TextSearch

A short summary of the DNA tests done on the Starchild Skull, and what they all mean

Starchild Skull DNA Summary top of pageSkip to Main ContentTHE STARCHILD PROJECT HOMESEARCHABOUT THE SKULLWHAT IS IT?HISTORYIS IT A DEFORMED HUMAN?RECONSTRUCTIONCRADLEBOARDINGHYDROCEPHALYMORGELLONSPROGERIAALIEN HYPOTHESISRESEARCHDEFORMITY STUDYBONE COMPOSITIONC14 DATINGCT SCANX-RAYSTEETHBRAINBONEFIBERS IN BONERESIDUE IN BONEDNA2012 DNA DATA2011 mtDNA DATA2010 nuDNA DATA2003 DNA REPORT2003 GEL SHEETS1999 DNA REPORTDiscussion-DNA 2012 FOXP2Discussion-mtDNA 2011Discussion-nuDNA 2010Discussion-2003 DNADiscussion-1999 contaminationNEWSLETTER TO CRITICSAS SEEN ON TVMoreUse tab to navigate through the menu items.DNA TESTING SUMMARY2012, Undisclosed Lab, Key Finding is FOXP2 fragmentPreliminary testing recovered what appears to be a fragment of the Starchild Skull's FOXP2 gene. This fragment differs from the corresponding human gene fragment in 56 positions along the DNA strand. This gene is highly conserved between species and is essential to human development.  In humans, it is linked to speech and cognitive function. This particular gene fragment is absolutely identical in every human and apes and has only ONE difference in monkeys, lending weight to the hypothesis that the Skull, with 56 differences, is not a human being. This finding, if proven, will raise many questions about how it developed and what abilities it may or may not have had. The results obtained need to be reproduced, verified, and extended.  2011, Undisclosed Lab, Key Finding is unusual mtDNAA US based genetics lab (name withheld for security reasons) conducted preliminary testing on samples of the Starchild Skull using advanced DNA testing technology. The result is partial and needs to be reproduced, verified, and extended. Mitochondrial DNA sequences recovered were submitted to the US National Institutes of Health BLAST for comparison to all other DNA in their database. Some of the DNA was similar to that of a human. However, large amounts of it were not similar enough to anything in the extensive database to be matched. The fact that the DNA recovered from the Starchild could not be matched within the database shows that the strange DNA is unlikely to be the result of bacterial or other contamination, as the database would have registered bactierial DNA. If these results can be reproduced and verified, it will show that the Skull is a previously undiscovered species 2010, Undisclosed Lab, Key Finding is first recovery of nuDNANuclear DNA (from both parents, gives individuals their unique qualities) was recovered from the Starchild Skull for the first time.This DNA was submitted to the US National Institutes of Health BLAST for comparison to all other DNA in their database. Some of the DNA was similar to that of a human while some could not be matched. If these results can be reproduced and verified, it will show that the Skull is a previously undiscovered species. 2003, Trace Genetics, California USA: First ancient DNA test done on the Starchild SkullState-of-the-art at the time, this test was only able to recover human DNA, any other DNA in the sample was ignored. The test recovered a small amount of human mtDNA from the Starchild Skull, but despite six attempts and evidence that there was some sort of nuDNA in the sample, no human nuDNA could be recovered. This led to public speculation about a human-alien hybrid, but this has since been dismissed in favor of the more plausible explanation that it is a new species that has some genetic similarities to humans. 1999, BOLD, British Columbia, Canada: First DNA test conducted on the Starchild SkullUnable to access a lab equipped to test 900 year old DNA, the Project opted to attempt to recover DNA using a lab with equipment only designed to recover forensic (less than 50 years old) DNA. After multiple contaminations, the BOLD lab recovered a tiny amount of nuclear DNA, 10% of the usual minimum amount of DNA required to give an accurate result. This DNA was from a human male Y chromosome. As subsequent testing with more advanced equipment has not been able to duplicate this result, and as the main difference between a forensic and ancient DNA testing lab is that forensic labs are not capable of removing as much contamination as an ancient DNA lab, the Starchild Project supports the belief of many experts that this result was not accurate, and was likely the result of contamination of the bone.© 2016 Starchild ProjectPlease do not use site content without prior permission. Email [email protected] of page