SPEAKER_04

Because that's easier to do than is trying to assemble a whole genome.

And then by having just those, let's call it preliminary sets of evidence, you could then say, hmm, this actually, reproducibly, if I take a sample from the

I take a sample from the bone marrow.

I take a sample from here or there on the body, and I take a sample from the three different main things, and I see the same mutations, and they're different or somehow aligned with hominid evolution, right?

We compare it to all the known hominids.

I mean, that would be the kind of data that you could actually publish in a journal like Nature if you did it right.

Because that's the only way that you're going to get anybody to pay attention.

I don't know.

I mean, why would you put them in a cave in Peru?

I don't know.

So, you know, I find them – again, I find them interesting and I hope that behind the scenes there are people who are taking a more methodical approach to this who I think should remain stealthed.

Until they have the data to the point where it's publishable.

You know, publishing a white paper or putting something out on the Internet is not the same as putting out data that has all of the instruments that you used, the methods that you used, et cetera.

The reason you want papers, frankly, when you publish them, to be almost boring and so thick with detail that no –

pseudo-skeptic would dare approach it because they're just not smart enough.

But if you put out these snippets that don't have sufficient background, they can be picked apart by anybody.

But that's why peer review is so important.

And people mistake peer review as trying to get the reviewers to agree with your conclusions.

No, the main purpose of peer review is actually to make sure that the methods

that you used are sufficiently detailed and are correct enough to the extent you came to any conclusions, they match the methods that you used.