Can you prove evolution wrong

Okay I'm tired arguing over Pye's lack of use of the scientific method, so I will just go ahead and disprove his claims. First let's start with the most recent test. In this test they were able to get about 600 base pairs (I should point out that there are about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome) out of their sample. 250 of these base pairs came up as human. The other 350 base pairs produced a result of "No significant similarity found." Now, Pye has taken this to mean that these 350 base pairs prove alien ancestry as there was no match found. However, it appears that this result is not that uncommon as the NIH even has a section for it in the FAQ for BLAST, the type of genetic testing that was performed. Once again I should point out that this strand of DNA was only 350 base pairs while the entire human genome has 3 billion base pairs and one can expect about 30 million of these base pairs to differ from the parents.

Before this we have the test with the mitochondrial DNA. As we know this produced a perfect match for human DNA on the mother's side. Unfortunately, this test was unable to get any nuclear DNA to test. For whatever reason Pye uses this as evidence for human/alien hybridization.

Now, there is one other test that Pye doesn't mention at all. In 1999 a genetic lab in Vancouver, BOLD, was able to test two samples from the skull. In both samples they were able to find standard X and Y chromosomes. This not only means that the child was male, but it also means that both parents would have had to be human to contribute both sex chromosomes. Of course I believe this quote from 2004 by Pye sums up why he ignores these results:

To the best of my knowledge, the top lab in the world for what we need done is the Kureha Special Laboratory in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture. That's about 200 kilometers northeast of Tokyo. What I need to determine is whether or not we can trust the results of any analysis we get from them. This was no different during the long struggle to find the proper DNA lab. Just because a lab exists, that doesn't mean we can trust any result they give us. If one person working on the analysis has a private agenda that is strongly antithetical to what we're trying to accomplish, we're toast. Such tests are too easy to sabotage. We might as well not even try it.

It's clear that no matter what results Pye were to gain from a DNA test he would still claim the Starchild is of alien ancestry and would try to twist any evidence to the contrary to fit his worldview. This is clearly illustrated by his "expert" Ted J. Robinson. Pye claims he is a facial reconstruction expert from Vancouver. Yet, when one tries to verify this they are unable to turn up any such person. Robinson also claims to be a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, however the Royal College of Surgeons appears to be unaware of this fact as they do not have him listed anywhere. The fact of the matter is that all of the test results point to this skull having human ancestry and only human ancestry. Not to mention that the defects can all be explained by mutations on a single gene, GNAS-1.

reply to post by Xcalibur254
And you think tooth will understand any of that. Let alone consider it? Wow I've discovered an optimist amongst us.

I'm afraid the deluded need a delusional leader and Pye is obviously his. What is it, 124 pages and he still thinks evolution means you change from a fish to a cat overnight. I would hope even Pye is better schooled in evolution than that.

Tooth does not understand one thing that has been explained over and over the best anyone here can and it still does not sink in. He is either unable to understand or is purposely ignoring the evidence because his idea of the world around him falls apart if he does.

124 pages here alone and he has not even got past a cat giving birth to a fish or a monkey to a human. Shess!

He is determined to have an alien as his god and Pye as his messiah. I feel it is unhealthy to continue trying to give him information he refuses to understand as he appears desperate to cling on to his delusions and as far as I am concerned, let him.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

I applaud your efforts, but these same facts regarding Pye's propensity to throw out any results that don't agree with his claims of interventionism and his admission that he's looking for a lab that will back his claims of alien origin for the skull before they've done the testing were pointed out almost 80 pages ago and obviously fell on blind eyes then.

reply to post by colin42

Published does not mean a U-Tube video or a penny dreadful book peddling fiction. Published means setting out the evidence/experimental findings and any other information needed for others to verify what is being described as true. Pye does not do this and you do not ask why, WHY!!!

So publishes does not mean a youtube video or a published book? Interesting, I wonder why they both would have copy rights then. I though setting out the evidence would be called full disclosure, but what do I know. I don't ask why because the results are shared in enough detail that if I did the same test, I would be able to verify it. If he has anything to hide in this, hes not doing a very good job because he is sharing the DNA findings in both cases.

None of the sites you guys sent me to about evolution shared there detailed results.

You cannot test what does not exist and until he makes the evidence available (remember publish) there is nothing to test.

Well then you can take the findings in his none existant test and compare them to your non existant test and see what you get.

If only this was just the 5th time. Until he provdes the evidence there is only a story you are expected to take on good faith. You do because it fits your belief. I do not because until he provides evidence its a story and I have read better.

Well both clips are introduced about DNA findings, had he of addressed them as being just a story this conversation would be different.

The scientific method is in place to stop people like Pye making false claims and prevent people like you being misled and misinformed. The internet in this case is being misused because Pye is attempting, as far as I can see to skate around it to sell his books.

And still not a single person has proven him wrong on either test. So now he has completly disclosed his findings in both tests, and in the skull test even revealed the names of both labs, and still no one has proven him wrong. I call BS you guys, sorry but it looks like its more of a case of you know there is nothing that says differently and it upsets you.
Sorry people but the truth is the truth. If Pye was just out trolling a bunch of garbage he would be getting slapped with bologny left and right, instead we have unwilling onlookers complaining that he failed to post where the lab work was done.

Look if nothing else consider this. If you had information that would blow modern science apart and change the thinking of the planet would you hesitate to make this information available? (Thats the evidence not the book and the video).

I would not. Why doesnt he if he indeed has proof?

Well I think there is the possibility he is being carful to not scare the $41t out of people. It's just like the wiki page on mitochndrial eve. The make it clear that they have mapped the entire genome and have found a common ancestor 200,000 years ago. They intentionally left out the part that tells us how old our species is. It's bad enough the above claim slaughters the hell out of religion but what could they be hiding in keeping our age? I believe that those figures are beyond the age of earth and publishing them would not only freak some people out, but also make science look very stupid. Some people will just never accept the fact that we arne't from here, kinda like how you guys don't either.

I haven't read his published books only the published videos.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

I've actually found a journal article that discusses exactly what we're discussing in regards to Pye. It talks about how ufology uses shards of scientific rhetoric as a means to gain legitimacy. There's even a section of the article directly discussing Pye. Unfortunately, you need a subscription to see the full text.

You people seriously need to grow up on this subject. There is oodles of life beyond. If I'm wrong maybe you better contact FEMA and have them remove chapter 13 out of there training manuel because you just know other life doesn't exist.

Our mentality on these types of subjects is what determins our future. Take a look at this one as an example....
www.youtube.com...

In my over 30 years of studying these types of things, I can tell you this one is different, in many ways. I can tell you that ET is NOT our friend and we should never trust him. If I have reviewed over 2000 cases in my lifetime, thats just the way it has always been. Now this particular footage used to be available from several different recordings. Now it looks like some have dropped off the internet. Anyhow, whats so special about this one is that it actually looks friendly, er maybe. They are using there lights to try to signal us and get a response. It seriously looks like something straight out of close encounters.

Now this is where our understanding and mentality has failed us once again, you see not only were we not ready to try to decode what they were saying to us, but we were also not ready to signal them back, and there is a simple reason why. Because we are all taught that these things dont exist, and if we ever do see something we are suppose to turn our head and ignore them and never speak of them so others wont think we are crazy.

Now I don't want to make anyone cry but that could have been someone from OUR home planet coming here to get us off this horrible rock. In a weird twisted way some people still might have chalked this up to pure imagination however after this ship left it was followed up by another one. I have no way of proving intention but it is the oddest I have ever seen. Our reaction was not so odd, its what we have always done, nothing.

reply to post by itsthetooth


As I have stated many times on this site, the ET hypothesis is the worst thing that ever happened to ufology. There is no empirical evidence that connects ETs to UFOs. The greatest ufologist of all time, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, saw this and that's why he never made any claims to that effect. Instead he merely looked at the empirical evidence and attempted to draw conclusions from there. Now however we have a field with a top-down approach where the conclusion of UFOs=ETs is already drawn and as a result the most interesting cases get ignored as they don't fit that paradigm.

reply to post by Barcs

It "seems to fit". That's a GREAT argument and totally based on science. Evolution doesn't seem to fit. It fits perfectly, but you ignore it.

Evolution doesn't fit at all, it has gaping holes and no one cares to address those with me. Can you tell me how it is that evolution is smart enough to evolve a species and somehow magically know what this new species is going to need to eat, and it makes that too?

Pye has NOT PUBLISHED ANY of his lab work. Again, if he published the actual research papers and lab analysis please provide it. If not, you have no reason to assume he's right or to consider it objective evidence

Well I doubt very seriously if something HAS to be published before it can be authentic. Its just more about what you would like to see. I have explained about half a dozen times now some reasons why he may have intentionally not wanted or been able to share that information.

I do not have the access to the skull or to his scientific lab analysis of it. Can you provide that for me so I can review this OBJECTIVE evidence? If you can't it is NOT objective. Please learn the difference, you keep repeating the same nonsensical claims over and over again.

Now look, I copied the definition for objective evidence
www.businessdictionary.com...
Pye hasn't presented anything that your claiming can't be verfied. I said it 5 times now do your own analysis and then come back to me and tell me where his flaws were. It just seems like you guys are lazy as hell.

LOL. You are a lost cause. Neither of us can provide the lab work, therefor it is not objective evidence because as of now it DOES NOT EXIST. This is your last chance, provide the evidence so I can examine it. If you do not, you have nothing to validate Pye's claims. If you repeat the same tired old nonsense again, I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You clearly either have difficulties understanding the English language or you are being intentionally dishonest and ignoring everything that people are saying. If its the first case, it explains a lot. If it's the latter, then shame on you.

Just because you don't take the steps to prove him wrong does not mean he is automatically wrong.

Here are the DNA findings to the star child....
www.youtube.com...
Including mtDNA / nuclear DNA / base pairs / and NIH database comparisons.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Evolution doesn't fit at all, it has gaping holes and no one cares to address those with me. Can you tell me how it is that evolution is smart enough to evolve a species and somehow magically know what this new species is going to need to eat, and it makes that too?

First off evolution has no consciousness, so stop trying to personify it. Second, if an animal did not have food it wouldn't survive, thus removing it from the gene pool. Evolution isn't one straight path. It is a process of trial and error.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Well, if you don't care about objective evidence and facts, then that's your right. It's not logical, or reasonable...but it IS your right to prefer fiction over fact

And see thats just the point right there. I think he has given enough evidence to back it. What you personally consider enough might not fly with me on evolution, especially when I end up with 10 more questions to each one you answer with an unobserved theory.

Your making an assumption that just because he didn't back things up the way YOU wanted them, that they have to be false, and thats just dumb.

Which, if he's witholding objective evidence and data to support his claims, clearly ISN'T

Then please point me to something that says hes not legit.

It doesn't matter if he has data or not, as long as he doesn't share it, his claims are pure fiction.

I think your are suffering from selective listening. He has posted his findings and this is in fact what you are disputing. It's that he didn't back them up with anything, and like I said there could be reasons for that.

He simply didn't present it the way you wanted it presented so you automatically make an assumption that something is wrong.

Well, given that every objective study contradicts his claims, and that one of the top neural scientists perfectly explained the shape of the skull...you can't really call his claims "damn straight". They look like complete and utter nonsense

I would love to see one shred of anything that contradicts his claims.

And every single examination other than by Pye contradicts his claims

He doesn't even permit peer reviews

Maybe he doesn't want to deal with dim witted people, I know its tireing me out. I call BS on him not wanting peoples input simply based on the fact that his videos allows comments.

Well, the thread title is "Can you prove evolution wrong?". You clearly haven't done so yet, so enlighten us please, what holes are you talking about

Granted even internetion has some holes and you might trip in them but evolutions holes are big enough for you to fall into. I just posted them, you will have to go back and see them.

And what do you mean "evolve into something and then have something to eat"???? It doesn't happen overnight. It's not as if a fish goes to sleep and suddenly wakes up as an iguana going "damn, what the hell should I eat??". Evolution mostly takes a very long time, and of course your feeding habits and food sources change as well. It's constant adaption.

Your going to have to break this down. I understand it doens't happen over night. I mean when we had a fitting diet from primates, and we evolved to humans, how did the planet magically grow the food we needed?

Macro evolution is nothing but a whole string of micro evolutions over a long period of time. Take the giraffe for example. Its ancestor had a short neck, and every generation that neck got a bit longer. After thousands of years, you get a giraffe if the neck grows by a few centimetres every 100 generations or so. And guess what, that giraffe looks very different than its ancestors. The same goes for humans, and both the fossil record and genetics fully back it up

We have never found any bones that connect us to another species, much less one proving we evolved from. This is why the term common ancestor was coined, its because that missing link does not exist and we have to have something to blame that on. Now they have found a plethora of humanoid skulls but none of them seem to prove anything. I would even venture to say most of them could be alien.

reply to post by Varemia

You mean the health history which shows that up until about 10,000 years ago, humans led healthy lives, and that agriculture is what spurred an unhealthy diet, but allowed us to stay in one place long enough to develop cities and infrastructures and advanced technology? That health history?

If you know of another, please, enlighten me.

Ok first of all nothing ALLOWED us to build cities and infastructures. We were forced to. Take all your close off and go stand but naked in the 0 degree weather and get used to it, simply because your allowed to. I would bet money you would either go inside or put some cloths on because you have to.

This is a main reason why evolution is such a crock, things aren't allowed, they become necessity, so we end up having to do it. Just like using milk from the cow. It's not because we wanted to. YUCK, who in there right mind would dream of drinking milk from another animal? That just turns me on, ohh baby.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Once again these things have emerged in only the last few thousand years. For the other 200,000 years we had none of these things and survived just fine. In fact we did more than survive. We thrived. We got to the point where we could stop focusing all of our attention on survival and begin focusing on innovating.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Then please point me to something that says hes not legit.

His expert is not what Pye claims he is and he has completely removed any mention of the BOLD test from his site. Funny thing is when he first got the results that the skull had standard X and Y chromosomes, proving it was 100% human, he made excuses for how this proved his claims. However, now that the other tests have provided less conclusive results he acts like the BOLD test was never done. That right there should be more than enough evidence that he is nothing more than a con man.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Okay I'm tired arguing over Pye's lack of use of the scientific method, so I will just go ahead and disprove his claims. First let's start with the most recent test. In this test they were able to get about 600 base pairs (I should point out that there are about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome) out of their sample. 250 of these base pairs came up as human. The other 350 base pairs produced a result of "No significant similarity found." Now, Pye has taken this to mean that these 350 base pairs prove alien ancestry as there was no match found. However, it appears that this result is not that uncommon as the NIH even has a section for it in the FAQ for BLAST, the type of genetic testing that was performed. Once again I should point out that this strand of DNA was only 350 base pairs while the entire human genome has 3 billion base pairs and one can expect about 30 million of these base pairs to differ from the parents

You did damn good work on this and I for one am actually impressed, there is just ehr, a few problems.

Just because it came up with some parts being human does not mean it has to be human at all. It could just simply be humanoid, or a better way to explain this is if the comparison were done against a primate, you would see the same effect.
Your also making an assumption that this alien couldn't possibly have some parts of its DNA as human. I didn't know you excelled in thi field.
NSSF to me tells me right off the bat, its not in our data base. Your trying to tell me that NIH isn't going to be good enough to recognize human DNA. This is where your failing. You might be right that it might not have the ability to jump up and say this thing is alien, but it sure in the hell would know if its human, and this has been my argument all along.
Your also making the same assumption about the x and y chromosomes. Your saying aliens couldn't possibly have x and y chromosomes, its just not possible.
This reminds me of the very first alien photo I ever looked at in a time life book. This little guy about the size of the palm of your hand, was actually humanoid for sure, His skin was melted almost like it was wax, but scientists completly ruled it out as being possibly real because next to his head in the blades of crab grass was a metal frame of glasses. And we all know that aliens can't possibly wear glasses.

I think it was the oddest part that it has both chromosomes, but the fact is that it's still possible. I think the part that sold me was how it has adult teeth and more waiting to come down. Turns out, that isn't impossible, I asked a dentist yesterday. It is however VERY rare. Lacking sinuses is perhaps the weirdest but according to a google search 10% of people lack them, and come to think of It I think I even know one. Anyhow this page is saying we never should have had them, and they are a mistake. www.everydayhealth.com...
This poor skull, what ever was wrong with him, he has to many weird things going on. His eyes aren't even in the correct area. His eye sockets are way to shallow for our eyeballs, and his brain was 30% larger. I think we look at the 36 points of difference and say oh this is all caused from defects, which is exponetionatly wrong. He's a different species for sure. The only thing he has going for him that says hes human is a skull, teeth, eyes, mouth, and thats it, the rest of the details don't match it being human. They even had a problem with the dremel blade cutting into this thing for DNA testing.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

It's clear that no matter what results Pye were to gain from a DNA test he would still claim the Starchild is of alien ancestry and would try to twist any evidence to the contrary to fit his worldview. This is clearly illustrated by his "expert" Ted J. Robinson. Pye claims he is a facial reconstruction expert from Vancouver. Yet, when one tries to verify this they are unable to turn up any such person. Robinson also claims to be a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, however the Royal College of Surgeons appears to be unaware of this fact as they do not have him listed anywhere. The fact of the matter is that all of the test results point to this skull having human ancestry and only human ancestry. Not to mention that the defects can all be explained by mutations on a single gene, GNAS-1.

This is where I think your wrong, no matter how much he wants it to be alien, if its not, he cant make it alien. Published or not, once its shared the only thing he could do is lie about it, and no one is coming forward saying he is lying. Now I wonder why that is?

reply to post by colin42

And you think tooth will understand any of that. Let alone consider it? Wow I've discovered an optimist amongst us.

I'm afraid the deluded need a delusional leader and Pye is obviously his. What is it, 124 pages and he still thinks evolution means you change from a fish to a cat overnight. I would hope even Pye is better schooled in evolution than that.

OH I understand it all, I just don't buy into it. I was only exaggerating on the dog to cat deal.

Tooth does not understand one thing that has been explained over and over the best anyone here can and it still does not sink in. He is either unable to understand or is purposely ignoring the evidence because his idea of the world around him falls apart if he does.

124 pages here alone and he has not even got past a cat giving birth to a fish or a monkey to a human. Shess!

Well no one has still touched my question on how it is that we get our diet picked out for us once we do evolve.

He is determined to have an alien as his god and Pye as his messiah. I feel it is unhealthy to continue trying to give him information he refuses to understand as he appears desperate to cling on to his delusions and as far as I am concerned, let him.

Well I'm not desperate to hang on to anything but it sure looks like evolutionists are.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

As I have stated many times on this site, the ET hypothesis is the worst thing that ever happened to ufology. There is no empirical evidence that connects ETs to UFOs. The greatest ufologist of all time, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, saw this and that's why he never made any claims to that effect. Instead he merely looked at the empirical evidence and attempted to draw conclusions from there. Now however we have a field with a top-down approach where the conclusion of UFOs=ETs is already drawn and as a result the most interesting cases get ignored as they don't fit that paradigm.

That has got to be the lamest thing I have ever heard, like no one knows that ET and UFOS are usually found together. Well you might want to contact the 4 million people claiming to have seen ET and let them know that the UFO they arrived in actually had nothing to do with them at all. LOL.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

First off evolution has no consciousness, so stop trying to personify it. Second, if an animal did not have food it wouldn't survive, thus removing it from the gene pool. Evolution isn't one straight path. It is a process of trial and error.

So in other words only the pools that are fit for the enviroment, live, so the rest just die. Come on people do you seriously buy this crap. You might as well call it kamikaze genes. I for one know that isn't possible. They all want to live.

reply to post by itsthetooth


The reason the BLAST would produce that result is not due to the fact that the genes were not in the database. It is due to the sample and the way it was prepared. Nuclear DNA degrades much faster than mitochondrial DNA which could be one of the reasons those base pairs produced anomalous results. Throw in the fact that for most tests like this records are kept on such things as chains of custody, equipment used, chemicals used, processes used, etc. Pye has never provided these to the public and as a result we cannot be sure if he has provided this information to the multiple labs he has visited. This alone could cause discrepancies in testing, not to mention it could degrade the sample. Then there's also the possibility that the sample was too small or of low-complexity. There are other factors that could produce such a reading. Usually one troubleshoots for such results if they are produced and another test is run. However, it seems like Pye only performed one test and since he got inconclusive results he was happy as it didn't disprove his theory. As I stated before this seems to be a somewhat common result as the NIH has a section devoted to it. Therefore, Pye should have known that with that result a follow-up should be performed yet he stuck with the initial results as he could more easily fit it to his worldview.

As for DNA occurring elsewhere, I'll leave the explanation to Marduk from the JREF forums:

DNA IS composed of nucleotides. A nucleotide consists of a phosphate group, a five-carbon sugar and a nitrogenous base bonded together. The combination that goes to make up DNA therefore represents chemical that are endemic to this planet in proportions that are normal to this planet. You may have heard that because of our close relation to chimpanzees our DNA IS 99% identical to theirs and yet human chimpanzee hybrids are not viable, what percentage would you expect us to have in common with a creature that evolved on a different planet ?.

Every creature on this planet features this combination of chemicals in its DNA, this is because the DNA evolved here, in effect it represents a certificate of earthliness. This is what led Carl Sagan to comment that a human is more likely to mate with a petunia than an alien.

Now onto the claims regarding the structure of the skull. The tooth claim is just plain hokum. Even Pye's "expert" agrees that the teeth show a 5-6 year old child.

Dr David Hodges, a radiologist, stated that the suture lines were open and growing at the time of death. Dr. David Sweet was of the opinion that the skull was that of a 5-6 year old, based upon the dentition in the right maxillary fragment. Though some specialists who looked at the skull disagreed, I have always supported Dr. Sweet in his belief that this was the skull of a 5-6 year old child.

As for the other anomalies, like I said all of these could be caused by a defect in the GNAS-1 gene. Here is the MRI of a patient that suffered from many of the disorders associated with this gene. You will note that the structure of the skull is very similar to that of the Starchild.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Once again evolution and genes have no consciousness. If a mutation occurs it can either be advantageous, neutral, or deleterious. If it's advantageous it increases the individuals chances at reproducing; if it's neutral it doesn't affect the individuals chances at procreation; and if it's deleterious it lowers the chances at procreating. From our research the majority of mutations are neutral or deleterious. Therefore, if an individual is born with a genetic defect that prevents them from processing or acquiring that species natural food sources it will die and the genes will not be passed on. On the other hand if an individual is born with a mutation that allows them to process or acquire a new food source it will increase their chances of survival and those genes will be passed on.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

The reason the BLAST would produce that result is not due to the fact that the genes were not in the database. It is due to the sample and the way it was prepared. Nuclear DNA degrades much faster than mitochondrial DNA which could be one of the reasons those base pairs produced anomalous results.

Normally you would be correct and its a good possibility at best. With this case however he is specifically indicating that the base pairs are coherent. This means they are reading them right, and getting a correct answer back.

Throw in the fact that for most tests like this records are kept on such things as chains of custody, equipment used, chemicals used, processes used, etc. Pye has never provided these to the public and as a result we cannot be sure if he has provided this information to the multiple labs he has visited. This alone could cause discrepancies in testing, not to mention it could degrade the sample.

Well there is always the possibilty that something went wrong but the bottom line is a lab is usually going to know what they are doing. I see where your going and it could actually go both directions. For example I could day the ONLY reason they had any matches on human DNA was because they didn't use a clean dremel blade to cut the sample.

< please stop using commas in place of periods, its like one giant run on sentance and its serously screwing with me.>

Then there's also the possibility that the sample was too small or of low-complexity. There are other factors that could produce such a reading. Usually one troubleshoots for such results if they are produced and another test is run. However, it seems like Pye only performed one test and since he got inconclusive results he was happy as it didn't disprove his theory.

Well seeing how he is indicating they were all coherent, NO.

As I stated before this seems to be a somewhat common result as the NIH has a section devoted to it. Therefore, Pye should have known that with that result a follow-up should be performed yet he stuck with the initial results as he could more easily fit it to his worldview.

Thats not true, the test was done three times because they didn't believe the answers.

Now onto the claims regarding the structure of the skull. The tooth claim is just plain hokum. Even Pye's "expert" agrees that the teeth show a 5-6 year old child.

WITH ADULT TEETH WTF !

As for the other anomalies, like I said all of these could be caused by a defect in the GNAS-1 gene. Here is the MRI of a patient that suffered from many of the disorders associated with this gene. You will note that the structure of the skull is very similar to that of the Starchild.

I looked and don't think it looks anything like the skull. For something to have the over 36 abnormalities I would tend to simply believe it to be another species.