Starchild bump

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Human X and human Y chromosomes mean .... ? Human child.

Did you know that most animals have these chromosomes as well?

Mother was 100% human from haplogroup C. Trace Genetics 2003 test.

Perhaps you should update your data...in 2011 another look at the mtdna was made,

Now return to the Starchild’s 167 mtDNA nucleotides compared to 157 nucleotides of the human CRS in a highly conserved region where only one single variation is found among 33 human haplogroups.

There were some 17 differences found...

source

The sample taken from the Starchild Skull (SCS-1) has mtDNA consistent with Native American haplogroup C, as revealed through two independent extractions performed on fragments of parietal bone.

So...no, with newer data this has been proven false...mother was not human...

originally posted by: tanka418

Did you know that most animals have these chromosomes as well?

No, they do not. Why in the world do you think other animals have a HUMAN version of the X and Y chromosome? They don't.

Perhaps you should update your data...in 2011 another look at the mtdna was made,

No, it was not. We have a proven fraud making claims. An actual lab that Pye trusted so much he PAID THEM concluded the mtDNA is 100% human, and was from haplogroup C.

So...no, with newer data this has been proven false...mother was not human...

There is no new data. There are new claims. Those claims have already been refuted. The only DATA we have is 100% conclusive.

a reply to: tanka418

Yet we don't see the data. Just an interpretation of what the data "supposedly" says.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

"Did you know that most animals have these chromosomes as well?"
No, they do not. Why in the world do you think other animals have a HUMAN version of the X and Y chromosome? They don't.

The X chromosome is one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (allosomes) in many animal species, including mammals (the other is the Y chromosome), and is found in both males and females.

-- en.wikipedia.org...


You may want to update your personal knowledge base...

"Perhaps you should update your data...in 2011 another look at the mtdna was made,"

No, it was not. We have a proven fraud making claims. An actual lab that Pye trusted so much he PAID THEM concluded the mtDNA is 100% human, and was from haplogroup C.

Sorry man, but I see absolutely no proof of fraud here...

There is no new data. There are new claims. Those claims have already been refuted. The only DATA we have is 100% conclusive.

Attempting to ignore new data won't make it go away, and only serves to demonstrate the severity of your bias and error.

Sorry man, but you've proven nothing here but your inability to analyze this data.

a reply to: tanka418

Oh, btw, you do know that the human mitochondrial genome consists of a DNA ring of about 16,570 nucleotides. So your 167 and 157 numbers (or should I say Pyes) are roughly 1% of all the nucleotides. Also, about 1,100 are gene free.

Kind of messes up the sums a little when you actually realise how little the numbers 167 and 157 really mean compared to the whole picture.

a reply to: tanka418

Seriously?

X and Y human chromosomes aren't the same as X and Y animal chromosomes.

And you say our knowledge needs updating?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
"Did you know that most animals have these chromosomes as well?"
No, they do not. Why in the world do you think other animals have a HUMAN version of the X and Y chromosome? They don't.

The X chromosome is one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (allosomes) in many animal species, including mammals (the other is the Y chromosome), and is found in both males and females.

"Perhaps you should update your data...in 2011 another look at the mtdna was made,"
No, it was not. We have a proven fraud making claims. An actual lab that Pye trusted so much he PAID THEM concluded the mtDNA is 100% human, and was from haplogroup C.

There is no new data. There are new claims. Those claims have already been refuted. The only DATA we have is 100% conclusive.

Attempting to ignore new data won't make it go away, and only serves to demonstrate the severity of your bias and error.

Sorry man, but you've proven nothing here but your inability to analyze this data.

What data? Show us the data. Not an interpretation. The real data.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Oh, btw, you do know that the human mitochondrial genome consists of a DNA ring of about 16,570 nucleotides. So your 167 and 157 numbers (or should I say Pyes) are roughly 1% of all the nucleotides. Also, about 1,100 are gene free.

Kind of messes up the sums a little when you actually realise how little the numbers 167 and 157 really mean compared to the whole picture.

So...in an area that is "highly conserved", where data shows a variation of 105.5 (ave) differences in normal Human mtDNA, a result of 1794 differences is normal? Or is it an indicator that the sequence isn't human? These values determined by percentage of variation across your 16,570 nucleotides...

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Seriously?

X and Y human chromosomes aren't the same as X and Y animal chromosomes.

And you say our knowledge needs updating?

Source?!!!

originally posted by: TerryDon79
What data? Show us the data. Not an interpretation. The real data.

Read!

The data is there, but then you know that, and are being deliberately obtuse.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Oh, btw, you do know that the human mitochondrial genome consists of a DNA ring of about 16,570 nucleotides. So your 167 and 157 numbers (or should I say Pyes) are roughly 1% of all the nucleotides. Also, about 1,100 are gene free.

Kind of messes up the sums a little when you actually realise how little the numbers 167 and 157 really mean compared to the whole picture.

So...in an area that is "highly conserved", where data shows a variation of 105.5 (ave) differences in normal Human mtDNA, a result of 1794 differences is normal? Or is it an indicator that the sequence isn't human? These values determined by percentage of variation across your 16,570 nucleotides...

You see the number 1794? That's not the actual number of differences found. You know what that number is? It's a number estimated to be correct by using a small amount of differences X by the amount of mtDNA.

They didn't actually find 1794 differences. They only found 10 (with an estimated 17 due to contamination) and then worked from there. Whose to say there were any more than the original differences unless the whole 16,570 nucleotides were tested?

It's like saying you have 1 typo per 10 words. You have 1000 words in a paragraph therefore there must be 100 typos.

It just doesn't work that way.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Seriously?

X and Y human chromosomes aren't the same as X and Y animal chromosomes.

And you say our knowledge needs updating?

Source?!!!

Are you being serious???

I'll give you some help. It's to do with how much DNA there is in a human/animal X/Y chromosome.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
What data? Show us the data. Not an interpretation. The real data.

Read!

The data is there, but then you know that, and are being deliberately obtuse.

No, the data is NOT there. The report is a "laymans report". There has been no data (after 2003) released.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Oh, btw, you do know that the human mitochondrial genome consists of a DNA ring of about 16,570 nucleotides. So your 167 and 157 numbers (or should I say Pyes) are roughly 1% of all the nucleotides. Also, about 1,100 are gene free.

Kind of messes up the sums a little when you actually realise how little the numbers 167 and 157 really mean compared to the whole picture.

So...in an area that is "highly conserved", where data shows a variation of 105.5 (ave) differences in normal Human mtDNA, a result of 1794 differences is normal? Or is it an indicator that the sequence isn't human? These values determined by percentage of variation across your 16,570 nucleotides...

You see the number 1794? That's not the actual number of differences found. You know what that number is? It's a number estimated to be correct by using a small amount of differences X by the amount of mtDNA.

They didn't actually find 1794 differences. They only found 10 (with an estimated 17 due to contamination) and then worked from there. Whose to say there were any more than the original differences unless the whole 16,570 nucleotides were tested?

It's like saying you have 1 typo per 10 words. You have 1000 words in a paragraph therefore there must be 100 typos.

It just doesn't work that way.

Actually...it called extrapolation, and yes it actually does work just like that!

In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation range, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable.

-- en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Oh, btw, you do know that the human mitochondrial genome consists of a DNA ring of about 16,570 nucleotides. So your 167 and 157 numbers (or should I say Pyes) are roughly 1% of all the nucleotides. Also, about 1,100 are gene free.

Kind of messes up the sums a little when you actually realise how little the numbers 167 and 157 really mean compared to the whole picture.

So...in an area that is "highly conserved", where data shows a variation of 105.5 (ave) differences in normal Human mtDNA, a result of 1794 differences is normal? Or is it an indicator that the sequence isn't human? These values determined by percentage of variation across your 16,570 nucleotides...

You see the number 1794? That's not the actual number of differences found. You know what that number is? It's a number estimated to be correct by using a small amount of differences X by the amount of mtDNA.

They didn't actually find 1794 differences. They only found 10 (with an estimated 17 due to contamination) and then worked from there. Whose to say there were any more than the original differences unless the whole 16,570 nucleotides were tested?

It's like saying you have 1 typo per 10 words. You have 1000 words in a paragraph therefore there must be 100 typos.

It just doesn't work that way.

Actually...it called extrapolation, and yes it actually does work just like that!

In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation range, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable.

-- en.wikipedia.org...

But it doesn't always work. Extrapolation is still a guess.

ETA: To make a guess that high while using only 1% of the available information is actually inaccurate.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
No, the data is NOT there. The report is a "laymans report". There has been no data (after 2003) released.

Uh-huh...Now you are being dishonest!

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
No, the data is NOT there. The report is a "laymans report". There has been no data (after 2003) released.

Uh-huh...Now you are being dishonest!

Link me to the data then.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
But it doesn't always work. Extrapolation is still a guess.

ETA: To make a guess that high while using only 1% of the available information is actually inaccurate.

If you say so...lol.

And, on that "inaccurate" BS...proof! Show your proof!

You might also want to show how when that 1% becomes as anomalous as it has in this case, that it is still, somehow, normal?

a reply to: tanka418

Considering they use 440 base pairs to figure out who the mother is, the 157/167 number is tiny.

Plus, it was contaminated which can easily explain anomalies. The BOLD tests had to be done 2 or 3 times (I can't remember which) because of contamination.

The results that have been released FROM TWO (2) LABS show it was human. Yet the newest one shows it wasn't, but they never released the data to the public. I wonder why?

a reply to: tanka418

Link
Go down to Replication, repair, transcription, and translation and have a read. Then read Mitochondrial diseases.

After reading that you'll see why Pye is full of it.