A Fragment of the Starchild’s FOXP2 Gene is Recovered

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
well what about a panspermia type scenario? maybe the seeds of life, that already existed on the other side of this galaxy, were cast about by super nova why would it be impossible for those same "seeds" to grow in a similarly habitable environment?

Except what you're talking about is another copy of DNA developing on the other side of the galaxy that is very close to human DNA, and then finding it not in a stray meteor, but in a fully developed creature. The odds of that happening are incalculable. So far, we haven't even found another independently developed (created?) strand of non-Earth based DNA, period.

no, I'm saying if the seeds came to our planet 4 billion years ago when the eukaryotes and prokaryotes first showed up fully formed. the first forms of life had no predecessors, no primitive intermediary forms. Maybe they are what was seeded on the cooling planet and their planet/s of origin harbor humanoid life that has had much more time to evolve than ours? Maybe THEY seeded this planet intentionally? I know humans would if they could so why would that be a stretch?

Regardless of alien, human, or other. What constitues awareness, and how should it be applied? Awareness is the dividing line between cognition or not. Aliens are either aware or not. We as human are aware or not. So, which is it? And how are there differences between the aware?

Originally posted by zookman44
Regardless of alien, human, or other. What constitues awareness, and how should it be applied? Awareness is the dividing line between cognition or not. Aliens are either aware or not. We as human are aware or not. So, which is it? And how are there differences between the aware?

I think the back story of the human woman who's skeleton was in the cave next to the SC says volumes of how aware both of them were. She tied it's arm to her arm after burying it and before killing herself. Was the SC being hunted? Was it already dead and she wanted to hide it's remains for some reason? There's a great story behind the enigma.

I am going to have to agree with the other members that stated this is not a credible report. If no scientist steps forward and allows their findings to be peer reviewed, no major credible laboratory participates ... then it is all simply bunk. It is science fiction and nothing more.

Not trying to be offensive, just objective. It could be true, but unless there is credibility, I am not buying it.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

I think its prudent not to assume that mutations in genes relate directly to a non human hypothesis. As a geneticist I would firstly want to remove any possibility of contamination and then look closely at what region of the FOXP2 Gene we are looking at. If this region sits in an exon flanking zone, for example an intron we can assume that the high level of mutation would no affect function of this gene at all. Also extraterrestrial DNA is unlikely to have the same chemistry as ours and such differentiation would render our techniques useless. This does not mean that there is not something interesting here it just means that we should not jump to conclusions without confirmatory results. I would like to hear who is doing this work and it would be nice to see the original chromatographs to see how they have pieced this information together. Interesting but unfortunately lacking in detail.

reply to post by bottleslingguy



In such a case, after 3.5 billion years of evolution, and relationship to the original "seed" would have been lost.

Also considering that none of our uniquely human genes show up for 3.5 billion years of evolution,and only show up in the last 5 million years, there would still be zero similarities between human life and an alien species.

You claim we must get over our exclusivity, then want me to believe aliens should all look the same. That is hyocracy.

I believe aliens exist. And I believe they look, act, and are nothing like us.

Congenital hydrocephalus


/conspiracy

Is there any documentation

GeisterFahrer - I think your right. I'm a believer in tons of things but this isn't one of them.

In addition to your points, these statements far down in the report in fine print after they make all these wonderful statement, lead me to believe this will go nowhere:

".. this is not absolute proof. We need many additional readings through modern sequencing machines to confirm it. However, we take this initial partial result as a strong indication that the Starchild is not entirely human."

"All three preliminary results are highly indicative of what the final result will be, but they cannot be considered absolute proof."


reply to post by GeisterFahrer

Having followed this 'project' for some time it seems this is indeed a major breakthrough, important to remember the mitDNA is indicative of having a human mother, so this is not an entirely unknown species...


The 2003 project and report by Dr. J.A. Eshleman and Dr. R.S. Malhi did show that the 1999 BOLD suggestions that the skull was a regular human as not credible, as repeating their methodology obtained no nuDNA results.




www.starchildproject.com...




Lloyd Pye has always made it known that if any other institute wants to run tests, samples would be provided, not the modus operandi of a now you see it now you don't hoaxer, the 'under cover genetecist' sequencer angle does need to end and names be put to claims however, though perhaps this is problematic if 'freebies' have been provided using a labs resources by an employee.


Of course no institute can fund regular research into a skull of questionable provenance, controversial claimed qualities and fringe associations hence the search for an independant financier, which hopefully will be forthcoming.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


Has anyone given consideration to the possibility that the skull in question is that of a deformed child ? I mean , I really don't believe all humans living in that time were utter perfection and none of them were deformed.

I would argue , perhaps, there were more deformities back then than there are today. Maybe the mother ate something or fell , or had a disease...... why do we assume the so called star child skull is of a healthy creature as opposed to a deformed human ?

I'm just asking.

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

Has anyone given consideration to the possibility that the skull in question is that of a deformed child ? I mean , I really don't believe all humans living in that time were utter perfection and none of them were deformed.

I would argue , perhaps, there were more deformities back then than there are today. Maybe the mother ate something or fell , or had a disease...... why do we assume the so called star child skull is of a healthy creature as opposed to a deformed human ?

I'm just asking.

edit on 2-3-2012 by skepticconwatcher because: added the word then

The debate is long past judging on outward appearances, if these DNA results are published and corroborated then this is a species entirely unknown, with possible human interbreeding at a singular or repeated stages.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


i think the so called star child skull is just a deformed human i think there was a lot of inter breeding back then too which would account for the genetic varriation anomoly and the deformation of the skull

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

Has anyone given consideration to the possibility that the skull in question is that of a deformed child ? I mean , I really don't believe all humans living in that time were utter perfection and none of them were deformed.

I would argue , perhaps, there were more deformities back then than there are today. Maybe the mother ate something or fell , or had a disease...... why do we assume the so called star child skull is of a healthy creature as opposed to a deformed human ?

I'm just asking.

edit on 2-3-2012 by skepticconwatcher because: added the word then

Never let Occam's Razor or parsimony stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

Has anyone given consideration to the possibility that the skull in question is that of a deformed child ? I mean , I really don't believe all humans living in that time were utter perfection and none of them were deformed.

I would argue , perhaps, there were more deformities back then than there are today. Maybe the mother ate something or fell , or had a disease...... why do we assume the so called star child skull is of a healthy creature as opposed to a deformed human ?

I'm just asking.

edit on 2-3-2012 by skepticconwatcher because: added the word then

a deformed human's bone would still be composed of the same chemicals as any other human. it would be human bone, but his is chemically different from human bone. It has a high carbon composition. Also the layers inside the bone matrix itself is not anything like human bone. There are scanning electron views of very durable threads INSIDE the bone probably lending to the fact that although the bone is thinner and lighter it is harder than human bone and needs to soak in a much stronger acid for a longer period of time than human bone. The structures inside the skull indicate a non human brain and the way the neck attaches to the bottom of the skull it would have put too much pressure on the brainstem and wouldn't survive longer after birth (if it was a human brain). The forensic evidence is amazing when you pay attention to it. Even a normal human eye can't fit in the eye socket. What deformity gives us weird eye balls?

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
Of course no institute can fund regular research into a skull of questionable provenance,

in this one case the dna would be the provenance wouldn't it? I mean what more could they expect? It would be better if it was found in some tomb in Egypt? actually, that would be pretty cool if that did happen.

Originally posted by Gorman91
You claim we must get over our exclusivity, then want me to believe aliens should all look the same. That is hyocracy.

I believe aliens exist. And I believe they look, act, and are nothing like us.

edit on 1-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

no I didn't mean they should all look the same. But as far as a genome we could very possibly be more similar than some people would want to accept. Take my panspermia idea about the first organisms here on Earth. There could be humanoid or even very human like other species in this galaxy that have come here after finding how similar this planet is to theirs and that it has an abundance of gold which is vital to their technology. I mean once you start to accept a few simple fundamentals it all starts to fall into place much more rationally if not more probable than life here arising spontaneously out of slime or even chosen by God as His Holy Experiment. We are not the only kid on the block with an intellect and self awareness, nor are we at the top of any intellectual hierarchy. Do the aliens have a God or gods? What do they philosophize about? If they already know everything, how boring is that?

reply to post by bottleslingguy


You are assuming aliens would have culture, religion, gods, or any sort of creativity.

You are assuming a lot of things.



There is no need for humanoid aliens, nor any evidence. So why force this construct onto the universe?

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
Of course no institute can fund regular research into a skull of questionable provenance,

in this one case the dna would be the provenance wouldn't it? I mean what more could they expect? It would be better if it was found in some tomb in Egypt? actually, that would be pretty cool if that did happen.

I was meaning in terms of the skulls provenance being based on heresay, ie found in a mineshaft in New Mexico or some such, compared to a properly recovered and recorded archaeological artifact or bone deposit . It would be hard for an Institute to justify funding research on such a curio...but yes the provenance of the DNA is essentialy the question.

reply to post by GilesCampbell

I'm sure if you email Lloyd directly he will answer any questions you have to get you up to speed. He's not hiding anything and welcomes people in this field. It's not about him anyway, it's about the dna. But for me it's also about the physiological differences with the actual bone (such as the fibers and red residue inside the cancellous holes) and also the chemical composition of the bone.


www.starchildproject.com...


www.starchildproject.com...

and this site has a list of people who've looked at the skull

www.chemistrydaily.com...