Just noting that the mummy is very recent, perhaps 50 years old. (Not a 50 years old person, but born and mummified about 50 years ago.)

"Ata was stillborn or died immediately after her birth, perhaps 40 years before her remains were discovered."

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/22/genetic-test...

The only thing I can find on the age is "younger than 500 years":

> the average DNA fragment size for Ata is ∼300 bp which, based on a DNA-decay model (Allentoft et al. 2012), is consistent with a sample younger than 500 yr.

https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2018/03/21/gr.223693....

Carbon-dating and other forensic methods should be able to nail that down much more precisely. If nothing else, at some point, national DNA databases will pinpoint the fetus's relatives.

That contradicts this article.

Not necessarily, on age at least. The article just states:

> After death, DNA disintegrates into fragments, which become smaller over the centuries. Ata’s DNA fragments are still large, another clue that she’s less than 500 years old.

> Ata’s bones contain DNA that not only shows she was human

The fact that there's a DNA already means it's not an alien, doesn't it? Having a life form with the same uber-complex chain of nucleotides as the life on earth developed is as improbable as a server on an alien mothership being compatible with a Macbook. (Quick primer on the subject: https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/cracking-aliens-gen...)

Having said that, the NYT article reads like the researchers are still unable to explain the discrepancies between the age and the well-formed skeleton as well as the number of mutations. Were there any secret nuclear tests conducted half a century ago in Chile? But that would also probably be insufficient to cause all that. I would bet on experiments trying to cause deliberate mutations.

Not if you believe in panspermia.

It depends on the kind of panspermia.

If it's about generic organic molecules then the DNA is a local construct. If it's about microorganisms, then it's different.

True. It's also possible that DNA is the only form of life that really works, but we just don't know yet.

There's 6-base pair organisms now. https://www.sciencealert.com/new-organisms-have-been-formed-...

Also, RNA seems to work and it's possible we started out using RNA and later evolved to DNA.

It excludes other bipeds or apes.

Not necessarily. Can be also a contamination from an external source of DNA. The article claims a mixed chilean-european DNA but we don't know how many moved humans had touched this skeleton before

And there is the fact that we share DNA with other species. It seems [1] that we shared a 93% of DNA with Macaca mulatta for example.

[1] https://www.livescience.com/1411-monkey-dna-points-common-hu...

On that second point, charitably we can assume that they found a marker which is uniquely human. Although yeah, could be contamination.

I don't know any other hypothetical building blocks for complex life. It could possibly be the case that the alternatives are too unstable and that alien life would be made of something remarkably similar to (but obviously not identical to) Earth DNA.

There's RNA and possibly others even on this planet: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3331698/

not directly related, just by association - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation - i imagine that would be a one source of alien legends (not that i don't believe in aliens myself :) One of the references in the article is about such practice dating back to Neanderthals (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/202808)

I always had assumed it was a very clever hoax, now my heart bleeds for the poor little girl and her mother. Hopefully she will be reburied.

Pictures I have seen before always made me think that skeleton was a hoax. At least the Alien lunacy has been put to rest.

Although, I bet there will be some people who would not believe the results.

Warning: photo of dead baby at top of linked article.

mmh... I'm unsure about what to think. Reduced ribs, crest and pelvis shape suggest more a small monkey without tail than a human to me. Is too tiny for having calcified bones yet. Some things suggest human foetus, not stillborn. Other are not easy to explain.