The Starchild Skull (Humans)

by BBella @, Sunday, January 27, 2013, 06:51 (4069 days ago)

David, I stumbled upon this site this evening about a 900 year old skull that was discovered and placed in this man, Lloyd Pye's, care to figure out it's origins. Have you heard anything about this before and what do you think about the findings in this particular article?-http://www.starchildproject.com/dna2012.htm

The Starchild Skull

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 27, 2013, 17:27 (4069 days ago) @ BBella

David, I stumbled upon this site this evening about a 900 year old skull that was discovered and placed in this man, Lloyd Pye's, care to figure out it's origins. Have you heard anything about this before and what do you think about the findings in this particular article?
> 
> http://www.starchildproject.com/dna2012.htm-BBella, you are havng lots of fun looking at the paranormal. I've read the website with lots of good science and multiple ifs, ands and buts of conjecture. The skull looks to me ike a hydrocephalic child, and Wiki article confirms:-:Neurologist Steven Novella of Yale University Medical School says the cranium exhibits all of the characteristics of a child who has died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were the result of accumulations of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.
 
DNA testing
 
DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull
 
Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother."-The finding of x and y standard human chromosomes is quite clear in claiming the this was a human child. By the way I enjoy researching these claims for you. And I still don't buy extra-terrestrials. Don't send money to Pye.

The Starchild Skull

by BBella @, Sunday, January 27, 2013, 21:59 (4069 days ago) @ David Turell

David, I stumbled upon this site this evening about a 900 year old skull that was discovered and placed in this man, Lloyd Pye's, care to figure out it's origins. Have you heard anything about this before and what do you think about the findings in this particular article?
> > 
> > http://www.starchildproject.com/dna2012.htm
> 
> BBella, you are havng lots of fun looking at the paranormal. I've read the website with lots of good science and multiple ifs, ands and buts of conjecture. The skull looks to me ike a hydrocephalic child, and Wiki article confirms:
> -Yes, David, I already read the Wikipedia information (disinformation?) and their findings first (as well as some debunkers info) before I read the article and after, as he had mentioned in another article that Wiki and other scientists had opposing info which he considered completely unfounded (and purposely misleading of course) and he suggested it be read as well. But I do not take either info as fact as I do not know the truth (as you do). So was hoping you would take just the articles lastest info (2012) that I sent on the skull and comment on that info alone and "it's" findings. Of course, it's of no surprise that you would take the opposing views and give it's info as facts as whatever agrees with your belief is automatically fact from your perspective (as is true for many of us). But I was hoping, in light of our recent convo, about what alien DNA might look like, in which you said alien DNA would be no different than ours (which I consider possibly true) that you would actually read this article and give your thoughts on "it's" claim about the recent testing on the skull - which I will post below. And yes, I know there is more testing to be done and you can rest knowing I won't be sending money to LP. Did you actually read the article? -"What is unusual [about the skull] is that there are segments of many other fragments of the Starchild's nuDNA for which no close matches could be found in the NIH database!.... In addition to having a "stop" codon in its last quarter, the Starchild fragment is also missing the large intron (marked with a vertical green arrow) that normally intervenes in the human gene and in the gene of other species. This suggests that the Starchild fragment could be a pseudogene, dysfunctional ancestors of normal genes that have lost the ability to encode proteins, or are otherwise no longer capable of being expressed in a cell. This means they are nonfunctional, and are therefore another form of junk DNA.-Suggesting the Starchild's FOXP2 fragment might be a pseudogene immediately collides with the fact that there is no currently known human FOXP2 pseudogene. Because it is a master gene, it must always function properly, and if it doesn't function properly in even a small way, very negative things happen to the individual carrying the variation. Thus, since a human FOXP2 pseudogene is not known to exist, if it turned out that the Starchild Skull carried one, that would clearly establish it as not human."

The Starchild Skull

by David Turell @, Monday, January 28, 2013, 00:37 (4068 days ago) @ BBella

bbella: Did you actually read the article? -Absolutely, and now twice. FoxP2 is a homeobox or Hox master gene. If Pye is so sure of his suppositions, why aren't regular scientists interested? 
Is there a conspiracy to hide from this information? Are the 'powers' afraid to tell the public? Why does he know what no one else cares to follow up on?-"What's the bottom line? That can only be determined when the entire Starchild genome is recovered and compared—nucleotide by nucleotide, base pair by base pair, codon by codon, amino acid by amino acid—with humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, chimps, and gorillas. Whatever it is, most of the preliminary evidence indicates it is quite distinct from humans.-Most important, perhaps, to keep in mind is that our FOXP2 results are preliminary, as are the results from the earlier nuclear DNA fragments, and the mitochondrial DNA fragments. All three preliminary results are highly indicative of what the final result will be, but they cannot be considered absolute proof. They can, however, be considered proof that absolute proof will come when the Starchild's entire genome can finally be recovered."-Everything is preliminary and supposition. He is making money doing this sort of stuff. As I said before he validates his stuff by giving a very learned and true description of DNA and mitochondrial DNA. I am skeptical times two.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum