It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by manythoughts
Can anyone cite a reference for getting D.N.A from bone? I’ve heard of it being done. If they have a skull it would seem they could do the same procedure. That would settle the question as to how close we are related. or am i way off base?
Originally posted by manythoughts
O.K Amplifeye,
You just gave me A LOT to look at. Thank You. It will take me awhile to digest.
The skull is abnormal in several aspects. A dentist determined, based on examination of the upper right maxilla found with the skull, that it was a child's skull, 4.5 to 5 years in age.[3] However, the volume of the interior of the starchild skull is 1600 cubic centimeters, which is 200 cm³ larger than the average adult's brain, and 400 cm³ larger than an adult of the same approximate size. The orbits are oval and shallow, with the optic nerve canal situated at the bottom of the orbit instead of at the back. There are no frontal sinuses.[2] The back of the skull is flattened, but not by artificial means. The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone.[4]
Carbon 14 dating was performed twice, the first on the normal human skull at the University of California at Riverside in 1999, and on the Starchild skull in 2004 at Beta Analytic in Miami, the largest radiocarbon dating laboratory in the world. Both independent tests gave a result of 900 years ± 40 years since death.[5] DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD, a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull. BOLD was unable to extract any DNA from the maxilla.[5] Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which unlike BOLD specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA and determined that the child had a human mother, though it was not the child of the skull found with it. Its mother did belong to a known Native American haplogroup, haplogroup C. However, useful lengths of nuclear DNA for further testing could not be recovered. [6] Later testing in 2004 at the Royal Holloway college [1] of the University of London revealed unexplained "fibers" in the bone of the skull and a reddish residue in the cancellous bone, neither of which are known or recorded to exist prior to the discovery.
Rightmire, G. P. Problems in the Study of Later Pleistocene Man in Africa. American Anthropologist. 1975. 77:28-
An archaeological history of the Middle Stone Age is given and the scarcity of skeletal fossils from this time period as well as the limitations of existing ones are addressed. At one time it was believed the "Boskop race" was prevalent during this period but the dating process, for this assertion, has been questioned and this, in turn, has led to the questioning of a "Boskop race" more generally. Some scientists have claimed that this race is actually more modern.
Originally posted by manythoughts
Hey Maybeonce, Have you been able to find any reference to artifacts?
The Boskop and Cape Flats fossils were not found in association with artifacts...
The "amazing" Boskops
They possessed extraordinary features: forebrains roughly 50% larger than ours, and estimated IQs to match--far surpassing our own.
Originally posted by LASTofTheV8s
This is interesting stuff.
An extinct species of Proto-Human.
With small frames, and small child-like faces.
And a Brain that was 30% Larger than Ours!
That 30% difference in size is not as telling as WHERE the difference and size is present...
The "amazing" Boskops
They possessed extraordinary features: forebrains roughly 50% larger than ours, and estimated IQs to match--far surpassing our own.
Between the difference in Size, and the Placement of the extra brain-mass, Boskops was possibly as advanced from us, as we are from the Chimpanzee.