A Fragment of the Starchild’s FOXP2 Gene is Recovered

page: 1
112
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+65 more 
posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

IMPORTANT BREAKTHROUGH WITH STARCHILD DNA


www.starchildproject.com

"The fragment of the Starchild's FOXP2 that has been recovered is VASTLY different from the human version! It is unmistakably FROM a FOXP2 gene, and one that is unmistakably human-LIKE, but it is indisputably NOT human"
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 29-2-2012 by Maxmars because: PLEASE USE THE EXACT TITLE FROM YOUR BREAKING NEWS SOURCE.



+4 more 
posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
"The Starchild’s 211 base pair FOXP2 fragment has a grand total of 56 variations! Now, while extrapolating this 211 base pair fragment is a bit more of a stretch than extrapolating the four combined fragments of mtDNA we discussed earlier, doing so does provide something to think about. Divide 2,954 by 211, and you get 12.3. Multiply 12.3 by 56, and the range of total variations in the Starchild’s FOXP2 base pairs would be 600 to 700! So let’s be crazy conservative and say it’s only 200 or 300. It is still astounding in a super highly conserved gene that in normal humans has no variations at all!

If we compare the same section from a rhesus monkey’s FOXP2, only 2 of its 211 base pairs would vary from any human. If it were a mouse, it would be 20. If a dog, 27. An elephant, 21. An opossum, 21. A Xenopus (a kind of frog), 26. So dogs and frogs are the most different, at 27 and 26 base pairs respectively.

To put this in perspective, let’s imagine that when alive, the Starchild was indeed some unknown humanoid. No matter how different from humans it might have been, to be in the humanoid family its FOXP2 gene would have to be in the range of 1 or 2 or at most 3 base pair variations from a normal human. To go past 5 or 10 would put it into another class of species. 20 to 25 would put it in the range of mice and elephants, and dogs and frogs. To have 56 is to put it in another realm, another dimension entirely. It is utterly unique."


www.starchildproject.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
S&F

I'm loving the fact that more and more, evidence of extraterrestrials and their interaction with humans (to include the genetic engineering of humans) is continuing to surface


I love it.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Finally....

Have been waiting for some news on this. Glad TPTB did not bury the evidence this time.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I've waited with great interest to hear the results...

... but I hate to throw cold water, all this shows is just that it's not human.

It does not show it's alien.

It could be alien... but as the article says scientist will just say it's another species.

We will no doubt hear arguments from mainstream scientists insisting it is some new kind of humanoid being, but it would have to be an exceptionally variant humanoid, something far away from Neanderthals and Denisovans, something nearly as genetically different from humans as chimps, which have 1,500 of those mtDNA variations compared to our 120 maximum.

ibed OP link
edit on 29-2-2012 by pianopraze because: added quote


+34 more 
posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
And once again Pye presents no actual lab report, no name of the facility where the testing was done, and no direct quotes from an actual scientist to verify what he says. I'll wait until someone with a stronger background in genetics takes a look at this as Pye has misunderstood and misrepresented results every step of the way.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

With the Starchild Skull, the partial results obtained by our geneticist at the DNA lab we work with are every bit as reliable, and as compelling, as those from Max Planck. He uses the same analytical techniques, and his results are what theirs are—partial but compelling. And, like the geneticists at Max Planck, to put our geneticist’s results beyond all doubt, he has to complete them at least 30 times over, to the same extraordinary level of certainty.


Who is this geneticist and where is this lab? This all seems a bit vague. Why would anyone believe stuff that isnt backed up by an official report produced by a named scientist from a named credible laboratory?

This isnt news...its a blog.

edit on 29-2-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I'm not sure what to make of Pye, he does seem a bit dodgy to me sometimes.

But in fairness, even if the results are completely accurate and legitimate - there are other reasons that a major lab might not want to be associated with these results. Like it or not, there is a massive stigma attached to exobiology and exopolitics.

That said, it would be nice to be able to read the actual results and know which lab they came from.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

With the Starchild Skull, the partial results obtained by our geneticist at the DNA lab we work with are every bit as reliable, and as compelling, as those from Max Planck. He uses the same analytical techniques, and his results are what theirs are—partial but compelling. And, like the geneticists at Max Planck, to put our geneticist’s results beyond all doubt, he has to complete them at least 30 times over, to the same extraordinary level of certainty.


Who is this geneticist and where is this lab? This all seems a bit vague. Why would anyone believe stuff that isnt backed up by an official report produced by a named scientist from a named credible laboratory?

This isnt news...its a blog.

edit on 29-2-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


The problem is that even some of the "reputable" scientists have been exposed for the frauds and con-artists that they sometimes are. Yes, it's comforting to trust someone who's viewed as main-stream, but these people are human, they make mistakes, they lie and cheat,..... so no matter where the information comes from you have to take everything with a grain of salt. FOX and CNN are mainstream, but how many of us here trust that source of information? How many of us would rather go off the beaten path to find more information? Something to think about.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Thank you for the information...I am surprised at the amount of people who don't know what the star child is.

I will be following this to see if it is verified.

The problem with saying it is et is because we don't have an et to compare it with..all that can be said right now is it's not entirely human?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


All that can be said at this point is (if verified): This is not a sample of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Nothing more.
At least as I understand genetics.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
The problem is that even some of the "reputable" scientists have been exposed for the frauds and con-artists that they sometimes are. Yes, it's comforting to trust someone who's viewed as main-stream, but these people are human, they make mistakes, they lie and cheat,..... so no matter where the information comes from you have to take everything with a grain of salt. FOX and CNN are mainstream, but how many of us here trust that source of information? How many of us would rather go off the beaten path to find more information? Something to think about.


Actually the problem does not lie in "reputable" or not or even in mistakes. It lies squarely in the fact that there is no name or facility given whatsoever.

I may not trust CNN or FOX but at least they are named and I can view their "track record" then decide.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Very interesting read. However, I must conclude that the results need to be verified.

(It could be an interesting mutation, a terrestrial born lifeform. It could be alien.)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

Somehow I doube posted.
edit on 29-2-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

Wyhat I can't figure out is whether they produce all this BS for money or simply because they believe their faulty methods? I think it might evne be a combination. This Starchild thing is a real riot. I can't believe how many believe it. You're sucked in hook line and sinker. You're too clueless to help yourself.

When these phonies start linking up with credible people and methods then I'll start paying attention.
edit on 29-2-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TheStev
 


So a scientist does not want to be linked to the discovery of a before unknown "human" species? Are you serious? A "human" species that is genetically more diverse than any known species, that is the stuff that gets you published and recognized around the world in your field.

They don't have to label it an extra-terrestrial being.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Step by step, we will succeed in to comprise, finally, that the entire history of the human kind must be rewritten and from the edge of the discoveries like this, we will observe dumbfound, astonished and horrified the wonderful abyss that is ours far past.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


They don't have to label it extraterrestrial - but others no doubt will. Heck, even the pigmy people that were discovered recently had a certain amount of that stigma - just because they were something outside of our current understanding.

And if you've seen the skull, you know that if this is an unknown humanoid race it is far more controversial than the pigmies.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

i always wondered why some would not do
the tests when they heard the name starchild
now we know why if true i do hope so



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
it's very interesting and i enjoyed reading the report, but they state themselves that it's too early to be able to say anything definitely, and until they get to that point it won't become big news. So hopefully they will continue until they reach the point where the have recovered the complete genome and it will then be proven and anyone will be able to check and verify it.

as it stands they have uncovered:
30,000 nuDNA genome (0.001%)
1,583 mtDNA genome (9.55%)
211 FOXP2 gene (8.13%)

so hopefully the story will unfold, and as the %'s grow, if it's genuine then more people will have to take notice. If it is real then they will reach the point where no one can deny it. So i will watch with interest as it unfolds.





top topics
 
112
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join