DNA analysis of Paracas skulls found to be human-like creature.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


there was no mutation in the gene. where do you see that?

bottleslingguy
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

there was no mutation in the gene. where do you see that?

... what is a mutation?

Now please answer my question. Was DNA testing done on the X and Y chromosomes from the skull? What were the results?

reply to post by bottleslingguy


Do you know what a mutation is? Stop avoiding the question. Did two separate DNA analysis prove the child the skull belonged to had human parents? Did it contain an x and a y chromosome from haplo group c?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


you said the FOXP2 gene showed the skull had hydrocephali and I asked where you read that.

reply to post by raymundoko


explain how hydrocephali changes your bone's chemical makeup and causes fibers to grow inside it.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by raymundoko

 

explain how hydrocephali changes your bone's chemical makeup and causes fibers to grow inside it.

I never said anything about Hydrocephalus causing fibers to grow inside the bone. I linked a scientific article that showed bacteria common in mines do, complete with knots and red fiber structures. The body of the child had been buried in a mine.

I also linked an article that showed that Progeria also caused fiber like structures due to collagen buildup. See this picture for comparison:

upload.wikimedia.org...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.omim.org...

Fibroblasts derived from the patient showed intra/trans-nuclear tubule-like structures

See this image, specifically the top left: www.intechopen.com...

You obviously didn't read either of the links and still have refused to answer the question: Did two separate DNA tests done in 1999 and 2003 respectively show both parents were human and from haplo group c?

bottleslingguy
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

you said the FOXP2 gene showed the skull had hydrocephali and I asked where you read that.

No, not at all what I said. What I said was the FOXP2 gene had mutations, and mutations of the FOXP2 gene is linked to congenital hydrocephalus ... which is EXACTLY what all the actual experts claimed BEFORE the FOXP2 gene was found to have mutations.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by raymundoko

 

explain how hydrocephali changes your bone's chemical makeup and causes fibers to grow inside it.

Answer my question. WAS DNA testing done on the X and Y chromosomes? If so what were the results? WAS DNA testing done on the mtDNA, if so what were the results?

OccamsRazor04

bottleslingguy
reply to post by raymundoko

 

explain how hydrocephali changes your bone's chemical makeup and causes fibers to grow inside it.

Answer my question. WAS DNA testing done on the X and Y chromosomes? If so what were the results? WAS DNA testing done on the mtDNA, if so what were the results?

If you had followed this story more closely, you would have realized that your question is misplaced because Brien Foerster has stated publicly that the microbiologist investigating his skulls won't release the details of his analysis until they are complete.

So you will have to be patient.

reply to post by micpsi


If you had followed the thread you'd know we were talking about different skulls.

reply to post by raymundoko


no it didn't show the parents were human. they never recovered maternal or paternal nuclear dna which would mean you are making assumptions. not one aspect of this skull is human not even the shape of the eyes. what disease makes your eye socket not deep enough to fit a human shaped eyeball?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


so what? the FOXP2 in Pye's skull showed it didn't have hydrocephali.

here's something directly from Lloyd about the dna :

"The ABCs of statistical analysis direct from Roger Cunningham

(Quote) In Hypothesis Testing, even a .1% sample can be significant if the population being measured has few or no outside influences to cause change. DNA nucleotides and base pairs are just such a population. They exist only in and of themselves, and never change once their host, a living entity, is genetically established during the first few moments of conception and gestation.

(Quote) This is called a "Confidence Interval Test." Most scientists are not well versed in Confidence Intervals. This is why they can reject a sample that is 2% valid "because it is too small." However, in real statistics, which scientists are not trained in and receive only introductory-level courses, a verified sample of .1% to 2% can be all that is needed to prove a case, provided the Confidence Interval is sufficient.

(Quote) Because Mitochondrial DNA is so highly conserved, its Confidence Interval is AT MOST only on the order of .1% to .5%. Thus, the Starchild data needs only a 99.5% Confidence Interval threshold for its mtDNA amount to be significant. The actual 9.5% recovery (of mtDNA base pairs) provides a 90.5% Confidence Interval threshold, which can only be termed "overwhelming."



(Quote) It is completely legitimate to extrapolate that 9.5% recovery (multiplying it by a factor of 10.5) to firmly establish the Starchild as "not human." If scientists were well-trained in Statistics and Hypothesis Testing, the established 9.5% recovery would have them on their heels.



(Quote) With only .001% recovered base pairs (approx. 30,000) of the Starchild's 3+ billion base pair nuclear genome, the required Confidence Interval has not been achieved. Nonetheless, by establishing that only 2% of the recovered amount (.02% x 30,000 = 600) was not found in the NIH database (and thus not found on Earth to this point), it would statistically confirm that the ultimate recovery of the entire genome would prove beyond doubt that it is "not human." And, indeed, the NIH database did not contain at least a few thousand of the base pairs from the Starchild's nuclear genome.



(Quote) These numbers solidly establish proof of the Starchild's "alien" genetic heritage. However, because the vast majority of scientists have no understanding of these basic statistical facts, they will stubbornly insist that the only acceptable result is 100% recovery of both the nuclear genome and the mitochondrial genome. "

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

OccamsRazor04

bottleslingguy
reply to post by raymundoko

 

explain how hydrocephali changes your bone's chemical makeup and causes fibers to grow inside it.

Answer my question. WAS DNA testing done on the X and Y chromosomes? If so what were the results? WAS DNA testing done on the mtDNA, if so what were the results?

this is from Pye's geneticist:

"Among the 211nucleotides of the entity’s FOXP2-like DNA fragment, we find a stunning 62 differences at the nucleotide level, and 18 amino acid differences (all shown in red). Apart from species-specific gaps, this fragment shows more differences from the corresponding human FOXP2 gene fragment than any species included in the comparison. Moreover, the obtained sequence of the entity’s FOXP2-like DNA fragment appears to represent a FOXP2-like pseudogene, since sequences found in exons 6 and 7 of the human FOXP2 gene are precisely spliced together in the entity’s genomic DNA. However, so far no FOXP2 pseudogene is known to exist in humans or other mammalian genomes. The stop codon interrupting the sequence (shown in blue) may or may not be present in the entity’s gene. It may result from cytosine deamination known to occur in the DNA of ancient bones. Such deamination results in the conversion of deoxycytidine to deoxyuridine, which is recognized as deoxythymidine in a DNA polymerase – a catalyzed reaction resulting in the observed CAGàTAG mutation. Due to the randomness of deamination events, such artifacts can be accounted for by increasing the depth of coverage during sequencing.

The probability that such a highly specific arrangement of changes in a small fragment could have occurred by accumulation of sequencing errors is extremely low, if not close to zero. Nor could this arrangement have occurred due to contamination with the DNA of any known species. From this evidence one may conclude that the underlying biochemistry of the entity’s life form must be either the same as, or highly similar to, humans or other species. Yet, the use of the genetic code, which still remains universal, is distinctively different, implying that this life form is very likely the result of a markedly variant and non-intersecting evolutionary process. This may be illustrated by comparing Macintosh OS and Windows OS, both of which run on the same Intel processor, or by comparing the grammar rules of English and French, both of which belong to the same language group (Latin). The most important point here is that in either case, despite the existing differences, the encoded information can be recovered and decoded."

geneticist quote


Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


So the answer is no...you won't answer the question.

raymundoko
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

So the answer is no...you won't answer the question.

"Did two separate DNA tests done in 1999 and 2003 respectively show both parents were human and from haplo group c? "

no not both parents. the maternal and paternal nuclear dna was not recovered and if the MtDNA was recovered it should have at least have also recovered the maternal nDNA. can you explain that?

reply to post by bottleslingguy


Dr Melba Ketchum...how is her bigfoot DNA going?

raymundoko
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

Dr Melba Ketchum...how is her bigfoot DNA going?

so the short answer is you can't explain it. come on give it a shot, let's see how honest you are.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


It already was answered in this thread. You obviously didn't read that either.

You quoted a fake geneticist who couldn't tell the difference between opossum DNA and bigfoot DNA...yet here you are, using her as a source.

reply to post by raymundoko


you aren't even making sense. explain why there was no maternal nDNA recovered and don't just repeat that it has been answered. it hasn't.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

so what? the FOXP2 in Pye's skull showed it didn't have hydrocephali.

here's something directly from Lloyd about the dna :

"The ABCs of statistical analysis direct from Roger Cunningham

(Quote) In Hypothesis Testing, even a .1% sample can be significant if the population being measured has few or no outside influences to cause change. DNA nucleotides and base pairs are just such a population. They exist only in and of themselves, and never change once their host, a living entity, is genetically established during the first few moments of conception and gestation.

(Quote) This is called a "Confidence Interval Test." Most scientists are not well versed in Confidence Intervals. This is why they can reject a sample that is 2% valid "because it is too small." However, in real statistics, which scientists are not trained in and receive only introductory-level courses, a verified sample of .1% to 2% can be all that is needed to prove a case, provided the Confidence Interval is sufficient.

(Quote) Because Mitochondrial DNA is so highly conserved, its Confidence Interval is AT MOST only on the order of .1% to .5%. Thus, the Starchild data needs only a 99.5% Confidence Interval threshold for its mtDNA amount to be significant. The actual 9.5% recovery (of mtDNA base pairs) provides a 90.5% Confidence Interval threshold, which can only be termed "overwhelming."



(Quote) It is completely legitimate to extrapolate that 9.5% recovery (multiplying it by a factor of 10.5) to firmly establish the Starchild as "not human." If scientists were well-trained in Statistics and Hypothesis Testing, the established 9.5% recovery would have them on their heels.



(Quote) With only .001% recovered base pairs (approx. 30,000) of the Starchild's 3+ billion base pair nuclear genome, the required Confidence Interval has not been achieved. Nonetheless, by establishing that only 2% of the recovered amount (.02% x 30,000 = 600) was not found in the NIH database (and thus not found on Earth to this point), it would statistically confirm that the ultimate recovery of the entire genome would prove beyond doubt that it is "not human." And, indeed, the NIH database did not contain at least a few thousand of the base pairs from the Starchild's nuclear genome.



(Quote) These numbers solidly establish proof of the Starchild's "alien" genetic heritage. However, because the vast majority of scientists have no understanding of these basic statistical facts, they will stubbornly insist that the only acceptable result is 100% recovery of both the nuclear genome and the mitochondrial genome. "

 

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

edit on Mon Feb 17 2014 by Jbird because: (no reason given)

False. That is evidence of gene mutation. These results are 100% consistent with a human that has gene mutations.

Both the X and Y chromosome were examined .. why won't you answer the question that proves you wrong?

They conducted a series of five genomic (nuclear) DNA tests: (1) one on the adult skull found with the Starchild skull; (2) one on the piece of detached maxilla alleged to be an integral part of the Starchild skull (see previous reports on this site for an explanation of the detached piece of maxilla and its probable connection to the skull); (3) one on a piece of bone from the Starchild skull known as an occipital condyle (a piece of the foramen magnum, or neck hole opening); (4) one on the Starchild's right mastoid bone (behind the ear); and (5) one a rectangular "window" cut from the right-side parietal bone (the right side of the skull above the ear).

Result ...

The result is X-Y and this tells us two significant things. First, the child was male; second, the DNA is human.

From the BOLD lab.