The Starchild skull is human

Not Congenital Hydrocephalus Craniofacial expert Dr. Ted Robinson analyzed the starchild skull and confirmed that the Starchild skull could not have suffered from hydrocephaly. [1] "Dr. Bachynsky noted that there is no evidence of erosion of the inner table of the skull. Such erosion would be consistent with a diagnosis of hydrocephaly, so this condition can safely be ruled out as a cause of the abnormalities expressed. Hydrocephaly also causes a widening of the sutures, again not expressed here. There was consensus agreement to both of these observations by other experts conversant with these features."[2] (#8) Another reason why the Starchild skull could not have suffered from hydrocephaly, is that hydrocephaly does not result in an inward dent in the skull as seen in the Starchild skull, since hydrocephaly causes swelling in the skull but not an inward dent. For example you don"t see this kind of dent in the hydrocephalic skulls my opponent gave links to. DNA Test Results My opponent sited this source [3] and he asserted that the DNA tests in 1999, 2010, and 2011 all show that the Starchild skull is human. "In 2010, further DNA analysis was undertaken by the National Institutes of Health BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) programme, which "compares nucleotide or protein sequences to sequence databases and calculates the statistical significance of matches" to infer functional and evolutionary relationships between sequences as well as help identify members of gene families". The procedure found that 265 base pairs could be matched, demonstrating "that at least some of the nuclear DNA from the Starchild is from a human being". [3] Sharing some DNA with humans does not imply that it is human. For example humans share about 98% of their nuclear DNA with chimpanzees and about 50% of their nuclear DNA with bananas. Therefor only sharing some DNA with humans does not imply that the Starchild skull is human. So when my opponent asserted that according this source [3] the 2010 DNA test shows the Starchild skull to be human, was actually incorrect. If you read my opponent"s source [3] you will see it makes no attempt to show that the 2011 DNA tests show the Starchild skull to be human, despite what my opponent claimed. Also the 2011 and 2012 DNA test prove that the 1999 DNA tests must have been false(do to perhaps contamination), since the newer DNA tests were done with more current and advanced technologies and contradict the 1999 test results. Also the DNA test from 2011 indicate that the Starchild skull is not human because of the amount of mutations found in the mitochondrial DNA. [4] Based on the number of mutations found in the Starchild"s mitochondrial DNA, it is projected that the total amount of mutations in the mitochondrial DNA is between 800 and 1000. [4] And since all humans have no more than 120 mutations in their mitochondrial DNA [4], unless the unlikely event that the mutations found in the Starchild"s mitochondrial DNA does not fairly represent the total number of mutations in the Starchild"s mitochondrial DNA, the Starchild cannot be human. Additionally, the 2012 DNA test was able to extract the foxp2 gene from the Starchild skull, 56 base pair differences have been found, while humans normally don"t have any. [5] This chart shows the amount of base pair differences in the foxp2 gene in each animal compared to humans. [5] "Mutations of many FOX genes either give rise to different developmental disorders affecting many organs or result in death due to improper development" [6] The amount of base pair differences in the Starchild"s foxp2 gene are completely non-human, and since mutations in the foxp2 gene often result in death, it is extremely unlikely that the Starchild skull could survive that many mutations to its foxp2 gene, but we know the Starchild survived until maturity because of how worn out its teeth are. [2](#17) Additional Evidence for why it is not human This [7] lists 24 abnormal features of the Starchild skull which can"t all be explained with human deformities. These features include but are not limited to: "The bone is uniformly half as thick, or less, than normal human bone. It is not thin in a specific area or areas due to abnormality, it is thin all over." "The skull itself weighs half as much as human skulls of comparable size." "The Starchild Skull"s eye sockets are unusually shaped and are only 0.7 inches at maximum depth, compared to normal human eye sockets which average about 2 inches deep." "It has no brow ridges, which all primates have. Its forehead is smoothly curved straight down to its upper eye sockets, unlike humans or any higher primate." "The Starchild Skull had no frontal sinuses, an extremely rare condition." Conclusion Based on this overwhelming evidence, it is almost impossible for the Starchild skull to be human. Sources [1] [2] Preliminary Analysis Of A Highly Unusual Human-Like Skull Dr. Ted J. Robinson, M.D., L.M.C.C., F.R.C.S (c), 2004 http://www.starchildproject.com... [3] http://www.badarchaeology.com... [4] http://starchildproject.com... [5] http://starchildproject.com... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.starchildproject.com...