human. based on the dna findings and the pictures of her descendents (well there's no legit pics of her) she was probably a runaway slave or perhaps a child of slaves abandoned in the forest. She probably had werewolf syndrome (or something similar), possible gigantism, and some learning/speech disabilities.

Ricardo Canedo
03-03-2018, 05:10 PM
i don't know why people still think the 'zana' lady is a neanderthal/arhciac human. based on the dna findings and the pictures of her descendents (well there's no legit pics of her) she was probably a runaway slave or perhaps a child of slaves abandoned in the forest. She probably had werewolf syndrome (or something similar), possible gigantism, and some learning/speech disabilities.

But, she very likely is a member of an archaic human tribe that left Africa before us and, due to pression of later migrations, eventually fixed in remote regions such as the Caucasus mountains. The idea that she was an ottoman slave is highly unlikely, because while she had african DNA it is too distant from modern african tribes' DNA. Sykes had proposed that hypothesis in 2013 but in 2015, he rejected it.

mephisto
03-03-2018, 05:44 PM
Nobody is "humilating" himself with writing this book, people who did not even bother reading one chapter of that book would only comment like that. Some of the findings in the book are a sensation, but hard to know if you "judge a book by its cover". Especially the case with the descendants of Zana the "wild human". The analysis of supposed Yeti-DNA also gave an interesting result.
A "pro-wild-human" video with better arguments which basically debunks the second video which relatives Zana being "100% African":

https://youtu.be/8rFY0w7nIRw
Another video by a scepticist and basically tries to "debunk" by telling only the half of the truth, he mentions that she was of "100% African descend" but not that her DNA is not belonging to any modern known african population:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvADZ8BulSo