Tad right wing, but what do you think?

3ndahalfof6 · 17-02-2013 10:59PM

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Having a DNA database of the whole country to solve crimes would end up either being useless, or putting a whole load of innocent people in jail. DNA testing is not 100% accurate, and if you start running fishing expeditions of testing DNA samples against 4.6 million people at a time, you'll get loads of false positive matches every time.

DNA evidence is only suitable to pick the guilty party from a short list of suspects who have evidence to place them near a crime scene.

DNA, is excatly that, to pin point a human (or other life form) our, or your DNA, is what makes you seperate from other humans (or species).

coolhull · 17-02-2013 11:04PM

CollardGreens wrote: »

So no more Dr. Phil shows whar we find out who the Baby Deddy is?

And what's Jeremy Kyle going to do to ''entertain'' us?

Chemical Burn · 17-02-2013 11:04PM

kingsenny wrote: »

Have you been brainwashed by some new cult? Your ideas are completely warped and a tad racist

How are they racist if they are being applied across the board

Cool Mo D · 17-02-2013 11:06PM

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

DNA, is excatly that, to pin point a human (or other life form) our, or your DNA, is what makes you seperate from other humans (or species).

That is correct, but irrelevant.

A DNA test does not sequence the entire genome, they just compare a few locations on your DNA that are known to be vary variable between people. The test is pretty accurate, but not 100% so, and it is vulnerable to contamination and laboratory error.

3ndahalfof6 · 17-02-2013 11:08PM

Chemical Burn wrote: »

How are they racist if they are being applied across the board

What was the thread title?

Chemical Burn · 17-02-2013 11:10PM

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

What was the thread title?

RIGHT WING EQUAL RACIST

token101 · 17-02-2013 11:11PM

I actually quite like the idea of having a fingerprint passport system, if it's technologically possible. Make it opt in if necessary.

coolhull wrote: »

And what's Jeremy Kyle going to do to ''entertain'' us?

Regardless of how far humanity evolves, there'll always be stupid people to harass.

3ndahalfof6 · 17-02-2013 11:11PM

Cool Mo D wrote: »

That is correct, but irrelevant.

A DNA test does not sequence the entire genome, they just compare a few locations on your DNA that are known to be vary variable between people. The test is pretty accurate, but not 100% so, and it is vulnerable to contamination and laboratory error.

So if it is so inaccurate, why.

Chemical Burn · 17-02-2013 11:12PM

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

So if it is so inaccurate, why.

DNA tests are 99.999999999999 %

catallus · 17-02-2013 11:13PM

DNA tests are 100%

They can even identify separate identical twins.

Chemical Burn · 17-02-2013 11:15PM

catallus wrote: »

DNA tests are 100%

They can even identify separate identical twins.

Really ? I thought they had 100% same DNA (but different fingerprints, as they form after 3 months gestation or so).

omahaid · 17-02-2013 11:16PM

I knew I heard that before

Lisa: Could you use it in a sentence?
Chalmers: Nothing could ameliorate the ineptitude of Principal Skinner.
Seymour: I wish he wouldn't use me in every example.

Seachmall · 17-02-2013 11:18PM

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Having a DNA database of the whole country to solve crimes would end up either being useless, or putting a whole load of innocent people in jail. DNA testing is not 100% accurate, and if you start running fishing expeditions of testing DNA samples against 4.6 million people at a time, you'll get loads of false positive matches every time.

DNA evidence is only suitable to pick the guilty party from a short list of suspects who have evidence to place them near a crime scene.

DNA testing is 99.99% accurate. So if you searched a national database for a suspect it would return 4600 suspects. Depending on the crime you could trim it down. Example, if the crime was rape you could remove females leaving 1300 and remove under 15 and over 65 year olds leaving 938. You could limit the search even further by location and so forth.

You could then cross-reference that between known sex offenders which would (presumably) only result in one or two names. And all that would take less time than it takes to make a cup of coffee.

You can then apply more traditional police procedures to build a case (or eliminate the suspect).

In saying that I'm not entirely in favour (or opposed) to the idea. You do immediately risk introducing bias into the investigation.

Procrastastudy · 17-02-2013 11:20PM

catallus wrote: »

DNA tests are 100%

They can even identify separate identical twins.

I was just about to post about the OP but yours will do.

DNA tests are not 100% accurate. A full* STR profile compared to a full STR profile is 99.9999(lots of 9s) likely to match up a suspect with a crime, however that is far from the only test used.

In rape cases the DNA of the suspect is usually diluted by the victims DNA to such an extent that the only the male (Y-STR) profile is tested. You share the Y-STR profile with every paternal male relative. If a body is dug up it's mitochondrial DNA thats tested which again is only half a profile.

A DNA database is in the works there are massive issues with the legislation. I'd also suggest watching the film Gattaca for a not entirely far fetched vision of what keeping DNA profiles on everyone could end up doing.

* full = 11 or 13 (IIRC) markers - again this is a tiny number but frankly enough unless you're dealing with identical twins.

3ndahalfof6 · 17-02-2013 11:21PM

Chemical Burn wrote: »

DNA tests are 99.999999999999 %

I agree, I am just wondering why someone would use it to discount (try), I do think once stem cell treatment becomes the norm, (and it will at some stage) DNA will become what it is supposed to be.

Cool Mo D · 17-02-2013 11:24PM

catallus wrote: »

DNA tests are 100%

They can even identify separate identical twins.

Normal DNA tests are not 100%, and cannot detect identical twins unless you spend serious money - see this current rape case in France for example. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21401200

Even if the test was 100%, there is still a risk of the samples being contaminated (DNA is pretty much everywhere, after all), or sloppy lab technicians.

Another risk is that if the DNA database was computerised, anyone who had access to the database and access to a modern biology lab could easily make DNA to frame anyone in the country.

I'm not saying DNA tests are useless - far from it! But they are only enough to convict on IF you have some supporting evidence that the person who matched the test is one of a small few people who could have committed the crime. Basically, DNA testing is not a magic bullet.

K-9 · 17-02-2013 11:25PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

surely that kind of state control over private life is more left wing than right wing

Though left wingers would tend to be more concerned about civil liberties, right wingers tend to say "tough, it's for security reasons".

Awaits example proving me wrong but generally I think it is right.

Procrastastudy · 17-02-2013 11:27PM

K-9 wrote: »

Though left wingers would tend to be more concerned about civil liberties, right wingers tend to say "tough, it's for security reasons".

Awaits example proving me wrong but generally I think it is right.

DNA database is an odd one - some people/groups who would be considered very left wing want it as its as useful for exonerating people as it is for convicting them.

I know one at least one constitutional lawyer with very complex views on the subject.

3ndahalfof6 · 17-02-2013 11:27PM

So cattulas is right, (you just need to spend)

Procrastastudy · 17-02-2013 11:30PM

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

So cattulas is right, (you just need to spend)

Still not 100% you just keep adding 9s tot he 99.99999...% until you test and compare every marker which would be virtually impossible. In the context of the OP though DNA testing can be far from 100% when comparing samples.

catallus · 17-02-2013 11:30PM

Yeah, it's pricey, but the technology is developing all the time. There's some report in a science mag( must dig for a link) that even if twins are born with actual 100% the same DNA it deteriorates as you age so if they are 20 years of age or whatever the genome shows up subtle differences.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical

coolhull · 17-02-2013 11:33PM

catallus wrote: »

DNA tests are 100%
.

Tell that to the OJ Simpson jury

The Pheasant · 17-02-2013 11:35PM

What's all this saying Hitler and the Nazis were socialists? It was originally a socialist party but Hitler quickly converted it to a far right party. That's why they allied with the fascists of Italy and so many parallels can be drawn between the two countries at the time (propaganda, youth movements, black/brownshirts, public works schemes, Nationalist and racist views, cults of leaders, aggressive expansionist policies, censorship etcetera etcetera)

Procrastastudy · 17-02-2013 11:35PM

coolhull wrote: »

Tell that to the OJ Simpson jury

Juries are far, far, far from 100%!

Cool Mo D · 17-02-2013 11:36PM

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

So cattulas is right, (you just need to spend)

It is impossible to remove human error from the equation though, so even a theoretically perfect DNA test will convict the wrong person if the samples are not handled correctly, which is a far bigger issue than how many nines come after the 99.99% reliable test.

Unless you remove all human contact from DNA sample collecting and testing, there will be plenty of potential for mistakes

3ndahalfof6 · 17-02-2013 11:37PM

catallus wrote: »

Yeah, it's pricey, but the technology is developing all the time. There's some report in a science mag( must dig for a link) that even if twins are born with actual 100% the same DNA it deteriorates as you age so if they are 20 years of age or whatever the genome shows up subtle differences.

Very subtle very, it would take many many seperations from the family line for something like this to show up, (unless you had birth within the family).

kowloon · 18-02-2013 12:05AM

Left wing and right wing are such useless terms. You can simplify things to such an extent they become meaningless. Off the top of my head 'Authoritarian' would stand out as something a little more apt.
I heard the Sikhs creep down to the pool early in the morning to lay out their towels and stake their claim on all the best spots.

3ndahalfof6 · 18-02-2013 12:11AM

kowloon wrote: »

Left wing and right wing are such useless terms. You can simplify things to such an extent they become meaningless. Off the top of my head 'Authoritarian' would stand out as something a little more apt.
I heard the Sikhs creep down to the pool early in the morning to lay out their towels and stake their claim on all the best spots.

1 of the reasons I do not take a towel, I wipe the blood as I type.

catallus · 18-02-2013 12:19AM

kowloon wrote: »

Left wing and right wing are such useless terms. You can simplify things to such an extent they become meaningless. Off the top of my head 'Authoritarian' would stand out as something a little more apt.
I heard the Sikhs creep down to the pool early in the morning to lay out their towels and stake their claim on all the best spots.

I'm sorry Kowloon, but how are they useless? The left and right have been used in political discourse for generations; now maybe the times we live in can excuse the general population from ignoring the more subtle differences between the two but to say that writers such as Orwell or Sartre wrote so much about the differences between the two for nothing is just not sitting well with me.

Herb Powell · 18-02-2013 12:31AM

Chemical Burn wrote: »

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.

Stopped reading there.

Tad right wing, but what do you think?

Comments