One for magic here

ethan

ethan

ethan

Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2005
Posts
7,897
Location
What used to be a UK
One for majik here

DNA testing of what has been referred to as "Starchild" skull shows DNA is not human: another mystery that should be solved by science and not simply ignored. First time I have come across this and the accompanying vid is very interesting whether you believe it or not imo:

 
Last edited:
Ahaha, what a load of rubbish. A 340 bp sequence isn't found and they start shouting alien?

Madness.
 
Morgoth said:
Ahaha, what a load of rubbish. A 340 bp sequence isn't found and they start shouting alien?

Madness.
Click to expand...

Maybe so but you would have thought they might have considered that point already but they seem overly confident and its not as though it is simply a layman pressing that point is it.
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
Maybe so but you would have thought they might have considered that point already but they seem overly confident and its not as though it is simply a layman pressing that point is it.
Click to expand...

No, but there's a reason the science community has dismissed the claims. There's no substantial evidence! That DNA sequence is about the size of one protein. One protein in the whole genome isn't significant, until they sequence the whole genome nobody really cares.
 
Morgoth said:
No, but there's a reason the science community has dismissed the claims. There's no substantial evidence! That DNA sequence is about the size of one protein. One protein in the whole genome isn't significant, until they sequence the whole genome nobody really cares.
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see if you are correct then when the sequencing is complete-but the point still stands-why spend money on it if what they "have" amounts to nothing? Presumably this team of geneticists have some idea of what it is they are doing? They are testing it on the grounds of believing what they have is "proven beyond reasonable doubt": their words not mine as I am not a geneticist.
 
Last edited:
Fame only if its correct. It's bad enough lay people making spurrious claims but when professional elements of the scientific community behave no better then it becomes a different matter.

No doubt it would have been treated differently if the words strange and mysterious skull had replaced the word "starchild".
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
No doubt it would have been treated differently if the words strange and mysterious skull had replaced the word "starchild".
Click to expand...

No, it will be treated differently when better evidence comes to light. At the moment it's nothing more than a curiosity.
 
Its been known to be human since the turn of the century, I remember reading about it in Fortean Times at the time, even a quick Wikipedia search throws up

DNA testing

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD, a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes".[1] Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA from both skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C, while the adult female belongs to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother. Trace Genetics was not able to recover useful lengths of nuclear DNA or Y-chromosomal DNA for further testing.[7]
Click to expand...

Its just so old most of the usable DNA has gone, note that is says Skulls, it was found along side fragments of other human skull.
 
Whenever I want to check the veracity of a claim such as this, I head straight for youtube. You can keep your la-de-da fancy peer-reviewed evidence in so-called 'journals'.
 
[FnG]magnolia;17131731 said:
Whenever I want to check the veracity of a claim such as this, I head straight for youtube. You can keep your la-de-da fancy peer-reviewed evidence in so-called 'journals'.
Click to expand...

So you believe in what you see just the rest of the sheep. ;):D
 
anant_shah94 said:
I call BS. I think that it would have had a lot more publicity had it been real
EDIT: just looked on wikipedia
Click to expand...

You call bull**** when the tests on wikipedia were stated to have been done in 1999 and 2003 and maybe it is- but you neglected to point out that the tests indicated in the video were done in 2010 and it is on these latest results that they are basing their claim in contradiction to those done prior.
 
Yes and from so-called professionals it seems

Edit: In answer to your question this is why:

'In 2003 we had a DNA analysis that used human-only primers to recover the Starchild's mitochondrial DNA, the DNA outside the nucleus, which comes from the mother and her genetic line. That meant its mother was human. But we could not recover its nuclear DNA, which comes from both mother and father, which meant its father was not a human. Unfortunately, with the recovery technology of 2003 we couldn't prove what he was, which left us in scientific limbo. The "no result" from the search for the nuclear DNA clearly meant Dad wasn't human, but we could not prove that fact beyond all possible doubt.

'Now, in 2010, there have been many improvements in the recovery process, and those improvements have been applied to the Starchild skull with the stunning result you see below. This is a gel sheet that shows a clear recovery of its nuclear DNA, which could not be done in 2003
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
You call bull**** when the tests on wikipedia were stated to have been done in 1999 and 2003 and maybe it is- but you neglected to point out that the tests indicated in the video were done in 2010 and it is on these latest results that they are basing their claim in contradiction to those done prior.
Click to expand...

Excuse us for disputing this new research when the only other option is that it is an alien skull from space. You know now I'm written that down even the idea of that seems even more stupid.
 
I'm not exusing you anything I was merely stating a fact about the claim that was made concerning the differences in the dates in which the so-called "evidence" was made. For all the discrepancies the claim is rather bold to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom