Came across this article stating that new partial DNA analysis of the 'star-child' skull has been done and proves even further that it is not of human
It is a pretty lengthy read but I will outline a couple key points from the article to give you the overall summary and if you find any of the
information of interest I would recommend taking the time to read the entire article.
I believe it has some intriguing information contained within,at the very least there is some informative pieces of info about DNA in general.
Within that life-and-death consistency, the human genome does contain slight variations. Tiny Pygmies and tall Watusis are black Africans with
stark physical differences, yet both tribes are unmistakably human. Differences in their genetic makeup make it impossible for two Pygmies to produce
a Watusi, and vice-versa. Yet DNA can flex enough so that if one of each tribe were to mate, they could produce viable offspring, although the
flexibility does not go beyond certain points.
Something is either human, or it isn’t. There is no in-between. Because genetics is the math of biology, the Starchild’s DNA provided the only
means to overcome the mainstream explanation that it has to be a one-in-a-billion freak of Nature. Unfortunately, we had to wait nearly a decade while
the technology for recovering and sequencing “ancient” DNA, such as the 900-year-old Starchild’s, could be perfected.
Now such new technology has been in place for a few years, and its initial extraordinarily high cost has fallen within the reach of reasonable
investment. Also, we now have enough partial analyses of the Starchild’s DNA to know without doubt that when we can afford a complete inventory of
its genome, it will prove to be radically different from humans.
This essay is designed to make the most crucial information about those partial analyses understandable to anyone. If you can take the 15 minutes
needed to read it, you will learn about the three kinds of partial proofs we now have, what each one means, and why they will help the Starchild make
history on a scale that seldom occurs in human lifetimes.
It goes on to give examples of some of the tests that were undertaken -
When comparing the Starchild’s sequences, the search parameter ranged from an exact match of the entire base pair string, to matches that were
similar to any segment of any fragment. Using these exceptionally broad criteria, many Starchild fragments could be matched to genetic sequences in
the NIH database. Some of those were comparable to human sequences, which meant they were human-like, though not necessarily human
The human genome has large numbers of corollaries in the world around us. Humans share 97% of our genes with chimps, 95% with gorillas, 70% with
rats, 65% with mice, and 26% with yeast! Thus, nearly everything on Earth is, in some way, genetically interrelated with humans, so it is not unusual
that some of the Starchild’s nuDNA is found to be human-like. What is unusual, and shockingly so, 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!
They go on to state that although this may not be absolute proof,it does strongly suggest that the starchild's skull DNA may not be of earthly
further tests gave stronger indication of this came later, when four fragments were recovered from the Starchild’s mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
In sharp contrast, the mtDNA genome is vastly smaller and much more tightly packed, and it contains a very specific number of base pairs: 16,569,
compared to the 3+ billion in nuDNA.
In terms of this all-important mtDNA in the Starchild, our geneticist has recovered four reasonably large fragments which together total 1,583
base pairs, or 9.55% of the 16,569 base pair total for humans. As before, this is only a partial result, but also as before, it is highly indicative
of what the final result of a full mtDNA genome analysis will be.
Within those 1,583 base pairs, the Starchild carries a grand total of 93 variations that are different from the extremely highly conserved human mtDNA
genome. That is 93 in only 9.5% of the genome! It’s already near to the maximum of 120 variations in human mtDNA. If we do a simple but highly
reliable mathematical extrapolation, expanding the 9.5% out to 100% (times 10.5) we find that 93 established variations extrapolates out to 977
variations! Remember, the maximum of variations in human mtDNA is 120. Neanderthals carry 200. The new hominins, Denisovans, carry 385. The Starchild
extrapolates to 977!
However, we must be clear about what that 977 means. During the course of repeated mtDNA sequencing, a high probability exists that several of the
variations found will not hold up as valid. Some are likely to be established as errors. Because of that likelihood, let’s be overly conservative
and err well on the side of caution. Let’s say the Starchild’s mtDNA will fall in the range of 800 to 1000 variations. Compare that range to the
human 120. What does it mean?
Based on this partial mtDNA recovery result, which must be repeated many times before it can be considered fully reliable, the Starchild Skull is
not from a human being. 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.
The final and most convincing test is to be found in what is called the FOXP2 Gene- The odd name comes from its technical title:'Forkhead Box P2'
Virtually any complex species has a variation of this gene, and it is without question one of the most highly conserved genes in the human body.
Illustration attempting to show the FOXP2 Genes importance -
In any creature, the overwhelming importance of their FOXP2 gene is that it controls a “downstream” cascade of genetic processes in hundreds
of other genes, all coordinating the formation of various parts of a body as it gestates and grows to maturity. In mammals and other “higher”
species, any single flaw in FOXP2, any isolated mutation or variation, can cause a severe negative impact in some of the most important aspects of
development: the function of the brain, the sound or speech mechanisms, the lungs, heart, guts, and nerves, among others. Because it is so utterly
vital, it is even more highly conserved than mtDNA
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.
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.
[Emphasis added by me]
Although this is only the preliminary findings,you got to admit,if this is proven ultimately to be true in the complete genome analysis to be
irrefutably accurate,then this is incredible...alien or not,we would be looking at some form of new,unique species!
There is a good bit more within the entire article and I for one found it be interesting,even if I still hold reservations until the complete results
are finished,I will remain skeptical until the full analysis is completed & verified and I am able to observe and research their results.
From my own research and my personal opinion I do believe that humanities DNA and origins could of originated either off planet and/or quite possibly
have been tampered/modified from some kind of yet unknown "alien" intelligence.
I say alien loosely because I do not know exactly what,where or the who....I do believe that there is so much more that we are not aware of yet in
this world,our universe and particularly our very own origins...I think it is still shrouded in mystery and up for debate pertaining to our existence
So,What do you think my fellow ATSers?
Do you even believe in the validity of the 'starchild skull and it's authenticity?
Does this new partial analysis make you even more of a believer?
Is the starchild skull "Alien" in origin?
and if it is,what does it mean for us,as a species...Past,present and future?
It can be said if nothing else,this may prove to not be Homo-sapiens sapiens,not necessarily alien of Extraterrestrial origin,still intriguing if
proven to be correct.
I look forward to your observations and what everyone thinks about the article and the starchild skull.
edit on 29-2-2012 by PerfectPerception because: (no reason given)