110,000 year old DNA

[idav]

Well, Forensic DNA testing is not as reliable as you think it is.

Quoting:
Take the case of Kerry Robinson of Georgia. Robinson was implicated, in part, when two analysts concluded his genes may be present on the victim’s vaginal swabs. The jury convicted, and Robinson received a 20-year sentence.

Greg Hampikian, a biology and criminal justice professor at Boise State University and director of the Idaho Innocence Project, was a defense expert in the trial and felt sure the analysts had reached their conclusion because of unconscious bias: They knew a great deal about the case, including that the detectives believed Robinson was guilty. To test his suspicions, Hampikian and cognitive neuroscientist Itiel Dror of University College London sent the DNA data to 17 other analysts and asked them to interpret it without any information about the case. Only one agreed with the original analysts.

Despite these results, the Georgia appeals court declined to overturn the conviction, stating that “as long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted … we must uphold the jury’s verdict.”

Because DNA is more reliable than other forensics, scientists have shrugged off suggestions that it could fall victim to the vagaries of bias. But Dror noted that much DNA analysis involves interpretation. With interpretation comes subjectivity, and with subjectivity can come error.

“DNA results can be in the eye of the beholder,” Dror said.

I said it was very good evidence which at this point is beyond dispute. Its probably some of the BEST evidence we have for confirming identity and finding your ancestors.

DNA is not in the eye of the beholder thats nonsense. Being skeptical of the DNA doesn't change the overwhelming facts DNA show about our evolutionary past especially in relation to the ape genomes that have been completely mapped.

 

[Zosimus]

I said it was very good evidence which at this point is beyond dispute. Its probably some of the BEST evidence we have for confirming identity and finding your ancestors.

DNA is not in the eye of the beholder thats nonsense. Being skeptical of the DNA doesn't change the overwhelming facts DNA show about our evolutionary past especially in relation to the ape genomes that have been completely mapped.

DNA Ancestry Tests Are 'Meaningless' for Your Historical Genealogy Search

"Going back far enough, each of us has more ancestors than we have sections of DNA - which means that there are many ancestors from whom we have inherited no DNA, and that ultimately there will be many sequences of DNA that most people share."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh, right. I forgot.

It's only a theory.

Yeah ... heard that one before. I have zero tolerance for willful ignorance so I think I'll just back out before I tell yo what I really think ...

... Shalom.

 

[idav]

DNA Ancestry Tests Are 'Meaningless' for Your Historical Genealogy Search

"Going back far enough, each of us has more ancestors than we have sections of DNA - which means that there are many ancestors from whom we have inherited no DNA, and that ultimately there will be many sequences of DNA that most people share."

Saying we share some DNA and don't share some is not news nor does it make it meaningless, that's not how the article reads. For the purposes of the OP its the part where it says "ultimately there will be many sequences of DNA most people share" supports what's being said about common ancestors. Thats what makes and breaks ancestors and that's how we match ancestors with apes, through DNA sequences we share that get passed onto both lines from common decent. The article says it's great for getting genetic information of an entire population so it supports what the op is saying.

 

[Zosimus]

Yeah ... heard that one before. I have zero tolerance for willful ignorance so I think I'll just back out before I tell yo what I really think ...

... Shalom.

Well, then, you must find it very hard to put up with yourself.

 

[Zosimus]

Saying we share some DNA and don't share some is not news nor does it make it meaningless, that's not how the article reads. For the purposes of the OP its the part where it says "ultimately there will be many sequences of DNA most people share" supports what's being said about common ancestors. Thats what makes and breaks ancestors and that's how we match ancestors with apes, through DNA sequences we share that get passed onto both lines from common decent. The article says it's great for getting genetic information of an entire population so it supports what the op is saying.

You only read the parts you think support your position. Another classic case of confirmation bias.

The False Promise of DNA Testing

 

[idav]

You only read the parts you think support your position. Another classic case of confirmation bias.

No again just throwing confirmation around doesn't solve your issue. I read how it isn't great for getting exact geneology matches like from places like ancestry.com or whatever. It didn't put a dent in the arguments regarding the OP in fact confirmed that DNA is greate for getting greater populations.

Further rape convictions have little to do with the OP. We aren't trying to figure out if our ancestors were raped we are finding their relations through genetics which is completely viable as your previous article illuminated. I know how reasonable doubt works thats not what this thread is about.

What are you really trying to say with these side tracks, that DNA is too complex to be relied on? Please.

The technology has been releasing false imprisoned folks and convicting real criminals when no other evidence is good enough, witnesses are not reliable, most everything else is circumstantial. Your not going to convince anyone that DNA evidence is circumstantial cause it isn't.

 

[idav]

The False Promise of DNA Testing

If anything DNA should be able to falsify common ancestry to other apes instead of confirming such notions. It isn't false promise it ends debates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

The crown group mammals, sometimes called 'true mammals', are the extant mammals and their relatives back to their last common ancestor. Since this group has living members, DNA analysis can be applied in an attempt to explain the evolution of features that do not appear in fossils

So DNA tells even more of the story that fossils already show all mammals evolved from common ancestors, not just apes.

 

[Zosimus]

No again just throwing confirmation around doesn't solve your issue. I read how it isn't great for getting exact geneology matches like from places like ancestry.com or whatever. It didn't put a dent in the arguments regarding the OP in fact confirmed that DNA is greate for getting greater populations.

Further rape convictions have little to do with the OP. We aren't trying to figure out if our ancestors were raped we are finding their relations through genetics which is completely viable as your previous article illuminated. I know how reasonable doubt works thats not what this thread is about.

What are you really trying to say with these side tracks, that DNA is too complex to be relied on? Please.

The technology has been releasing false imprisoned folks and convicting real criminals when no other evidence is good enough, witnesses are not reliable, most everything else is circumstantial. Your not going to convince anyone that DNA evidence is circumstantial cause it isn't.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Of course, DNA evidence is circumstantial! I think that you have no idea what the phrase "circumstantial evidence" means.


Studies have shown that forensics experts (such as fingerprint and DNA analysts) can be swayed by a variety of factors, including cognitive bias, time pressure, and expectations.

 

[idav]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Of course, DNA evidence is circumstantial! I think that you have no idea what the phrase "circumstantial evidence" means.


Studies have shown that forensics experts (such as fingerprint and DNA analysts) can be swayed by a variety of factors, including cognitive bias, time pressure, and expectations.

And you don't know how to have a civilized debate. It is direct evidence which is good enough, and DNA evidence cannot possibly be in the same realm of an eye witness account with all sorts of inferences.

BTW it is either direct or circumstantial. Trying to say its direct but still circumstantial is not correct. Then there would be no such thing as non-circumstantial evidence.

Anyway back to the topic at hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

The crown group mammals, sometimes called 'true mammals', are the extant mammals and their relatives back to their last common ancestor. Since this group has living members, DNA analysis can be applied in an attempt to explain the evolution of features that do not appear in fossils

 

[idav]

Studies have shown that forensics experts (such as fingerprint and DNA analysts) can be swayed by a variety of factors, including cognitive bias, time pressure, and expectations.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony.

 

[Zosimus]

If anything DNA should be able to falsify common ancestry to other apes instead of confirming such notions. It isn't false promise it ends debates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals


So DNA tells even more of the story that fossils already show all mammals evolved from common ancestors, not just apes.

And you don't know how to have a civilized debate. It is direct evidence which is good enough, and DNA evidence cannot possibly be in the same realm of an eye witness account with all sorts of inferences.

BTW it is either direct or circumstantial. Trying to say its direct but still circumstantial is not correct. Then there would be no such thing as non-circumstantial evidence.

Anyway back to the topic at hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

I linked you to trial.laws.com, which acknowledges that DNA evidence is circumstantial. In response, you simply assert that black is white and up is down?!

DNA evidence is NOT direct evidence. It's circumstantial! Do you not believe me? Look at DNA evidence not enough to convict rape accused

... in a recent case before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), the evidence regarding the outcome of tests carried out via the most common DNA testing method used in South Africa, and internationally, has been held to be circumstantial. An article published in Beeld (“Vrygelaatweens SA se DNS-toetse” – September 19) reported that a man convicted of raping a four-year old girl as a result of positive DNA tests has been freed. In what the report describes as a ‘directional judgment’, five judges held that evidence led about the DNA tests conducted via the so-called STR-method was circumstantial. Evidence that Sandile Bokolo’s DNA was found on the girl’s private parts could not, seen alone, prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt

 

[Zosimus]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

Irrelevant. Off topic.

 

[idav]

DNA evidence is NOT direct evidence. It's circumstantial! Do you not believe me? Look at DNA evidence not enough to convict rape accused

I believe you but its ridiculous as I've shown its more direct than some persons false memories, which you deem irrelevant when it doesn't suit your argument. What does any of that have to do with DNA being the best evidence we have. Your going into a non-sequitar now, fabulous. Cause we can't win 100% of rape cases therefore we are not related to apes?

 

[idav]

... in a recent case before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), the evidence regarding the outcome of tests carried out via the most common DNA testing method used in South Africa, and internationally, has been held to be circumstantial. An article published in Beeld (“Vrygelaatweens SA se DNS-toetse” – September 19) reported that a man convicted of raping a four-year old girl as a result of positive DNA tests has been freed. In what the report describes as a ‘directional judgment’, five judges held that evidence led about the DNA tests conducted via the so-called STR-method was circumstantial. Evidence that Sandile Bokolo’s DNA was found on the girl’s private parts could not, seen alone, prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt

http://wsls.com/2016/04/06/dna-evidence-proves-a-newport-news-mans-innocence-after-30-years/

 

[Zosimus]

I believe you but its ridiculous as I've shown its more direct than some persons false memories, which you deem irrelevant when it doesn't suit your argument. What does any of that have to do with DNA being the best evidence we have. Your going into a non-sequitar now, fabulous. Cause we can't win 100% of rape cases therefore we are not related to apes?

You have no idea what you're talking about. You are using the phrase "direct evidence" to mean reliable evidence and the phrase "circumstantial evidence" to mean unreliable. The real situation is far more nuanced than that! Even eyewitness testimony is often circumstantial.

Now, correctly done eyewitness testimony is 96 percent accurate. The problem is that most places don't do it right at all–not even half right! The article you linked to makes specific suggestions on how to improve the situation. I doubt you read them.

Here's a simple example. Maria is murdered. John says, "I saw Mark shoot her." That's direct evidence.

On the other hand, if John says, "I saw Mark leaving the scene of the crime at about the time of the murder" that's circumstantial evidence. In the second case, John did not actually see the crime get committed. Even if his eyewitness testimony is 100% correct, it's still possible that Mark didn't shoot Maria. The evidence requires us to make an inference–one that may be unjustified. On the other hand, if John says that he saw the crime happen and saw Mark with his own eyes, no inference is required. It's just a matter of whether John really did see Mark as opposed to someone who looked a lot like Mark but wasn't Mark.

 

[idav]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Careful now.

Now, correctly done eyewitness testimony is 96 percent accurate.

Your skeptical of conclusive evidence but not of people having accurate memories, thats rich.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

DNA evidence is pretty conclusive and really a testament to evolution being a fact.

The following DNA was found to obe 110,000 years old and accounted for genetic diversity found in Europeans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/s...ome-very-old-cousins-the-denisovans.html?_r=0

Denying the genetic evidence for evolution is like trying to deny your cousin really being part of your family.

DNA evidence further suggests we are closely related to chimps and bonobos through nothing more than divergence via evolution.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

DNA evidence is pretty conclusive and really a testament to evolution being a fact.

The following DNA was found to obe 110,000 years old and accounted for genetic diversity found in Europeans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/s...ome-very-old-cousins-the-denisovans.html?_r=0

Denying the genetic evidence for evolution is like trying to deny your cousin really being part of your family.

DNA evidence further suggests we are closely related to chimps and bonobos through nothing more than divergence via evolution.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

What dating techniques are used? Just curious.

 

[Zosimus]

Careful now.

Your skeptical of conclusive evidence but not of people having accurate memories, thats rich.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Accurate memory doesn't come into the picture at all!

You have a line-up. The police officer who is conducting the line-up puts 5 people in the line-up. All the people resemble the description of the suspect. A second police officer, who doesn't know who the suspect is, is in the room with the witness. That's called blinding. Since the policeofficer doesn't know who the suspect is, he cannot taint the results through verbal comments or body language. Witness 1 selects the suspect from the line-up. What are the odds that this might happen purely through chance? The answer is 1 in 5, or 20 percent. In other words, we are now 80 percent certain that the person selected is the suspect.

Then a second witness comes and does the same. A third police officer, who doesn't know who the suspect is, handles the second witness. This police officer cannot taint the process either. When the second witness identifies the same person as did the first, we can be 96 percent certain that the person identified is the guilty party.

That's simple math. Additionally, this very procedure was outlined in the link that you provided. I quote:

The Innocence Project has proposed legislation to improve the accuracy of eyewitness IDs. These proposals include videotaping the identification procedure so that juries can determine if it was conducted properly, putting individuals in the lineup who resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator, informing the viewer of the lineup that the perpetrator may or may not be in it, and ensuring that the person administering the lineup or other identification procedure does not know who the suspect is.

This is obvious to anyone who understands the conceptual biases that plague all human endeavors, including scientific ones.

 

[Muffled]

DNA evidence is pretty conclusive and really a testament to evolution being a fact.

The following DNA was found to obe 110,000 years old and accounted for genetic diversity found in Europeans.
In a Tooth, DNA From Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans

Denying the genetic evidence for evolution is like trying to deny your cousin really being part of your family.

DNA evidence further suggests we are closely related to chimps and bonobos through nothing more than divergence via evolution.
Genetics

I believe my Denisovian is minimal. Considering that we are talking of more than a billion possible ancestors, the odds are that one would be a Denisovian.