90% of human DNA 'does nothing'

[mickeymudge]

For someone who depends on the words of Lloyd Pye you're definitely working from a position of ignorance as he is on record as presenting the following as fact:

2011 DNA Report in Laymans Terms DNA PROOF THAT THE STARCHILD SKULL IS ALIEN: A Layman's Explanation by Lloyd Pye

What he is calling the "extreme rarity of mtDNA mutations" concerns the actual differences in haplogroups and subgroups and is not as can be attested by the entire quantity of same limited to a total of 120. And as opposed to the 33 total that he claims there are over 3500 mtDNA haplogroups and subgroups. What makes it worse is that he was still alive when most of those 3500+ haplogroups and subgroups had already been discovered and none of his gullible followers apparently was smart enough to fact-check his claims. As I mentioned here at UM a couple of years ago his claim of 120 total mutations is meaningless.

cormac

So the only thing you're alleging is that his up to date knowledge seems to fail when it comes to haplogroups. I can totally see why he would have ventured into this area in trying to include his skull, and wanting to know where the mtDNA. Aside, the accuracy that might seem to be lacking according to you, in no way proves that any of the rest of his work is wrong.

[+Hammerclaw]

Pye claimed the skull to be a hybrid offspring of an extraterrestrial and a human female.^[1] According to Pye, a dentist who examined the upper right maxilla found with the skull determined that the skull was that of a child aged 4.5 to 5 years. The volume, however, of the interior of the starchild skull is 1,600 cubic centimeters, which is 200 cm³ larger than the average adult's brain, and 400 cm³ larger than an adult of the same approximate size. The orbits are oval and shallow, with the optic nerve canal situated closer to the bottom of the orbit than to the back. There are no frontal sinuses.^[3] The back of the skull is flattened. The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone.

Young children with hydrocephalus typically have an abnormally large head, as fluid pressure causes individual skull bones to bulge outward.

Neurologist Steven Novella of Yale University Medical School says that the cranium exhibits all of the characteristics of a child who has died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were the result of accumulations of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.^[1][2]

DNA testing

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), 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."^[2]

Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged 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.^[1]

[mickeymudge]

So reading back a few here, it looks like those 33 didn't meet Pye's criteria for what would be considered human. I think the thing the people might be over looking here is that we have had visitors here from other worlds, and it just might be possible that their DNA is humanoid, but certainly not human.

Back to the original findings with mtDNA indicating our species is well over 180,000 to 581,000 years ago. They indicate that while ALL humans on earth today have a direct line going back to Eve. They also indicate that while our population never dipped below tens of thousands, none of the other females managed to maintain a direct line in our mtDNA.

Now it might take some brain storming to realize exactly what this means, and if your eyes aren't open enough, you'll miss it, so I'll spell it out for you. There are only three choices here.

Either all of the other females failed at producing a non stop female line, or.

All of the other women either died or were murdered before they could create offspring, or.

We were separated from the group, as I have been indicating all along. IE, moved to this planet, and left those others behind.

You see the problem here is that scientists are assuming that just because we show lineage back that far, that we had to of been living it here. We weren't.

[cormac mac airt]

So the only thing you're alleging is that his up to date knowledge seems to fail when it comes to haplogroups. I can totally see why he would have ventured into this area in trying to include his skull, and wanting to know where the mtDNA. Aside, the accuracy that might seem to be lacking according to you, in no way proves that any of the rest of his work is wrong.

No, he had no knowledge of genetics whatsoever, whether up to date or not. Which means that every claim he made concerning same, which isn't or can't be corroborated by an actual geneticist*, is meaningless drivel meant to impress the gullible followers he had.

* And that's pretty much every time he opened his mouth on the subject of genetics or haplogroups.

So reading back a few here, it looks like those 33 didn't meet Pye's criteria for what would be considered human.

I don't know if you're purposely misreading what he said or just don't understand it, but it's the exact opposite. The 33 haplogroups and subgroups he mentioned comprised ALL of modern humans, meaning that there existed no modern human haplogroups outside those 33. This can only be seen as an outright lie on his part as geneticists during the time he made this claim already knew that there were far more than his 33 groups in existance many of which, like my own, were completely ignored.

Either all of the other females failed at producing a non stop female line, or.

Which appears to be the case as no evidence has ever been found of any modern human belonging to an mtDNA haplogroup that wasn't either a member of mtDNA haplogroup L or a descendant group thereof.

cormac

[+Hammerclaw]

Show us scientific evidence of Alien visitation and we promise not to "overlook it". Unsubstantiated speculation and citing dubious and equally unverified or downright preposterous sources isn't science, it's fantasy. Simply getting high and drooling over the idea of space aliens doesn't make any of it true. I prefer my science pure and unadulterated and distinct from my science fiction .

[cormac mac airt]

You don't need to quote Wikipedia about the skull. I'm well aware of the fact that wiki is WRONG. So wrong that Pye demanded they remove the event and they refused to. So he named them Wakipedia. You seriously need to do your research. This whole ball of wax, if your not catching it, stems from wiki making the WRONG assumption, as it's documented in the article, that the skull has to be human since the mtDNA was found to be human. However this is where wiki failed, because there is no proof that the mtDNA has to come from the actual mother when scientists right now as we speak, in the UK, are creating whats known as a three parent baby. This is where they take ova, and sperm from two that want to create off spring, and fertilize the egg right before placing it inside a non related female that can carry the baby to term.

I hope this clears up your confusion. Wiki refused to post Pyes findings, it's that simply. Now who are you going to believe, some editor at wiki that has never even held the skull, or Pye that not only has professionals indicating it's not human, in addition to the exceeding knowledge he aquired from working with 5 or so DNA labs? The reason why people find him so hard to believe is because he ended up getting to be taught information that even now, is pretty much considered sacred.

Try to contact NIH for yourself and ask them an advanced question relating these topics and they simply wont reply.

Once again, Novell never held this skull. You're making an awfull lot of assumptions here being presented by people that have no credibility in this.

Which shows that you don't understand what's being done in the 'three parent baby' process as what you have described is actually an invitro surrogate pregnancy and not the three parent process being discussed, as described here:

The technology, called oocyte modification (but sometimes nicknamed “three-parent IVF”), involves scooping out potentially mutated mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from a woman’s egg and replacing it with the mtDNA of an unaffected donor woman. The process is designed to prevent the transmission of some debilitating inherited mitochondrial diseases, which can result in vision loss, seizures and other maladies. Such inherited diseases, often unfortunately known by acronyms for complex medical names that include LHON, for Leber's Hereditary Optic Neuropathy, along with MELAS, MERRF and NARP, occur in about one in every 5,000 live births and are incurable.

Once the mtDNA has been swapped out, the egg could be fertilized in the lab by the father’s sperm and the embryo would be implanted back into mom where pregnancy would proceed. The resulting child would be the genetic offspring of the intended mother but would carry healthy mitochondrial genes from the donor.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/making-babies-with-3-genetic-parents-gets-fda-hearing/

cormac

[mickeymudge]

Which shows that you don't understand what's being done in the 'three parent baby' process as what you have described is actually an invitro surrogate pregnancy and not the three parent process being discussed, as described here:

http://www.scientifi...ts-fda-hearing/

cormac

And you're still wrong. If you did your research, you would find that the baby actually has DNA from three parents. mtDNA from the host, and nuclear DNA from the mother, and nuclear DNA from the father. Thus, a three parent baby. This is exactly the process Pye was claiming to have happened to the skull.

Either way you're agree with me that it's obviously possible, as you think you just explained it, obviously proving wiki to be wrong about Pye's skull.

In other words. You just admitted yourself that mtDNA doesn't prove that the child was carried by the mother, or parent with the nuclear DNA. The fact that we are able to do it now, is proof that it's possible.

Edited August 8, 2014 by mickeymudge

[cormac mac airt]

And you're still wrong. If you did your research, you would find that the baby actually has DNA from three parents. mtDNA from the host, and nuclear DNA from the mother, and nuclear DNA from the father. Thus, a three parent baby. This is exactly the process Pye was claiming to have happened to the skull.

Either way you're agree with me that it's obviously possible, as you think you just explained it, obviously proving wiki to be wrong about Pye's skull.

In other words. You just admitted yourself that mtDNA doesn't prove that the child was carried by the mother, or parent with the nuclear DNA. The fact that we are able to do it now, is proof that it's possible.

Which means you REALLY don't understand the process since it is the nucleus containing the mtDNA of the donor mother, the cytoplasm surrounding the nucleus of the birth mother and the Y Chromosome and NOT nuclear DNA of the birth father.

No, it's not since in the UK's example all three are fully 100% human. And since geneticists have already determined that the Starchild was a human male with human X and Y chromosomes and no viable nuclear DNA was detected then BOTH parents were 100% human. At every turn Pye made excuses for being wrong and apparently now so are you.

Between humans it may be possible, although at this point no implantations have been made and carried to term. With nothing to go on in claiming ET DNA, it's nothing more than wishful thinking.

cormac

[mickeymudge]

There are many things that someone could consider proof. Of course debunkers will always dismiss such things in any way they can. I think the Roper Poll is a good place to start. As of 1991 they estimate that over 3.7 million Americans will have been abducted. Now I'm all for benefit of the doubt here, and thinking that perhaps some aren't legit reports. However you have to also consider those that go unreported, by people like yourself that would be embarrassed to admit such a thing. My favorite videos are about UFO swarms. It not only proves existence, it also proves military behavior, surely they are in route for something obvious.

Another one of my favorites, is the mention of UFO's in the bible. Surely the human race can't be crazy.

How about the FEMA employee training manual. Chapter 13 tells you like it is. Nothing held back. If you ever wondered why the government doesn't admit to such things, it would appear they already have, and they give details as to why. All the way down to how our electronics fail around their ships. There are even reports of our missile silos being taken off line by unseen forces when they appear next to a silo base.

There is even a video online where an employee leaving work for the night gets beamed up to a ship that is hovering in darkness until he steps outside. He instantly looks up as he realizes this ship up above him, and cocks his body back in fear, and in a flash of light he disappears in a flash. Two hours later he returns, crouches down in front of the gate, vomits, and stands up and walks away staggering. He never returned to work.

There are photos from an aborted alien fetus from a woman that claims she has been abducted all her life. The medical photographs are certainly not human.

You're basing your bias on the lack of being witness.

Have you ever seen a president get shot in person, in real life? Probably not, but we all know it happens.

Have you ever been shot and killed? Probably not, but we all know it happens.

Your lack of awareness in this subject is egual to getting a large bucket, and going out to the ocean and scooping up about 50 gallons of water, then convincing yourself there must be no fish in the ocean. However we all know differently. One person is certainly a poor sample method for such subjects.

The majority of sightings are witnessed in person, while looking up in the sky. The fact is, few of us ever look up, which is the equivalent of never getting water in the bucket.

[cormac mac airt]

So basically you've devolved into a rant about non-related things because you don't remotely understand human genetics or the process involved in creating a three parent baby. And all because you've read something you obviously didn't understand and wish to, somehow, show others that you do.

cormac

[mickeymudge]

Which means you REALLY don't understand the process since it is the nucleus containing the mtDNA of the donor mother, the cytoplasm surrounding the nucleus of the birth mother and the Y Chromosome and NOT nuclear DNA of the birth father.

No, it's not since in the UK's example all three are fully 100% human. And since geneticists have already determined that the Starchild was a human male with human X and Y chromosomes and no viable nuclear DNA was detected then BOTH parents were 100% human. At every turn Pye made excuses for being wrong and apparently now so are you.

Between humans it may be possible, although at this point no implantations have been made and carried to term. With nothing to go on in claiming ET DNA, it's nothing more than wishful thinking.

cormac

Again, it just goes to show you how you're making assumptions here. Here is a quote from his site..

Finally the lab recovered DNA that they believed was not contaminated, but the amount recovered was only 20% of the normal minimum amount of DNA required to give a result. The DNA they recovered was human nuclear DNA from the "Y" chromosome, and the lab reported that this proved the Skull to be a human male.

The problem here is that we already know the skull is humanoid. The problem with only obtaining 20% of the DNA is that even I'm smart enough to know that it's going to have similar DNA to humans. However it's also going to have some things about it that will also be obviously different.

In this case, you can't determine any of that, because they didn't get the full scope of it. Again, you're just guessing because you want it to be human.

[mickeymudge]

So basically you've devolved into a rant about non-related things because you don't remotely understand human genetics or the process involved in creating a three parent baby. And all because you've read something you obviously didn't understand and wish to, somehow, show others that you do.

cormac

I never said I didn't understand it, that's your claim. I understand perfectly that the baby ends up have DNA from three parents. Which is all I needed to know.

[cormac mac airt]

Again, it just goes to show you how you're making assumptions here. Here is a quote from his site..

Finally the lab recovered DNA that they believed was not contaminated, but the amount recovered was only 20% of the normal minimum amount of DNA required to give a result. The DNA they recovered was human nuclear DNA from the "Y" chromosome, and the lab reported that this proved the Skull to be a human male.

The problem here is that we already know the skull is humanoid. The problem with only obtaining 20% of the DNA is that even I'm smart enough to know that it's going to have similar DNA to humans. However it's also going to have some things about it that will also be obviously different.

In this case, you can't determine any of that, because they didn't get the full scope of it. Again, you're just guessing because you want it to be human.

There is no "human-oid" in the discussion. There is only DNA that has been shown to be human, period. What you've done, and at this point I have to believe it's on purpose, is combine the idea of nuclear DNA with Y Chromosome DNA, nuclear DNA of which WAS NOT found. The 20% of the Y Chromosome DNA is how the skull was determined to be male. While that would be insufficient in any other DNA test for one to make any meaningful conclusion to the contrary, Pye attempts as do you in muddying the waters with an ET origin claim. And since there was no viable nuclear DNA found then your inclusion of same into the discussion is meaningless.

I never said I didn't understand it, that's your claim.

You didn't have to say it, you've shown it repeatedly. You really need to go back and research mtDNA, nuclear DNA and Y Chromosome DNA as you apparently don't sufficiently know the difference.

cormac

Edited August 8, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[mickeymudge]

There is no "human-oid" in the discussion. There is only DNA that has been shown to be human, period. What you've done, and at this point I have to believe it's on purpose, is combine the idea of nuclear DNA with Y Chromosome DNA, nuclear DNA of which WAS NOT found. The 20% of the Y Chromosome DNA is how the skull was determined to be male. While that would be insufficient in any other DNA test for one to make any meaningful conclusion to the contrary, Pye attempts as do you in muddying the waters with an ET origin claim. And since there was no viable nuclear DNA found then your inclusion of same into the discussion is meaningless.

You didn't have to say it, you've shown it repeatedly. You really need to go back and research mtDNA, nuclear DNA and Y Chromosome DNA as you apparently don't sufficiently know the difference.

cormac

I see, and you know this for a fact about alien DNA because why? In case you didn't understand that question, I'll ask it in another way. You're saying you know for a fact that alien DNA could not be present in the unproduced 80% of the recovery, Why? Have you worked with alien DNA before?

I guess I failed to answer your last part. Saying that I need to go back to research nuclear, DNA, mtDNA and Y chormosome. Is there something you have found, or realized in terms of what these should or shouldn't look like if they contained alien sections?

BTW humans are a GMO. See you wrap your brain around that one.

Edited August 8, 2014 by mickeymudge

[cormac mac airt]

You're saying you know for a fact that alien DNA could not be present in the unproduced 80% of the recovery.

I'm saying what should be obvious to everyone, except you apparently, that the only DNA found contained within the Starchild Skull was human. Not chimp, not cow, not muskrat and not "unknown" which realistically could be anything or nothing. One type only Human! You don't get to make up non-existant DNA from what's left, which is nothing.

Saying that I need to go back to research nuclear, DNA, mtDNA and Y chormosome. Is there something you have found, or realized in terms of what these should or shouldn't look like if they contained alien sections?

I'm saying that you've shown you don't know the difference between nuclear DNA and Y Chromosome DNA, so you ought to take a refresher course on those and mtDNA just so you don't continue making the same ridiculous mistakes between the former two, or potentially any combination of the three again.

cormac

Edited August 8, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[quiXilver]

Nothing in nature is unused, if we don't know what it's for, we don't know, but to assume it's useless, seems like ego projection to me.

[mickeymudge]

I'm saying what should be obvious to everyone, except you apparently, that the only DNA found contained within the Starchild Skull was human. Not chimp, not cow, not muskrat and not "unknown" which realistically could be anything or nothing. One type only Human! You don't get to make up non-existant DNA from what's left, which is nothing.

I'm saying that you've shown you don't know the difference between nuclear DNA and Y Chromosome DNA, so you ought to take a refresher course on those and mtDNA just so you don't continue making the same ridiculous mistakes between the former two, or potentially any combination of the three again.

cormac

It's not obvious, as not everyone is going to make the same assumptions you are. Your assumptions are based on ignorance. There is no proof that 20% recovered DNA can prove something to be human. You do realize that a rat has 70% of the same DNA we do, and they sure in the hell aren't even human, much less humanoid.

That only thing you have demonstrated is your biased ignorance based on the lack of knowledge.

A simple explanation is that the entity was a human with a very rare disorder, or a combination of disorders, that resulted in all of its observed differences. This can be established if the individual’s genetic makeup falls within the currently understood boundaries of human genetic diversity. However, there must be a genetic basis for the development of such strong and durable bone, which on its own will undoubtedly be of scientific, medical and practical significance. The accumulated knowledge of the genetics of human bone formation will be very helpful in the identification of similarities and differences between the genetic makeup of normal humans and the misshapen individual.

On the farthest end of the consideration range is the possibility that the entity was of extraterrestrial origin in a general sense, and was not a part of, or a result of, the evolution that connects all life forms on this planet. This scenario represents an incomparably more challenging task, since most techniques for studying life were developed using examples existing on Earth. Did the entity use DNA, RNA and proteins to store and utilize genetic information? How can one be confident even in the possibility of collecting interpretable data?

Our confidence is based on a number of critical prerequisites. First and foremost, the chemistry of the entity’s skull is similar to that of human bone. Available elemental analysis demonstrated the presence of the same elements as in human bone – carbon, oxygen, calcium, phosphate, and others. Corroborating evidence is that the individual’s skull displays worn teeth, perhaps from chewing gritty local foods, implying that consumed food had at least some nutritional value and was metabolically relevant.

Also anticipated were the results for several fragments like the one seen below. That fragment was 265 base pairs in length, and it was found to correlate with a segment on human chromosome #1. This proves some of the Starchild’s nuclear DNA is analogous with segments of human DNA, and those parts of its genome are human or human-like.

These results were not surprising since the 2003 Trace Genetics test concluded that the Starchild had a human mother. However, these were not the only results. Other BLAST results, like the one below for a 342 nucleotide fragment, gave a very different answer.

It states that within the millions of DNA base pair strings catalogued in the NIH database, none were even “similar” to this section of the Starchild Skull’s DNA! And please note that this astonishing result was obtained with the search parameters set to the broadest match criteria that seeks even a “somewhat similar” match, not only an exact match.

[cormac mac airt]

There is no proof that 20% recovered DNA can prove something to be human.

20% of the minimum required Y Chromosome DNA to be used in making an informed decision still makes it Y CHROMOSOME DNA, which means that it is human male. The letdown here is that 20% is not enough to determine what Y Chromosome DNA haplogroup the Starchild belonged to. That you want to pretend to know otherwise is irrelevant.

As to nuclear DNA and while Pye attempted to give it his own spin he states, and geneticists already new this at the time, the following:

In 2010, dozens of the Starchild's nuclear DNA fragments were sequenced, adding up to about 30,000 bp. That was enough to be clearly indicative of what the total nuDNA genome will be when it is fully sequenced, but at only .0001% of a 3 billion bp genome, it was well short of the 1% (30 million) needed to establish definitive trends.

Which means that there is insufficient nuclear DNA to make any kind of informed decision as to what the full nuclear genome would be and problems with making adequate extractions are addressed by this statement from Dr. J.A. Eshleman and Dr. R.S. Malhi, 2003 - Trace Genetics:

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 factors.

http://starchildproj...ics-dna-report#

It should be noted that Pye gave his own unqualified spin on the italicised portion implying that it was due to either contamination or operational error. In short, what Pye claimed the results were, said or meant was NOT what the geneticists involved had to say concerning same. And as regards the mitochondrial DNA, since he purposely ignored over 500 haplogroups and subgroups then his limitations to the 33 haplogroups and subgroups he claimed all humans belonged to were necessarily wrong from the start. He purposely limited the results to something he hoped would give him the results he wanted. That's not how proper genetic testing is done.

cormac

Edited August 9, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[mickeymudge]

20% of the minimum required Y Chromosome DNA to be used in making an informed decision still makes it Y CHROMOSOME DNA, which means that it is human male. The letdown here is that 20% is not enough to determine what Y Chromosome DNA haplogroup the Starchild belonged to. That you want to pretend to know otherwise is irrelevant.

As to nuclear DNA and while Pye attempted to give it his own spin he states, and geneticists already new this at the time, the following:

Which means that there is insufficient nuclear DNA to make any kind of informed decision as to what the full nuclear genome would be and problems with making adequate extractions are addressed by this statement from Dr. J.A. Eshleman and Dr. R.S. Malhi, 2003 - Trace Genetics:

http://starchildproj...ics-dna-report#

It should be noted that Pye gave his own unqualified spin on the italicised portion implying that it was due to either contamination or operational error. In short, what Pye claimed the results were, said or meant was NOT what the geneticists involved had to say concerning same. And as regards the mitochondrial DNA, since he purposely ignored over 500 haplogroups and subgroups then his limitations to the 33 haplogroups and subgroups he claimed all humans belonged to were necessarily wrong from the start. He purposely limited the results to something he hoped would give him the results he wanted. That's not how proper genetic testing is done.

cormac

I see, and you know for a fact that 20% of DNA recovered proves the rest isn't alien, why again?

An informed decision cannot be made with the 80% unknown especially when they are clearly admitting that there are base pairs that aren't human for sure.

That's like saying if you slap a pair of wings on a car, with nothing more, that it should be able to fly. I'm sorry, your understanding in this is failing horribly.

He was short .0001% short of establishing definitive trends. In other words there wasn't enough there to prove it to be human. Clearly we can't use trends on alien DNA, as we can only assume it would be different and somewhat similar.

The definitive trends was meant to explain what they were assuming to get in order to call it human. Clearly once again, I dunno why I have to keep telling you this, it's not human.

And again, Pye didn't do the testing, several different labs did, and all I'm going by is what I'm reading from them.

The only difference between our two views on this is that this skull has been ruled out both anatomically as well as genetically from being human, but it would take much more money to prove it to be alien, and with the limited results they have so far, it's looking like the chances of it being alien far exceed the chances of it being human.

Edited August 9, 2014 by mickeymudge

[cormac mac airt]

I see, and you know for a fact that 20% of DNA recovered proves the rest isn't alien, why again?

20% of the Y Chromosome DNA recovered was THE ONLY DNA of said type that was recovered. You can't make a claim based on DNA that does not exist. You can, however, make a claim based on the DNA that does actually exist, which was Y Chromosome DNA, which is human.

An informed decision cannot be made with the 80% unknown especially when they are clearly admitting that there are base pairs that aren't human for sure.

An informed decision CAN be made based on the 20% to determine what biological family and species a test sample belongs too, however attempting to make a decision beyond the level of species, in this case meaning exact paternal haplogroup/subgroup, couldn't be determined with only 20% at that time. Any "admission" of results being non-human are null and void since the 20% Y Chromosome DNA which was the only paternal DNA and the mtDNA are sufficient themselves to determine whether or not the sample is human, but not sufficient to determine what paternal haplogroup the subject was nor specifically what subgroup of mtDNA haplogroup C the subject was. And the lack of sufficient nuclear DNA to determine the specific nuclear genome makes even mentioning it meaningless, beyond what the extant paternal and maternal DNA showed, which was that the subject was human.

He was short .0001% short of establishing definitive trends.

Which shows you didn't understand what the article said. It required 1% of the entire genome of Nuclear DNA to establish definitive trends. What was found was only .0001%, which means 10,000 times more DNA (.0001% X 10,000 = 1%) would be required to establish said trends.

The definitive trends was meant to explain what they were assuming to get in order to call it human.

They didn't nead the nuclear DNA results to determine it was human, the extant Y Chromosome DNA and mtDNA were sufficient enough to do that and both were determined to be human. The nuclear DNA results, had they been sufficient enough, would only have been useful in determining more specifically the subjects place amongst others nuclear DNA samples/databases.

The only difference between our two views on this is....

That I understand the genetics involved and can differentiate it from the BS that Pye and you are presenting as fact, because it's painfully apparent that neither of you understand what the results mean.

cormac

Edited August 9, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[mickeymudge]

20% of the Y Chromosome DNA recovered was THE ONLY DNA of said type that was recovered. You can't make a claim based on DNA that does not exist. You can, however, make a claim based on the DNA that does actually exist, which was Y Chromosome DNA, which is human.

An informed decision CAN be made based on the 20% to determine what biological family and species a test sample belongs too, however attempting to make a decision beyond the level of species, in this case meaning exact paternal haplogroup/subgroup, couldn't be determined with only 20% at that time. Any "admission" of results being non-human are null and void since the 20% Y Chromosome DNA which was the only paternal DNA and the mtDNA are sufficient themselves to determine whether or not the sample is human, but not sufficient to determine what paternal haplogroup the subject was nor specifically what subgroup of mtDNA haplogroup C the subject was. And the lack of sufficient nuclear DNA to determine the specific nuclear genome makes even mentioning it meaningless, beyond what the extant paternal and maternal DNA showed, which was that the subject was human.

Which shows you didn't understand what the article said. It required 1% of the entire genome of Nuclear DNA to establish definitive trends. What was found was only .0001%, which means 10,000 times more DNA (.0001% X 10,000 = 1%) would be required to establish said trends.

They didn't nead the nuclear DNA results to determine it was human, the extant Y Chromosome DNA and mtDNA were sufficient enough to do that and both were determined to be human. The nuclear DNA results, had they been sufficient enough, would only have been useful in determining more specifically the subjects place amongst others nuclear DNA samples/databases.

That I understand the genetics involved and can differentiate it from the BS that Pye and you are presenting as fact, because it's painfully apparent that neither of you understand what the results mean.

cormac

Sure, if you want to make a guess on 20% showing. What are you not getting here? Are you mathematically challenged, or you don't understand that 100% of that chromosome was recovered. I know you have to be able to understand one of those numbers. When you can prove to me, or science that 20% of a chromosome concludes it be human, and rules out any posibility of it having exterrestrial DNA in the unrecoverable sections, I'm sure you will win the Nobel prize. You have to remember, a partially recovered chromosome is not the recovery of that chromosome. You can make all the speculation in the world you want, but what do you think you need to do to be sure? You need to recover the rest of that chromosome.

What the hell are you talking about??? Haplogroups are determined from mtDNA, NOT from nuclear DNA like the Y chromosome. Dude seriously quit arguing with me, you seriously don't know what you're talking about.

Well I don't know what to tell you then. Maybe you need to tell the lab technicians they have it all wrong. You should inform them that you believe that 20% of the y chromosome can conclusivly prove it to be human, and rule out any exterrestrial DNA, which I don't know how, when you can't see them. You must be the smartest person in the world.

True, but you conveniently overlooked the part where they specifically state that there was allready NON human genes in that small amount.

These results were not surprising since the 2003 Trace Genetics test concluded that the Starchild had a human mother. However, these were not the only results. Other BLAST results, like the one below for a 342 nucleotide fragment, gave a very different answer.

It states that within the millions of DNA base pair strings catalogued in the NIH database, none were even “similar” to this section of the Starchild Skull’s DNA! And please note that this astonishing result was obtained with the search parameters set to the broadest match criteria that seeks even a “somewhat similar” match, not only an exact match.

And you once again dropped the ball, even though I have explained this to you twice. You understand the three paren't baby, yet you miss the fact that the host doesn't have to have anything to do with the two paren'ts. Just like wiki did, and also dropped the ball. If it has human mtDNA and the nuclear DNA is coming up with base pairs that aren't in NIH, then it's seriously a no brainer. The enity had a human host, and non human parents.

You can make all the phony balony clamins you wan't that according to YOU 20% of a Y chromosome proves it's human, but you're going to have a pretty hard time getting around the non matching sections in NIH.

Good luck to you. I'm done arguing this with you, clearly your not getting it.

[Q-C]

I have no doubt that you have over nine doctors.

And with that one I spewed mocha frappe (which does not add to body weight, btw, its all my extra DNA) all over my keyboard!

[cormac mac airt]

Are you mathematically challenged, or you don't understand that 100% of that chromosome was recovered.

100% of the Y Chromosome DNA has never been recovered, which is why a Y-DNA Haplogroup has never been assigned to the Starchild Skull.

When you can prove to me, or science that 20% of a chromosome...

It's not just a chromosome, it's a Y-DNA Chromosome of sufficient length to determine it's human but beyond that bears no further specific information.

Haplogroups are determined from mtDNA, NOT from nuclear DNA like the Y chromosome.

Y-DNA is not nuclear DNA, contrary to what you'd like to believe, and does have haplogroups as seen here:

http://www.isogg.org/tree/index.html

There are three forms of DNA and not two. Those being Mitochondrial DNA/mtDNA, Y Chromosome DNA and Nuclear DNA. None of the three are the same thing.

You should inform them that you believe that 20% of the y chromosome can conclusivly prove it to be human, and rule out any exterrestrial DNA, which I don't know how, when you can't see them.

To make any kind of determination to begin with they would use specific primers that would determine whether or not any extant human Y Chromosome DNA was present. The fact that it was determined there was human Y-DNA of any percentage automatically shows that it was human. To check for "ET" they would have to have primers for detecting extraterrestrial DNA. Obviously primers like that don't exist.

True, but you conveniently overlooked the part where they specifically state that there was allready NON human genes in that small amount.

And you only have that on the word of Pye himself as the geneticists allegedly involved would have written a paper specifically on the genetics test, the specific protocols used to eliminate any and all possible contamination as well as detailing every step taken and the overall results thereof. Yet there has never been, and will likely never be, a professional paper written detailing all of the above. BTW, the NIH doesn't run DNA queries for anyone. It's up to the geneticist involved (whoever that was) to do so and the results will depend solely on what parameters he inputs as well as the genetic results he has. None of this information has been mad available to anyone, whether within the scientific community or the public at large. This is NOT how a proper scientific evaluation is performed.

You understand the three paren't baby, yet you miss the fact that the host doesn't have to have anything to do with the two paren'ts.

Which shows that it's YOU that doesn't understand the procedure since it's the father's DNA, combined with the hosts mtDNA which itself has been inserted into the mothers cytoplasm which is what makes it a 'three parent baby'. So yes, the host DOES have something to do with the parents, if it weren't for her mtDNA there would be no baby.

cormac

[mickeymudge]

100% of the Y Chromosome DNA has never been recovered, which is why a Y-DNA Haplogroup has never been assigned to the Starchild Skull.

It's not just a chromosome, it's a Y-DNA Chromosome of sufficient length to determine it's human but beyond that bears no further specific information.

Y-DNA is not nuclear DNA, contrary to what you'd like to believe, and does have haplogroups as seen here:

http://www.isogg.org/tree/index.html

There are three forms of DNA and not two. Those being Mitochondrial DNA/mtDNA, Y Chromosome DNA and Nuclear DNA. None of the three are the same thing.

To make any kind of determination to begin with they would use specific primers that would determine whether or not any extant human Y Chromosome DNA was present. The fact that it was determined there was human Y-DNA of any percentage automatically shows that it was human. To check for "ET" they would have to have primers for detecting extraterrestrial DNA. Obviously primers like that don't exist.

And you only have that on the word of Pye himself as the geneticists allegedly involved would have written a paper specifically on the genetics test, the specific protocols used to eliminate any and all possible contamination as well as detailing every step taken and the overall results thereof. Yet there has never been, and will likely never be, a professional paper written detailing all of the above. BTW, the NIH doesn't run DNA queries for anyone. It's up to the geneticist involved (whoever that was) to do so and the results will depend solely on what parameters he inputs as well as the genetic results he has. None of this information has been mad available to anyone, whether within the scientific community or the public at large. This is NOT how a proper scientific evaluation is performed.

Which shows that it's YOU that doesn't understand the procedure since it's the father's DNA, combined with the hosts mtDNA which itself has been inserted into the mothers cytoplasm which is what makes it a 'three parent baby'. So yes, the host DOES have something to do with the parents, if it weren't for her mtDNA there would be no baby.

cormac

Cormac, this is seriously the last time I'm going to respond to you. I dunno why you don't get, that you simply don't get it.

100% of the Y Chromosome DNA has never been recovered, which is why a Y-DNA Haplogroup has never been assigned to the Starchild Skull.

Leaving it open to the possibility of containing some alien DNA. However it doesn't matter as y chromosome is extracted from the mtdna which only holds matrilineal history, In essence you're making the claim that since some male chromosome was, or at least 20% of, was extracted from mtdna that it proves the embrio to be male. This is a fallacy based on ignorance. How do you not know they were looking at y chromosome Adam? Clearly the nuclear DNA would be required to pove your myth.

Y-DNA is not nuclear DNA, contrary to what you'd like to believe, and does have haplogroups as seen here:

Y-DNA, You're never going to be able to convince anyone it's a male with only 20% available, especially when dealing with a potentionally unknown.

There are three forms of DNA and not two. Those being Mitochondrial DNA/mtDNA, Y Chromosome DNA and Nuclear DNA. None of the three are the same thing.

Which is exactly why there is the possibility of them having different origins. By Joe, I think you're getting it.

To make any kind of determination to begin with they would use specific primers that would determine whether or not any extant human Y Chromosome DNA was present. The fact that it was determined there was human Y-DNA of any percentage automatically shows that it was human. To check for "ET" they would have to have primers for detecting extraterrestrial DNA. Obviously primers like that don't exist.

Well YOU would use specific primers, which is why you are in the dark ages. Thus we have the first unrealiable report given to Pye. Primers aren't going to help you identify an unknown. By Joe, I think you're finally getting this. And I can seriously tell that you should take a gander to the starchild website and brush up on the latest technology, and how Pye had to wait almost a decade to find a more realiable method from Primers. You're just in the dark about all this. Primers are only going to tell you what you can compare with today. Dealing with a skull that possibly has partial alien DNA is not going to get you the truth with that type of testing. Leap out of the 90's dude and brush up on your knowldedge and visit his site.

And you only have that on the word of Pye himself as the geneticists allegedly involved would have written a paper specifically on the genetics test, the specific protocols used to eliminate any and all possible contamination as well as detailing every step taken and the overall results thereof. Yet there has never been, and will likely never be, a professional paper written detailing all of the above. BTW, the NIH doesn't run DNA queries for anyone. It's up to the geneticist involved (whoever that was) to do so and the results will depend solely on what parameters he inputs as well as the genetic results he has. None of this information has been mad available to anyone, whether within the scientific community or the public at large. This is NOT how a proper scientific evaluation is performed.

Nope, I would agree with you , in that they probably don't, however they do offer a free access to a BLAST website where you can compare against a large data base. Which is what Pye explains to have used, and I too know for a fact that it exists, because I have looked at it myself.

Which shows that it's YOU that doesn't understand the procedure since it's the father's DNA, combined with the hosts mtDNA which itself has been inserted into the mothers cytoplasm which is what makes it a 'three parent baby'. So yes, the host DOES have something to do with the parents, if it weren't for her mtDNA there would be no baby.

Well now you're condradicting yourself, first you day there are three types of DNA, now you're saying parts of them are going to combine.

I'm done. Toodles!

[cormac mac airt]

However it doesn't matter as y chromosome is extracted from the mtdna which only holds matrilineal history, In essence you're making the claim that since some male chromosome was, or at least 20% of, was extracted from mtdna that it proves the embrio to be male.

Which again shows that no, you really don't know the difference between Y-DNA, mtDNA and nuclear DNA. Y-DNA IS NOT extracted from mtDNA, it's separate DNA.

Leaving it open to the possibility of containing some alien DNA.

It's also possible it contains velociraptor DNA, but I wouldn't count on it.

Y-DNA, You're never going to be able to convince anyone it's a male with only 20% available, especially when dealing with a potentionally unknown.

Y-DNA only comes from a male, you can't get Y-DNA from a female as females have no "Y" chromosome.

And I can seriously tell that you should take a gander to the starchild website and brush up on the latest technology

The Starchild website has never used "the latest technology". What it has done is provided the gullible few with convincing sounding BS that wouldn't actually survive scientific scrutiny.

Primers aren't going to help you identify an unknown.

Primers aren't meant to identify what isn't there, they're meant to identify what IS there.

Which is what Pye explains to have used, and I too know for a fact that it exists, because I have looked at it myself.

I know it exists too, not because I've only seen it but because I've used it to compare the reference with my own DNA.

Well now you're condradicting yourself, first you say there are three types of DNA, now you're saying parts of them are going to combine.

What do you think a sperm and egg do at conception? They combine to form an embryo. That's basic biology.

cormac