Starchild’s FOXP2 Gene has been Recovered:Proof that it is not of human origin?

page: 1
18

log in

join

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
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 origin.

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.

Source

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 origin.

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 IMO.

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)




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PerfectPerception
 


Interesting find. But it got me thinking of the quote in your OP:


Something is either human, or it isn’t. There is no in-between.


Because a little while back we have this:

Danish researchers have discovered a mysterious creature that is neither animal or plant



Mesodinium Chamaeleon are either plant or animal. Using its hundreds of tiny hairs, dashing through the water and find a plant that it eats. Then it transforms itself into a plant. The little 'Mesodinium' is special because it both gets his energy by eating other organisms - like an animal does - and by doing photosynthesis - like a plant.


So the statement of being something or the other and there is no room for anything else isn't quite holding anymore.




Weird World we live on. Well, we are guests anyway...


Peace

S&F



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Thanks for that info and link. I was not aware of that particular finding.
I see what you are saying though,there still remains many mysteries


I will have to check out that link.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I see your source Lioyd Pye.
I will pass.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Surely if this is definitely not Human then it must be Animal - just the first thing that came to mind and it's usually the simple answer that is the correct one.
Still an interesting followup to past articles I've read on this. Thanks for sharing.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
What are Llord Pye's issues? Is he a known hoaxer or confabulater?

Second line...



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnthejedi24
What are Llord Pye's issues? Is he a known hoaxer or confabulater?

Second line...


Yes and Yes.

Here we have a claim this has been verified by scientists at a renowned lab. No lab name is given, no scientists name is given. If what he is saying is the truth, why is the information withheld? It weakens his case. The only logical conclusion is that he is outright lying or being less than honest.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


That is an improper use of Occam's Razor. (sorry, couldn't help myself =)

You're forming a conclusion from almost zero data points. That's just irresponsible thinking. Because, it is absolutely clear that Pye has had studies conducted. Visiting his website, and using the search function, putting in "lab", results in several results, including a couple research papers. Apparently he has his own geneticist.

I don't know why he doesn't make it easier to find such things, but they exist. He has had legitimate studies performed. You can argue whether they are flawed, or argue over the conclusions, but they exist.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Apparently he has his own geneticist.


And why should anyone care about what a geneticist in HIS emply says? There is a reason independent studies are the norm in actual science. When someone from an independent lab comes forward let me know.

Oh and I am not forming a conclusion from zero data points, his lack of proof to support his claims, when his claims would easilly be supportable is evidence in and of itself. This is meaningless, it's a hoax, until an independent lab tests and confirms this.


He has had legitimate studies performed. You can argue whether they are flawed, or argue over the conclusions, but they exist.


They are not legitimate if they are flawed. He has not had legitimate studies performed. He has supplied studies which do not conform to scientific standards, making them illegitimate. Don't pretend science backs up his statements, it doesn't. Is it possible this skull belonged to a race, either alien terrestrial, unknown to the world? Yes. Is there any actual evidence thus far that backs that up? No.
edit on 1-3-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
I see your source Lioyd Pye.
I will pass.


Agreed!
I will see your Lloyd Pye and raise you a Zecharia Sitchin.
Anything from either of these blokes should be filed in the same drawer as Alice In Wonderland.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Apparently he has his own geneticist.


And why should anyone care about what a geneticist in HIS emply says? There is a reason independent studies are the norm in actual science. When someone from an independent lab comes forward let me know.



He has had legitimate studies performed. You can argue whether they are flawed, or argue over the conclusions, but they exist.


They are not legitimate if they are flawed. He has not had legitimate studies performed. He has supplied studies which do not conform to scientific standards, making them illegitimate. Don't pretend science backs up his statements, it doesn't. Is it possible this skull belonged to a race, either alien terrestrial, unknown to the world? Yes. Is there any actual evidence thus far that backs that up? No.
edit on 1-3-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)


Independent labs? That's laughable. Unless you can digest the data yourself and clearly demonstrate a lack of following an accepted process, you might as well be writing opinion columns.

Monsanto puts out independent lab results. So do many of the larger corporations. Under your definition, these are valid. Yet anyone with brain matter can trace the money or use the google search engine. You might as well be debating ufo cgi pictures. If you can't personally refute the data, you bring no value.

Does it matter if you believe this guy or not? The fact is he's put in 10 plus years of effort trying to prove a point, which can't be discounted by casual "debunkers". Refute with data analysis if you wish to crusade for science.

Fyi, I'm not a Lloyd follower. I'm just tired of naysayers jumping in on a new thread and killing it for no good reason.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
OK, sorry if i seem a bit ignorant but you say this starchild is 900 years old. Who found it? When was it found? and where is it being kept? it sounds a bit like the russian granny with the alien in her freezer. If there was nothing shady going on then surely the scientist and lab which did these tests would have published a paper which would be available ?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectPerception
 


PerfectPerception......Great job putting this all together, regardless of who did the research.....

Everyone seems to be a follower of other people, they don't keep their mind open at all.....

Regardless of what this guy has done in the past, it does not say anywhere that this information has been proven or is true anywhere!! It says there are possibilities of this being of alien descent....

That means there is a POSSIBILITY that a more "reputible" scientist can finish the research so people will believe it to be true.....I know there is life out there somewhere, but for me to say that this guys is a hoaxer his entire life....Come on

He is doing work trying to find out the truth....What have you all done lately to earn the classification of a reputable source??



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


Thanks for the open minded and optimistic reply


As I state in the OP my opinion stands the same,these are only results form a partial DNA analysis and has been pointed out by others,there has not been any corroborating evidence showing just who this geneticist is and until something like that comes along not many skeptics will be willing to give any room for validity of Pye's claim.

You are right there,it is stated multiple times through out the article that these are not 100% complete & final results and more importantly,that this is not irrefutable,absolute proof...yet.

I find the tenacity of Pye if nothing else admirable all these years and I hope if the star-child skull is truly authentic...that he will soon be able to show and with accurate,absolute certainty that it is either some form of new hominid/species or if possible,Extraterrestrial in nature.

It must be said...That there are many people that no matter what they are shown,told or experience...even if with their very own eyes themselves...that will still never believe and will always find fault,one way or another.

I believe there are many out there who are actually afraid of having their world view and bubble that they have created burst or changed....Fear of the unknown.
edit on 2-3-2012 by PerfectPerception because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by android18957392
 


You want me to refute it? Done. Here is an article detaling a genetic defect removing the FOXP2 gene altogether. That comes to quite a bit more than simply 56 pairs.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

What percent of DNA should be tested before we draw conclusions?

There are about about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome.One of Pye's tests consisted of a sample of only 400 base pairs. He tested 400 pairs out of 3 billion and then concluded the DNA couldn't be human.

That's like me polling the Heaven's Gate cult and concluding everyone in the world thought an Alien spacecraft was trailing Hale-Bopp.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I have listened to several Lloyd Pye interviews. He needs a Financial Manager in a hurry.

I don't know how much money he has received from investors, if any, but asking one moment for $2,000,000 and the next for $200,000 for the Starchild Project isn't what I would describe as serious financial planning.




edit on 4-3-2012 by Seconal because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Once again, you're making conclusions based on almost zero data.


"Oh and I am not forming a conclusion from zero data points, his lack of proof to support his claims, when his claims would easilly be supportable is evidence in and of itself."


You just admitted that the only evidence you have seen, is his lack of evidence. That logic is asinine. Furthermore, you are wildly wrong that his claims are easily supportable. Dredging fossilized DNA from an ancient skeleton that might be ET... and you think these are EASY claims to prove? That logic is... something beyond asinine.

First, you claim that there are no studies. That's false. Instead of admitting this, you dishonestly move the goalposts -

"They are not legitimate if they are flawed".


Well, that's a much different picture. What makes them flawed? Since you weren't aware they existed, you clearly have not looked at them yourself.


"He has not had legitimate studies performed."


You have already demonstrated that you don't have the data to back up this claim. Flagrant dishonesty.


"Don't pretend science backs up his statements, it doesn't."


I never did. Don't put words into my mouth. All I said is that studies have been performed. You can show these studies are flawed, you can prove this is a hoax, I really don't care. All my point is, be HONEST with criticism. If something is a hoax, there is no need to create BS to refute it.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I understand this child was found alongside the remains of a women.

I think a question to be asked if they know the other body was female they had a skeleton. Where is the skeleton of the star child? This if Pye is honest also show signs of alien lineage.

Hydrocephalus I believe does not affect the rest of the body of the victim. This should ring bells to start.

So a question question to be asked is, where is the rest of the starchild?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Basically Pye said it is too expensive to get the rest of the body. So a potentially alien body, and it wont be recovered because it is too uninteresting to get any capital behind it. Yeah, right.





new topics
top topics
 
18

log in

join