And getting aliver all the time.
Posted on 10/21/2010 7:41:22 AM PDT by pabianice
Like, holy duplicate ballots, batman.
First of all, DNA only provides a “match” if you have your DNA already on record. Your average absentee voter is rather unlikely to have his DNA on file to be checked against.
The average DNA test costs around $200 also, and that is to match paternity against KNOWN samples. A sequencing effort to match the CODIS database would probably run you around $500 per sample.
I used to do DNA analysis for the CODIS database to enter the DNA ID markers of convicted felons from the State of Virginia.
This sounds like absolute garbage. I await further details to change my INFORMED opinion, but think such are unlikely to be forthcoming. Sounds like a hoax.
Thanks for the ping!
I am a Molecular Biologist and former DNA analyst. Apparently you knew who to ping for the DNA ping list!
Likely a process of elimination, probably similar to what police do to identify/eliminate suspects in a crime.
Nobody currently has ANY method whereby they can cheaply and easily from a DNA sample tell you “Caucasian male, blue eyes, brown curly hair, 6'3” tall most likely, and highly intelligent”.
Match or no match.
This “report” (no link) is almost certainly a steaming pile of bovine excrement.
Convince me why I shouldn't be paranoid about mishandling of DNA evidence, in light of our previous, if you dare!
But if I run a DNA sample from a rape victim, and it comes up as a match for a convicted felon who was DNA ID typed when he entered the penal system..... where was there any opportunity to “mishandle” any of that?
The DNA match came from the DNA of the guy who committed the rape. Where do you think I got the haploid DNA from the convicted felon? Stole it from his wife after coitus?
Your paranoia in such a case doesn't seem to be based upon information, but upon delusion.
Sounds like FOX has not yet actually run any DNA tests but is still confronting the public officials.
Well, I don't know. And that's the problem. I have no idea what methodology is used "DNA ID" somebody. I don't even know what a "DNA ID" is. And neither will a jury your peers - well, not you obviously, but you're the one man on the ping list.
The problem isn't so much about the soundness of the principles -- science really didn't get smarmy until the last decade or so -- but in the assumption of any modelling and matching mechanisms. What's a positive match? Is it a tolerance or an exact? What is the medium of sample and record storage? Did the database administrator screw up a reference somewhere?
Don't you get it? It's not your chosen field, it's the inherent instability of complex human constructs that causes false positives. And the more complex, the greater a) the implied trustworthiness of the system, b) the expense of proving it in error, and c) the likelihood for the "black swan."
Do I need to tell you that I've studied financial systems modelling for half my career, and pioneered one? Don't you think there were people telling me I was "delusional" when I said, in the early 1990's, that the government could become the nations largest landlord because of systemic issued with mortgage insurance -- issues I had no way of forseeing, but the risk of which was obvious to anyone looking?
%% Salivate, salivate — dance to the mucus... %%
LOL!
If you were on a jury where such DNA evidence were used, you would be taught the relevant science.
If you were adequately educated in (modern) science, you would already know most of it.
For your education I will now inform you of the basics.
DNA is unique to each human being, other than identical twins.
The Federal CODIS database tracks 13 locations in the Genome where there are short terminal repeats (a sequence such as “ATAGACAT” repeated from a dozen to a couple dozen times at a particular location).
A “DNA ID” is therefore 26 numbers that tell you the repeat number at each of those locations (keep in mind we each have one from our father and one from our mother).
This creates a unique designation, and the chances of two people having the exact same ID based upon this system is less than a Trillion to one (with 6 billion being the human population, that makes it “impossible” for there to be a random match from a different person).
The number of repeats is an exact number, not a number within a tolerance (the gel is run far enough that a 6 copy repeat standard is CLEARLY not where the 7 repeat standard is - and you match the sample to the standard).
So a positive match is when the DNA run from a crime scene matches those 26 numbers exactly.
The medium of the sample is a dried blood spot. The medium of the data is the Federal CODIS database. Each record is not only run twice independently, it is entered and cross checked so the type of database administration error you are supposing is much less likely than that the DNA sperm sample from the rape victim is an actual match to the convicted felon whose DNA ID was entered into the system.
Moreover an initial “false positive” will certainly be shown to be false, because both the initial subject and the crime scene sample are then independently reanalyzed to confirm the match.
So when the lab tells you that the sperm sample they ran from the rape victim was from convict #2534678 - they have on file to back their claim, the initial DNA gel that gave the ID type from the convict - as well as the haploid DNA gel that gave the ID type from the crime scene sample - can show you that it was a match - and then they can show you the gels from the reanalysis.
Moreover, if you suspect you are being railroaded by a government lab; you can get the samples run by an independent analyst.
This is almost never done, because the independent analysis will show the guilt of the guilty party AGAIN - and they seem unwilling to pay for the tests to AGAIN confirm that they are the guilty party.
OK, here's the problem. Whatever it was that caused you to claim this:
that thus you are unwilling to accept sciencesort of helps make my point and really prevents any further discussion for us because it a statement that borders on the unreasonable and is laden with presumptions that are just plain wrong.
This is a serious impediment to your credibility with me.
Yes, science has grown smarmy. That you can't admit even that convicts you of egregious, self-serving bias.
You're a product of American "higher education" and you've probably rarely worked in the private sector. You sound like everyone I've ever spoken to in medicine or law enforcement.
I'm done here. Gluck.
Your ‘refuse to accept evidence only a geek can see’ stance shows exactly where you are coming from with your science= smarmy geeks bias.
That is a SERIOUS impediment to you have any credibility with me.
Rarely worked in the private sector? Other than the USAF and grad school I have never NOT worked in the private sector.
But go on with your delusional self! Be sure to not read what I posted to you in good faith and for your education - if you understood it you might become a smarmy geek!
You should be done after a performance like that, and slink away in shame.
Your rejecting his political ideology will earn you that pejorative.
He simply cannot get it through his head that people are not rejecting science, but rejecting the misuse of having a government controlled DNA database that is sure to occur when the government gets it's hands on it.
Big Brother is alive and well for some people.
You are against DNA ID typing them?
Are you similarly against fingerprinting them?
Where do you see the distinction between the two?
And getting aliver all the time.
***Also require a I.D. at the polling place. Problem solved.***
Absolutely! And the I.D. should have the person’s picture on it.
voter fraud should be a Capital Offense punishable by DEATH!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.