thanks for posting the link to the report. I honestly intended to read the whole thing and maybe ask one of my colleagues to also read and independantly compare notes. when i realized that the online scientific journal where it was published only contains one issue, and that one issue only containes one paper, it made me a little suspicious. the "peer" review was a bit hokey, too. never the less, i read a good portion last night, looked through the figures, pawed at the data some and tried to understand how the data could lead to the conclusions presented. I just don't see it. at absolute best, it is a collection of bad science and meaningless figures. I started to dig in a bit, but lost momentum and did a little internet digging instead. this guy is a geneticist and his assessment is an interesting read:
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/melba-is-toast-biochemist-with-phd-from.html

this one is also interesting (a little less of the tech details):
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/a...o-created-it/3/

the fact that any recognized journal wouldn't publish is not the subject matter, it's a matter of a bad paper. the references contain several "hoax" papers, one that is a known April fools joke:

Milinkovitch, M C, Caccone, A and Amato, G. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:1–3. (2004)

to put that kind of thing in your references not only shows that you didn't read the reference, but you don't care if people take you seriously

in the end, i did not ask anyone else to read it. i think it would be best that way.



willy