Tests conducted utilizing mtDNA recovered from the skull have established it as human. Experts believe it to be the skull of a child who died as a result of known genetic or congenital abnormalities, such as congenital hydrocephalus.
reply to post by peter vlar
Modern DNA analysis uses a "primer" to determine the allele count for a specific chromosome markers. If we wee to test something as close to Humans as a Chimp. It is highly probable that it will appear to be Human, but, with unusual allele #s at some markers.
It shouldn't be so important to differentiate this skull as either Human or alien. The focus might be better applied as to whether or not it is Terrestrial...
This is the issue I have with this whole episode. How would we ever be able to say it is anything other than human or another species found here on earth. No one can say it is of an extraterrestrial nature as we have no DNA from an ET to compare it too. I too have heard that it was announced to be human and that because of deterioration most of the DNA could not be tested accurately.
There are many with the agenda of only finding it to be of an ET nature and any findings will always be presented in that manner. There is a reason we have not heard anymore about it because they are waiting for the last round of results to be forgotten before they again attempt to sell the idea it is something it is not.
I agree, if the focus were shifted away from the Human/Alien hypothesis a lot of the pseudo scientific aspects would be diminished or at least their "importance" would be greatly diminished.
Now this is really only applicable to the example of determining the difference between humans and chimpanzees and isn't really germane when testing the starchild skull even if by some mad stroke of luck it turned out to be a human/? hybrid because we should expect to see, well, something unexpected in the results, something non-terrestrial.
Just a couple of issues...First the focus between "Human" vs "Alien" needs to be dropped, there may not be significant differences between some species of ET and Terrestrial Humans. In other words; some Extraterrestrials are very probably "Human", just not Terrestrial.
Second, while it would be nice IF non-terrestrials had absolutely unique DNA, probability suggests they don't, and as a result these "unexpected results" that you would like to be "non-terrestrial" may not be so recognizable to the inexperienced (by "inexperienced" I mean those who have not examined Extraterrestrial DNA).
Here is a little exercise; Get your DNA analyzed. Processing ONLY the autosomal, Y-DNA, and of course mtDNA find the probabilities of a "population" match for each. Then using that data alone, determine the probability that you are (specifically) Terrestrial. This little exercise isn't difficult, and for virtually everyone the probability of being Terrestrial is very high (but never 1). Now, using available data from the "star child" do the same...
You will notice a marked difference in the probabilities...and that is your; "something unexpected in the results, something non-terrestrial".
peter vlarWhy would you limit your options unless you were working under the presumption that this skull is non terrestrial without having all the facts in place? It just doesn't seem like good science to NOT cover all your bases.
I don't believe the skull was that of an alien being. It was likely that of a human being with physical deformations.
The term Star Child does not originate from the finding such skulls, but rather folklore that has been passed down through generations of native tribes. The discovery of deformed human cranial remains coined as "Star Child" was the latter result of the terms usage.