Starchild bump

originally posted by: TerryDon79
There's no mention of contamination in the newer reports as it would further discredit the workings of Pyes team.

Or, and is probably more likely; there is no significant contamination...but that doesn't work well into your fantasy does it?

You're now arguing about scientific falsification? Falsification is used in science, deal with it.

Here is something for you to deal with. This "falsification" you think is so integral, and important...is only philosophy..it is not an integral part of science. For you to insist that it is serves to demonstrate your level of ignorance...are we not supposed to "Deny Ignorance"?

Just wow. You do know that nuDNA and nuDNA are both DNA?

Yes...I suppose that nuclear DNA is indeed nuclear DNA. Except we were talking about mtdna, a wee bit different...

I've not changed my ideas on what data is. I know what data is. Pyes team have not released enough to the public to verify their results.

Really?!!??? Seems to me that you flip-flopped for a bit, then I pointed out some data...now you are trying to change the very nature of the data I point to. For instance...I pointed out mtdna, you insist it is nudna...

So anyway. I have serious reservations as to whether you understand what is, and is not, data in this instance.

a reply to: tanka418

Or, and is probably more likely; there is no significant contamination...but that doesn't work well into your fantasy does it?

2 different labs completed tests at 2 different times. Both said there was contamination. As soon as Pyes team stopped releasing data the contamination magically disappeared.

Here is something for you to deal with. This "falsification" you think is so integral, and important...is only philosophy..it is not an integral part of science. For you to insist that it is serves to demonstrate your level of ignorance...are we not supposed to "Deny Ignorance"?

No, it's an important part of the scientific method.

Yes...I suppose that nuclear DNA is indeed nuclear DNA. Except we were talking about mtdna, a wee bit different...

Anomolies were found, yet no tests were done to find out what they were. Pyes team assumed it was alien.

Really?!!??? Seems to me that you flip-flopped for a bit, then I pointed out some data...now you are trying to change the very nature of the data I point to. For instance...I pointed out mtdna, you insist it is nudna...

I asked for data, you gave reports and conclusions. I asked for data and you have given the only data available (which isn't enough to do anything with)

So anyway. I have serious reservations as to whether you understand what is, and is not, data in this instance.

I know what data is. You, however, keep giving reports.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
2 different labs completed tests at 2 different times. Both said there was contamination. As soon as Pyes team stopped releasing data the contamination magically disappeared.

You have those reports of contamination? Or was that with the 1999 data, which we aren't using, and has become irrelevant...

No, it's an important part of the scientific method.

Wow...where did you get your degree??? No, son, I'm sorry, but "falsification" is not an important part of science. To the best of my knowledge it never has been, and it would be rather illogical to make it important in science.

Anomolies were found, yet no tests were done to find out what they were. Pyes team assumed it was alien.

And here I thought the data that showed those anomalies, contained enough data to "see" the anomalies, and thus evaluate them...

I asked for data, you gave reports and conclusions. I asked for data and you have given the only data available (which isn't enough to do anything with)

The funny thing is that you asked for data, and condemned what I gave you as a "report", you asked again, and I gave you the very same thing, perhaps a bit more refined, but, the same data, and now, you admit it is indeed data...And while it is little data, it is more than enough to evaluate the "Human-ness" of the mtDNA...yet you insist that it is not...hence my doubts as to whether you know what data is in this instance.

I know what data is. You, however, keep giving reports.

Do you now?!!! and, do I?

So I suppose this isn't data?


And if not data then what prey tell is it?

Oh, and there is much more scattered around in the "reports" at the Starchild Skull site.

LLoyd Pye produced a set of reports on data he collected. Your whole issue is "you don't like the reports", I am not very fond of them either; the maid difference between you and me; You are rejecting viable data, I am making do with the crappy format.

So how logical is it to reject viable data simply because you don't like the read?

a reply to: tanka418

In those reports the majority data is missing. We see tiny bits and nothing more. I never said there was no data, I said there was not enough data. THE SAME THING YOU SAID ON PAGE 1.

The reports that show anomolies were from 1999 and 2010. Where I bonded that statement came from the 2010 report (the one from BLAST). So, 2 separate reports of anomolies yet they weren't investigated further.

We can't prove or disprove Pyes teams claims as there is not enough data to conduct an investigation. Look at any real scientific report and they link all data, methods, names of people involved, companies involved etc. Pyes team leaves out valuable information that could prove or disprove their case.

There are too many things that have been explained yet Pye, his team and fellow starchild skull followers ignore.

-The person who found it died, it was found by someone else 8 years laters who then went to an author instead of an archaeologist or a palaeopathologist.
-The information about the discovery is (at best) third hand.
-The skull was always looked at with complete bias from Pye and his team (remember there was a book a year before about Sitchins alien origins from Pye himself)
-The 1999 data is largely ignored as it doesn't fit with the ancient aliens story.
-He hired his own genetisist by 2010 which means any further data/reports after 2010 completely biased and unreliable.
-The skull capacity is 1600cm3. 200cm3 larger than the average human make, but well within the 1000cm3-1900cm3.
-No frontal sinuses effect around 10% of the population.
-The most likely cause for the shape of the skull is hydrocephalus and progeria.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

In those reports the majority data is missing. We see tiny bits and nothing more. I never said there was no data, I said there was not enough data. THE SAME THING YOU SAID ON PAGE 1.

Then why were you demanding that I show you data right up to the point where I posted an image from one of the reports?

I'm sorry man, but; you were insisting there was no data for a bit there...

There's a couple of pictures of DNA that has been sequenced. That's it. There's no data. There's conclusions, summaries and explanations, but no data.

The reports that show anomolies were from 1999 and 2010. Where I bonded that statement came from the 2010 report (the one from BLAST). So, 2 separate reports of anomolies yet they weren't investigated further.

And yet, we aren't talking about 1999 or 2010 data, but rather data from 2011.

Further in both of those instances, a different sub-string is being evaluated, so those comments hardly apply...

for some reason you seem eager and quite willing to "mix and match" your data segments to suit your needs. It is quite improper to apply obsolete and superseded data to a current dataset. I'm hoping that you can see the kinds of issues that would create, the "unknowns" that are actually detailed, false positives, false negatives...

We can't prove or disprove Pyes teams claims as there is not enough data to conduct an investigation.

While it may be true that there is not enough data to support "proof", which you could never get anyway (that's a bit technical, but, basically you only get "proof" in Whiskey and mathematics, sometimes in physics, almost never in biology), the amount of available data is still sufficient to form a preliminary hypothesis, and perhaps build that into a working theory...something you seem to be fighting.

Look at any real scientific report and they link all data, methods, names of people involved, companies involved etc. Pyes team leaves out valuable information that could prove or disprove their case.

You and many others here have an incorrect notion of "scientific paper"; they are for the most part a prostitution of science, and the scientist.

Pye it seems, like myself, prefer something more akin to the "White Paper". You get the same sort of content, but without the pandering of One's self and Ones work.

There are too many things that have been explained yet Pye, his team and fellow starchild skull followers ignore.

-The person who found it died, it was found by someone else 8 years laters who then went to an author instead of an archaeologist or a palaeopathologist.
-The information about the discovery is (at best) third hand.
-The skull was always looked at with complete bias from Pye and his team (remember there was a book a year before about Sitchins alien origins from Pye himself)
-The 1999 data is largely ignored as it doesn't fit with the ancient aliens story.
-He hired his own genetisist by 2010 which means any further data/reports after 2010 completely biased and unreliable.
-The skull capacity is 1600cm3. 200cm3 larger than the average human make, but well within the 1000cm3-1900cm3.
-No frontal sinuses effect around 10% of the population.
-The most likely cause for the shape of the skull is hydrocephalus and progeria.

Right you are man, and right after you explain how any of these things can affect the bio-chemistry, beyond the indications of some specific DNA markers, we can get to work ferreting out these non-relevant things.

"He hired his own geneticist." Wow dude, you say that like it could remotely affect any of the test results. And, what that would really mean; after 2010 the management of the inquiry was being professionally handled. It would in fact make the data more reliable, and the tests conducted more logical. LLoyd simply wouldn't know how to investigate DNA, a geneticist would. LLoyd would not see things in the data that a geneticist would...so your issue here is backwards...

a reply to: tanka418

Quite simply, he and his team are a fraud.

All they wanted was money.

I've shown you the relevant points of how this thing is completely human. If you don't believe it, that's your choice to do so. I can't change your mind, but to say there's plenty of data and the evidence is strong that it is alien is based off of personal bias and not the available data from 1999 to present.

Have fun with your delusions.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Quite simply, he and his team are a fraud.

All they wanted was money.

I've shown you the relevant points of how this thing is completely human. If you don't believe it, that's your choice to do so. I can't change your mind, but to say there's plenty of data and the evidence is strong that it is alien is based off of personal bias and not the available data from 1999 to present.

Have fun with your delusions.

Firstly sir; I have absolutely no bias in this instance what-so-ever. Just where the hell did you get that?!?

Secondly; You absolutely have not shown any relevant point that indicates "Human", in fact you have utterly failed to explain how it could be remotely Human. You "brushed off" the detail in the mtDNA of the 17 anomalies by crossing and confusing them with data from 2 different strings of DNA, and two different analyses...

And with that reference...This bit of mtDNA is interesting, as are the possible ways it may be analyzed. For instance One can approach this as a simple template matching exercise. Unfortunately, when we do this; there is no match...not even a loose one. This gives rise to the theorizing that perhaps Starchild's Mother wasn't Human after all...and with all those differences, it would appear that Mother was something closer to a chimp. And that is where your lack of follow up leads us; if not Human then what?

Oh, and I don't believe I said it was "Alien"!
Just not Human...

And you actually could change my mind, IF you could present a good argument. But that would require data that supports your argument. You haven't done that...

a reply to: tanka418

And you have no data to support yours. It's a circular argument that won't be solved until the skull is released with all the data.

One point I would like to add. Science doesn't ignore anything because it's older.

The anomolies of both the nuDNA and mtDNA have never been investigated (as far as anyone knows).

Anomolies do not equal none human.

Anomolies equal anomolies until relevant tests are done to determine what caused them.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

And you have no data to support yours. It's a circular argument that won't be solved until the skull is released with all the data.

Well, actually I do, and I've even posted it here...you have not adequately explained the difference in anomaly count...

One point I would like to add. Science doesn't ignore anything because it's older.

In astronomy there are several datasets of the stars, some older, others newer. The Gliese dataset was compiled in the 60's and was at that time one of the most complete and accurate datasets of astrometric data. In the 90's a satellite was launched, called "Hipparcos". What Hipparcos dis was acquire astrometric data of some 117,000 near by stars. The data in Hipparcos made Gliese obsolete, partly because it was more accurate and more precise. In some cases stars moved 10's of light years because of the new measurements.

Today we have a dataset called 2MASS (2 micron all sky survey), compiled by yet another space mission...it contains millions of stars, some so small and cold that they could only be sensed by the equipment in the spacecraft...

So should science use the Gliese catalog, the Hipparcos, or 2MASS....

Science, like any other responsible database administrator uses primarily current data. By current data, II mean data that has not been obsoleted and superseded.

In the case of the Starchild data; 1999 should be considered obsolete as those same tests were run again under better sampling conditions. Your 2010 results don't apply as they are results from a different sub-string.

The anomolies of both the nuDNA and mtDNA have never been investigated (as far as anyone knows).

While sad, and disappointing it remains irrelevant.

Anomolies do not equal none human.

Not true...enough anomalies and the subject isn't Human at all...in fact, IF you had paid attention in the report they address this specifically. And, it seems that the more anomalies there are the further from "Human" it gets...they stopped at chimpanzee, as it was further than the Starchild.

Anomolies equal anomolies until relevant tests are done to determine what caused them.

Good luck with that.
lol...dude, that's one of the goofiest things I've seen today! Seriously, did even think about how to design such a test?

No, I afraid that all investigating the anomalies will get you; is an understanding of this things mother.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

And you have no data to support yours. It's a circular argument that won't be solved until the skull is released with all the data.

Well, actually I do, and I've even posted it here...you have not adequately explained the difference in anomaly count...

Care to show all the data? I've seen maybe 4 bits. That's far from enough to come to a conclusion.

One point I would like to add. Science doesn't ignore anything because it's older.

In astronomy there are several datasets of the stars, some older, others newer. The Gliese dataset was compiled in the 60's and was at that time one of the most complete and accurate datasets of astrometric data. In the 90's a satellite was launched, called "Hipparcos". What Hipparcos dis was acquire astrometric data of some 117,000 near by stars. The data in Hipparcos made Gliese obsolete, partly because it was more accurate and more precise. In some cases stars moved 10's of light years because of the new measurements.

Today we have a dataset called 2MASS (2 micron all sky survey), compiled by yet another space mission...it contains millions of stars, some so small and cold that they could only be sensed by the equipment in the spacecraft...

So should science use the Gliese catalog, the Hipparcos, or 2MASS....

Science, like any other responsible database administrator uses primarily current data. By current data, II mean data that has not been obsoleted and superseded.

In the case of the Starchild data; 1999 should be considered obsolete as those same tests were run again under better sampling conditions. Your 2010 results don't apply as they are results from a different sub-string.

Nice strawman.

The anomolies of both the nuDNA and mtDNA have never been investigated (as far as anyone knows).

While sad, and disappointing it remains irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. Without knowing what the causes of the anomolies are we cannot come to a conclusion. So far there are 2 possibilities. 1, the anomolies are from DNA degradation. 2, It's from an unknown source. 3, It's from contamination.

Anomolies do not equal none human.

Not true...enough anomalies and the subject isn't Human at all...in fact, IF you had paid attention in the report they address this specifically. And, it seems that the more anomalies there are the further from "Human" it gets...they stopped at chimpanzee, as it was further than the Starchild.

If the anomolies aren't explained then how can a conclusion be met?

Anomolies equal anomolies until relevant tests are done to determine what caused them.

Good luck with that.
lol...dude, that's one of the goofiest things I've seen today! Seriously, did even think about how to design such a test?

No, I afraid that all investigating the anomalies will get you; is an understanding of this things mother.

mtDNA is passed down from the mother. nuDNA is from both. Therefore your statement is false.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
mtDNA is passed down from the mother. nuDNA is from both. Therefore your statement is false.

At no time have we been discussing nuclear DNA...this discussion began with, and shall remain about mtDNA and the 17 anomalies.

This is the same sort of data "mix and match" you tried before...it entirely discredits all of your statements. Now, if you care to continue, do so legitimately!

a reply to: tanka418

Actually, you spoke of anomolies without stating which ones. There were anomolies in both the nuDNA and mtDNA.

The original data showed it was a human male from haplogroup c. It showed that both parents were human. It had at least 2 genetic diseases.

Pye and his group needed it to be something else so falsified reports and withheld data so they couldn't be proven wrong.

But, according to you, the data now shows otherwise.

There's no proof of that data being from the skull.

There's no proof the tests were carried out with strict scientific methods.

There's no proof it's anything apart from a human male.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Care to show all the data? I've seen maybe 4 bits. That's far from enough to come to a conclusion.

Already posted...

Nice strawman.

Did ya like that? Too bad you failed to understand...
so let us return; Science uses good data management, in this instance, old, obsolete and superseded data is no longer used when new data becomes available. In this case a new set of testing that included that old, obsolete and superseded data that you are trying desperately to insist is in any way valid.

Further, in this instance; new data contradicts the old...

Of course it's relevant. Without knowing what the causes of the anomolies are we cannot come to a conclusion. So far there are 2 possibilities. 1, the anomolies are from DNA degradation. 2, It's from an unknown source. 3, It's from contamination.

You said 2 then listed 3...and, neither 1, nor 3 were significantly discussed in the report; so I must conclude that neither degradation , nor contamination were an issue. That leaves that "unknown source".

Now here is where I fail to understand why you don't see how the probabilities are stacking up here. Seriously man, the deck is being stacked against you , right in front of your eyes...do you see it?

a reply to: tanka418

Now you're just lieing.

Contamination was brought up in 1999 AND 2010.

It was human. You've been duped. Seriously man, the deck is being stacked against you , right in front of your eyes...do you see it?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Now you're just lieing.

Contamination was brought up in 1999 AND 2010.

It was human. You've been duped. Seriously man, the deck is being stacked against you , right in front of your eyes...do you see it?

Again we are discussing 2011 data...not 1999 nor 2010. If you want to discuss a different topic...start a thread. But here we are talking about the 17 anomalies found in the mtDNA in 2011.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Now you're just lieing.

Contamination was brought up in 1999 AND 2010.

It was human. You've been duped. Seriously man, the deck is being stacked against you , right in front of your eyes...do you see it?

Again we are discussing 2011 data...not 1999 nor 2010. If you want to discuss a different topic...start a thread. But here we are talking about the 17 anomalies found in the mtDNA in 2011.

Actually, you started the off topic stuff.

The topic is about the nasal (or lack thereof).

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Pye and his group needed it to be something else so falsified reports and withheld data so they couldn't be proven wrong.

Do you have evidence of this?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Pye and his group needed it to be something else so falsified reports and withheld data so they couldn't be proven wrong.

Do you have evidence of this?

Do you have all the data? No.

Did Pye and his crew lie about the 1999 results? Yes. There was even a letter to Pye about it and it's on his website.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Did Pye and his crew lie about the 1999 results? Yes. There was even a letter to Pye about it and it's on his website.

Here again you fail because you have no evidence...by the way, in the 2010 report...there is no mention of contamination...I think we can presume that they got that issue under control after the erroneous 1999 results.

Oh look...that old 1999 report was good for something...it thoroughly thrashed you whole "contamination" bit...good thing I returned to read again...eh?

a reply to: tanka418

The evidence is on his own website. Your bias must have missed it.

The only time the contamination wasn't there was when tests were done "in house".

As for saying there is no contamination? That's dishonest.

If we go by the story, it was found in a mine. The child didn't die and go into a hermetically sealed container for 900 years, therefor there must have been contamination.