posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 10:12 PM
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?
I just proved you a liar, BOTH parents were proved human by BOLD.
I'll let Lloyd explain that one to you: "However, in 2003 the BOLD results were invalidated by Trace Genetics, a well-regarded ancient DNA lab in
California that concluded the nuclear DNA could not possibly have been recovered using even the most sophisticated technology available to BOLD, and
therefore their result must have been a contamination (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). The 2003 test also indicated the Starchild Skull's paternal DNA was
unlike normal human DNA (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). As these are the only two DNA tests referenced by the Wikipedia article, and since human nuclear DNA
was not recovered by either test, it is impossible for the article to state whether the skull is or is not human. In 2010 new DNA tests were conducted
on Starchild bone using improved technology, and it was found that a significant portion of the nuclear DNA recovered does not correlate to any DNA
yet found on Earth. Thus, there is simply no way to legitimately call the Starchild Skull a "human.""
First, that is a bold faced lie. Show me where Trace genetics said that? They did not.
Attempts to amplify mtDNA for fragments containing the diagnostic mutations for Native American haplogroups A, B, C and D were performed on
extract SCSe2. Multiple amplifications indicated that the sample possessed an AluI restriction site at np 13262 indicative of Native American
Attempts to amplify fragments of mtDNA were performed to test for the presence of diagnostic mutations fo r Native American haplogroups A and C.
The sample did not appear to possess the diagnostic HaeIII mutation and np663 indicative of haplogroup A. Multiple amplifications did reveal the
presence of the AluI site gain at np13262 indicative of haplogroup C.
Trace genetics proved the mother was 100% human and from Haplogroup C.
While it is possible to obtain nuclear DNA as well from ancient samples, the reduced copy-number at any particular nuclear locus relative to mtDNA
makes it less likely that a particular extract will contain sufficient DNA for the analysis of a nuclear genetic locus using presently available PCR
methods. The ability to amplify nuclear DNA from the SA-1 extractions but not from the SCS-1 extractions could be a product of any of a number of
The BOLD lab in 1999 had to try multiple times to get nuclear DNA, and stated that it would be very difficult for any lab (including themselves) to
Your post in no way invalidates the BOLD results, and I see NOWHERE that Trace Genetics says what he claims they say.
In fact, they somewhat support BOLD.
Attempts to amplify fragments of the amelogenin gene located on the X and Y chromosome were uniformly not successful.
So trace also found an X and Y chromosome, they were simply too degraded to test.
I challenge you to show me ANYWHERE Trace Genetics makes any mention whatsoever of them finding DNA unlike any known humans.
In short ...
Known and respected BOLD lab found 100% human only DNA.
Known and respected Trace Genetics lab finds 100% human only DNA.
Unknown secret in house geneticist finds Alien only DNA.
I guess if you can't get the results you want you can buy them from a fraud.
edit on 22-2-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason