The Starchild skull is human

INTRODUCTION I want my opponent to stop ducking the looming question, the elephant in the back of the room and directly tell me what he thinks the skull belongs to. If it's not a deformed human skull than my opponent's theory as to what it is, is needed. Is it an alien human hybrid like the skull's owner believe? If so, it's still human. Is it a different species of human? If so it's still human. I'd love to hear exactly what my opponent thinks the skull is of. I think Occam's Razor says the skull is clearly human. Hydrocephalus I probably did my position and this debate a disservice by rushing my round 2 arguments and not elaborating on them enough. I apologize for that. The deformed shape of the skull is likely from multiple versions of modern diseases such as Progeria and Hydrocephalus as well as cultural skull shaping practices in the area and time period the skull is from. Let's look at the some of the unusual features of the skull my opponent somehow believes makes the kid an alien or something. SINUS PASSAGES Lacking sinus passages isn't extremely rare as my opponent would lead you to believe. In fact about 5% of the population has no sinus passages. http://www.utmb.edu... Far from being rare, the lack of these sinus passages are actually pretty common. THIN BONES Another odd feature of the skull is it's thinness. Another rare disease that could possibly account for the skulls unique shape and thinness is called progeria. People with progeria, besides have a rounded skull shape like the starchild skull would also have a thin bone structure, this symptom of progeria as well as many other diseases is called Osteitis Fibrosis. http://www.nlm.nih.gov... I ask my opponent and the voters this question. Is it more likely that a deformed human looking skull has a set of rare conditions causing the unique shape of the skull or is actually an alien from outer space? DENT IN SKULL Near the time when the skull was found and also prevalent in Peruvian culture at the time was a practice known as skull binding. The dent in the back of the skull my opponent mentions would be something found a lot of times from the same period of time. It honestly shouldn't be the least bit shocking to find a deformed skull in Peru. http://www.skullsunlimited.com... DNA ANALYSIS It's actually hard to get ahold of the skull for DNA testing, because the skull up until recently has been held by Mr. Pye, who made a career before he obtained the skull of selling the ancient astronaut theory. Despite this and other underhanded tactics by the "starchild project" Pye founded, I still think enough evidence exists proving the skull to be human. The Starchild skull was found to have C and Y chromosomes. http://www.nlm.nih.gov... The Y chromosome would mean that it's from a human father. The Mitochondrial DNA from the skull has been shown to be from Haplogroup C or in other words a human mother from a Native American race. http://rense.com... The last source was from Loyd Pye himself admitting that Haplogroup C DNA was recovered. My opponent suggests that earlier tests showing the starchild skull to be contaminated and gives a link to Failed fiction writer and ancient astronaut theorist Loyd Pye's article calling the results contaminated but never stating why or how he came to that conclusion. This is a case of him not liking the results so he commits what's known as the genetic fallacy. A fallacy that dismisses any evidence contrary to his position. It's also a well known fact that XRAys make recovering nuclear DNA much harder. So recovering it early before Xray testing and then having a hard time doing the same thing later is something that should be expected and isn't contradictory to later tests as my opponent assumes. My opponent then goes on to assert that the skull could not be human because of all the mutations in the testing of the mitochondrial DNA. This just comes from not understanding how to interpret the results properly. "an automatically generated list of possible procedural errors designed to help geneticists check all possible flaws in their testing techniques". http://www.badarchaeology.com... I believe it's these flaws that Mr. Pye is talking about and is just unaware of how to analyze the data. CONCLUSION My opponent has failed to offer an alternative for what this skull could be. It looks human, DNA testing confirms it's human. There is no leap in believing that this is a human skull which suffers from some disorders that deform the skull, as well as cultural skull binding taking place. The skull of this child has been treated like a piece of property by Mr. Pye, who's limited testing to people not sensitive to his views and has even had some testing done by confidential labs, with undisclosed names (last source). An abnormal human skull, even one with unique properties is still a human skull. If my opponent is claiming it's not human, I want him to say what animal it more closely resembles than man.