Is the "Starchild Skull" really half human and half Alien as Lloyd Pye explains ?

Question

"... when we tried to recover its DNA we found that its Mitochondria DNA recovered very easily, meaning that its mother is human, but its Nuclear DNA, which contains the DNA of its mother and its father was not able to be recovered in six attempts. So, that tells us its Nuclear DNA is not entirely human. So, we think we have in this skull the first bonified provable evidence of life beyond Earth."

-- Lloyd Pye

Starchild Skull (proof of alien existence)

http://www.livevideo.com/video/SilverSurfer1/5685A350FA5B4741B0B1050EFD85BFEC/starchild-skull-proof-of-alie.aspx

Answer 1

I personally believe so.

Answer 2

I wouldn't trust Lloyd Pye any further than I could throw him.

Answer 3

Lloyd Pye should have studied the chemistry of DNA more and read less science fiction.

It is not surprising that the Mitochondrial DNA was recovered and easy to analyze.  It usually contains many duplicate copies of genes.  The Nuclear DNA specimens tend to degrade faster and usually have a worse track record for comprehensive analysis.  The results published for the "Starchild Skull" specimen are not very different from other specimens of similar age.

Humans tend to see what they want to see.  If you, personally, believe that the "Starchild Skull" is proof of life beyond Earth, then this is your right.  However, the actual evidence can be explained in a more simple solution.  

Answer 4

Yea sure, it's got to be an alien. It's named "Starchild" right?

To quote Pyle and Bean: "“Because the Starchild skull shows so much deviation from the human norm, we can confidently expect DNA testing to prove it is one of three things: (1) a pure alien Gray type; (2) a Gray-human hybrid; or (3) the most bizarre human deformity since The Elephant Man.”

Notice how biased the statement is."Starchild" strongly suggests aliens. "deformity since the Elephant Man" suggest an impossibility and fear.You're left with their two preferred outcomes and a deformity a distant third.

What hasn't been ruled out is more ordinary ailments such as "use of cradle boarding on a hydrocephalic child, brachycephaly, or Crouzon syndrome"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_s...

Now the DNA report differs from the claims. There were 5 samples taken 1was an adult skull, 2 a maxilla "thought" (hoped) to be part of the Starchild, 3, 4 and 5 from the skull it's self. the summary:

1. Human DNA and a female

2. "Unfortunately, the results of PCR amplification of the sample recovered from the baby tooth taken from the piece of right maxilla (upper jaw) was negative. No profile was obtained. As I explained, this may be due to environmental factors, including humidity, acidic soil, UV light, heat, etc." Nothing.

3. "Human genomic DNA was extracted and typed... Unfortunately, the DNA profile is a mixture of at least three people. This result indicates there has been severe contamination of the specimen by DNA originating from several people." Nothing

4. "After the customary number of PCR cycles (28), there was a very weak gender profile from the second bone sample taken from the child's skull (mastoid process). Other alleles had 'dropped off,' which is usually a result of degradation of the genomic DNA." Nothing.

5." PCR-based amplification of the DNA produced the same result as with the first half. That is, X-Y (male) and no peaks at other genetic loci tested." [Amelogenin gave another X-Y read as a male, which allows the extrapolation that both the X and Y chromosomes had to come from humans, as occurred in test #4. And there were still no significant (supra-threshold) results generated, which means not enough DNA was recovered to complete allele calls that would allow paternity testing.] Nothing.

Absence of DNA is not proof that it's an alien.Mitochondria DNA is used to trace populations because it is more stable, easier to get and doesn't break down.

Finally "a DNA sample was taken from the skull, and was subjected to DNA probes designed to detect sequences of DNA that are unique to humans (performed by Dr. David Sweet, Director of the Bureau of Legal Dentistry at the University of British Columbia)5. The Starchild skull DNA was found to contain both an X and a Y chromosome. This is 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 s*x chromosomes."

http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=3...

The DNA says human. It doesn't say "alien" The DNA is degraded as the skull is 900 years old and contaminated as multiple people have handed the thing.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Pyle and Bean are providing the proof, much less "extraordinary proof." Absence of proof (DNA) is NOT support of the claim.

Occam's Razor says to make judgments with the fewest assumptions. Here you have to ignore more probable reasons and jump out to aliens, travel to earth, having DNA close enough to interbreed.....hey we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, we can't interbreed.

So no. The skull is odd but can be explained with known reasons. Aliens not required.