Yikes! A Message From Sykes!

Here’s my second email (the bold segment is important):

Dear Mr. Sykes,

If you received my email from August 15 and read my essay, you

should know that I will be correcting my error in dating ‘The 7

Daughters of Eve’ from 2017. The audio book was dated this way so

I assumed the book itself was of that date. Since I am an author

with two books in audio I should have known better.

Point being, when you wrote the book you did not know about the 2

– 4% (closer to 2%) we carry in our genomes. On the other hand, as

a nonfiction writer myself, I would think you should have updated

the audio and the Kindle versions of the book — plus any later printings — since the

information is so vital to our history.

I’ll be doing a follow up to my blog essay and would ask you to

respond to my first post on the subject (notwithstanding the

dating error to be corrected). Again, here is the

link: http://blog.banditobooks.com/human-origins-more-lies/

I also apologize for spelling your first name incorrectly.

If I am incorrect in saying that sex between Neanderthals and

sapiens was strictly male Neanderthals and female sapiens, please

explain the fault in my reasoning. If I am correct, please explain

how I am wrong in assuming that the sex was (virtually always)

rape and there must have been an interspecies war that lasted for

thousands of years.

Allan

As you will notice in Sykes’s response, he does not correct the above bold observations/conclusions. He in fact offers data that support them:

Dear Mr Weisbecker

I have spoken to Professor Sykes who is away from Oxford at the

moment. He sends this message [my emphasis]:

‘You may appreciate that the Seven Daughters of Eve was published

in 2001 and as you acknowledge [means he read my essay] a lot has changed since then.

The basic framework of the book remains intact.

The contribution  of Neandertahl genes is puzzling since among the

hundreds of thousands of mitochondrial sequences tested, none has

been Neanderthal. There are possible explanations for this but it

must also be the case that it is most surprising not to find

Neanderthal mitochondrial sequences in such a large sample of

modern Homo sapiens.

I am sure you will cover this in your writing’. [A wry acknowledgement that he did read my essay]

Kind regards

A couple interesting aspects to his response, aside from the fact that he responded at all. It never ceases to amaze me when someone whom I have busted outright in either incomprehensible ignorance/stupidity or deceit and misdirection — and done so in a blatantly accusatory fashion — reacts without offering a defense, and without rancor.

He writes, ‘The basic framework of the book remains intact.’ What could he possibly mean by ‘intact’ when he got all the important points either wrong or didn’t get them at all?

That we humans have 2 – 5% Neanderthal DNA in our genome (which is a shit load considering how far back in time the inter-species miscegenation goes) without a scrap in our mitochondrial DNA — and, again, notice he does not correct me on this — means that all that sex was between Neanderthal males and sapiens females only. He in fact corroborates my findings by himself emphasizing the huge number of modern human genomes that have been sequenced without finding evidence of Neanderthals in the mitochondrial DNA. (Again, this indicates the one-way sex.)

Notice also that he finds the above ‘puzzling.’ Assuming he’s not lying (and I actually don’t think he is), being ‘puzzled’ means that in spite of my having spelled out for him what the one-way sex means (thousands of generations of rape and war), this hot-shot Oxford-trained scholar continues to live in denial about our ancestors’ horrendous relationship with our closest known cousins.

Addendum: Keep in mind that neanderthal genome was sequenced around 2010, so Sykes has known everything I know for nine years. Yet in all his lectures and writings since then he’s never told you what I have. So the date of publication of his book is actually irrelevant.

Or he is lying, and knows perfectly well what the data mean and is following orders in keeping his mouth shut. (The truth would complicate if not discredit the Neo-Darwinian lie we’re supposed to believe.) If this is the case, though, he sure did a piss-poor job of it. I mean, if deceit was his agenda (in replying), why not at least attempt misdirection, say, via the method used by some of you: maybe by going off on the tangent of what Neanderthals looked like?

He’s fucking puzzled! Amazing isn’t it? I mean that he’s puzzled, while a (formally) uneducated wandering septuagenarian half way to dementia isn’t puzzled at all?

Anyway, thought you might be interested in some direct, horse’s-mouth evidence that my essay ‘Human Origins, More Lies,’ is correct in it’s conclusions about our ancestry.

Meanwhile, here’s another ‘sky-vid,’ which I jazzed up a bit.