Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Flawed forensics: DNA analysis is NOT The Truth, as in endless cop show reruns


File:DNA simple.svg And much harm follows from believing so. From Shawna Williams at The Scientist:

Cutting-edge DNA identification techniques used by the office of New York City’s chief medical examiner were less reliable than claimed, some experts say. …

“I’m 100 percent convinced that there are many people who are incarcerated who were convicted with DNA evidence who are innocent,” Bicka Barlow, a lawyer with a background in genetics and molecular biology, tells the Times.

At issue in the letter are techniques called “high-sensitivity testing,” or low copy number analysis, which detects trace amounts of DNA, and the Forensic Statistical Tool (FST), a software program to calculate whether a given person’s genetic material is likely present in a sample of mixed DNA. More.

Science promotes superstition as readily as does any other intellectual exercise because the key driver of superstition is the attempt to use knowledge as a form of control rather than understanding. That leads inevitably to slackness and corruption, which means that what is exalted as the Truth falls short of ordinary truths and ends up becoming discredited.

See also: Forensics files: What? We can’t trust forensic science?

Forensic DNA evidence in doubt? (low copy analysis)


Is forensics really a science.? Yes, and it suffers from the same problems as any other.

Each person has 46 pairs of unique DNA. Unique is a word used to mean, 'one of a kind', meaning no person on the planet has identical DNA. Even identical twins have flaws, mistakes, and junk DNA that her sister doesn't have. This being the case DNA evidence, and other forensic evidence are powerful tools in identifying criminals, and criminal activity. I suspect NEWS hopes to discredit forensics in a clumsy and roundabout effort to discredit paleontology. This rigorous science also depends on clues, evidence, and interpretation of evidence. You see, if NEWS can discredit one, then the other is also questionable. There is of course one glaring fault in this, 'guilt by association' ploy; the science. Yes DNA evidence needs to be backed up by other physical evidence, and it most often is. The techniques are becoming ever more clinical and exact, and trying to cast doubt upon this science is irresponsible at best, and positively harmful to policing at worst. Many religionists I know like to claim Biblical authenticity by pointing out that it is full of, 'eyewitness' accounts. The police have known since modern policing began, that 'eyewitness' accounts are usually the most unreliable sources of evidence going. If ten people say 'X' murdered 'Y', and the physical evidence, DNA, finger prints, blood, gun shot resideue, and ballistics contradict the ten eyewitnesses what do the police do? I'll tell you, they throw the ten eyewitnesses accounts in the bin, and start a searsh for motive. Forensics and evolution are similar in this respect. The eyewitness can be ignored if the physical evidence contrdicts the eyewitness in forensics. And we can ignore the faithful in evolutionary science, because the physical evidence is equally overwhelming. rvb8

Leave a Reply