On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 10:01:34 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > Nathan, I respectfully disagree. The current firestorm on the Internet, The internet? Really? You use 'firestorm on the internet' as your standard for scientific relevance? > from what I have evaluated, shows that even the Forensic DNA evidence is > being highly challenged. I refer to, for example: Forensic DNA evidence > is not infallible Infallibility is a standard NO forensic evidence can meet, not fingerprints, not confessions, not eyewitness testimony. Certainly it is a standard that the genealogical documentary record can't meet. The thing is, though, the procedures and practices of of forensic and genealogical DNA collection and testing are different, and the challenges entirely distinct. > As DNA analysis techniques become more sensitive, we must be careful to > reassess the probabilities of error, argues Cynthia M. Cale. > http://www.nature.com/news/forensic-dna-evidence-is-not-infallible-1.18654 Stop being dishonest! You are citing an article that has no relevance whatsoever to the type of DNA testing done for genealogical purposes. You would know this if you actually read the essay and understood it, so I am forced to conclude one of three things: you never read it and are just harvesting quotes; you read it but it was so far over your head that you didn't understand it but that isn't stopping you from passing it on; or you know it is irrelevant but you are citing it anyhow, hoping that nobody else will notice. Each of these is dishonest. > Earlier this month, the Texas Forensic Science Commission raised concerns > about the accuracy of the statistical interpretation of DNA evidence, and > it is now checking whether convictions going back more than a decade are > safe. Again, not relevant. > Note in particular: "The term 'touch DNA' conveys to a courtroom that > biological material found on an object is the result of direct contact. I don't even want to think about a scenario where you could take a swab of your cheek and get more of someone else's DNA than your own, without knowing it. > How, then can anyone convey with any degree of honesty, The irony in that is truly monumental. taf

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:25:35 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > Note in particular: "The term 'touch DNA' conveys to a courtroom that > > biological material found on an object is the result of direct contact. > > I don't even want to think about a scenario where you could take a swab > of your cheek and get more of someone else's DNA than your own, without > knowing it. I just wanted to clarify what I am talking about here. Mr. Tinney's current evidence that all DNA analysis is bunk is based on 'touch DNA'. This refers to the DNA found in the small number of cells left behind in the oils transferred by touch (i.e. a fingerprint). It has been used to demonstrate that a specific person had touched the murder weapon. What it does not show is how long ago this occurred, and that is a primary criticism - not that it doesn't identify who, but that it doesn't identify when. A further concern is secondary transfer - a small number of dead cells could be transferred from one person to another when, for example, shaking hands. If that person then touches a surface, them will deposit some of their own cells, but they also may deposit some of the cells transferred to them in the prior interaction. The reason this is a problem is that forensic analysis of touch DNA requires levels of sensitivity not normally relied upon - it is trying to detect the DNA from as little as a single cell, rather than the thousands of cells normally used in a DNA test. With so few total cells, the sample tested may only have a single cell in it, and while it is most likely to have come from the person doing the touching, there is always the possibility that that cell came from the secondary transfer. You are pushing the technique to its theoretical (and biochemical) limits to detect minuscule amounts of DNA from surface. The final issues is systematic contamination - there was a specific instance where German, French and Austrian police spent all kinds of time tracking a serial killer, the Phantom of Heilbronn, because they found her DNA at a large number of sites where a violent death had taken place. As it turns out, they were using swabs that were contaminated in the factory (and were never certified DNA-free). This was only a problem because they were swabbing surfaces with no DNA, so only the low-level contamination was detected in the test. This is not the situation with genealogical testing. When doing genealogical testing, you are usually doing a cheek swab that will contain thousands of cells (one study showed that the first wash of the average swab yielded 150,000 cells, and a second wash released another 150,000). If a dozen cells from someone else have been transferred through a kiss, representing nothing more than insignificant noise amidst the 99.99% of cells from the tested individual. Indeed, the level of contamination would have to approach 20% or so before you would even notice it. At 50%, you would get an uninterpretable result rather than a wrong result. To get the wrong result, as Mr. Tinney is hinting can happen, there would have to be many more contaminating cells than cells from the test subject. This might be a concern for Hannibal Lecter, but he probably knows better than to swipe his cheek to determine his ethnic origin while he is chewing on a raw human kidney. taf

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:25:35 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 10:01:34 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > Nathan, I respectfully disagree. The current firestorm on the Internet, > > The internet? Really? You use 'firestorm on the internet' as your standard for scientific relevance? > > > > from what I have evaluated, shows that even the Forensic DNA evidence is > > being highly challenged. I refer to, for example: Forensic DNA evidence > > is not infallible > > Infallibility is a standard NO forensic evidence can meet, not fingerprints, not confessions, not eyewitness testimony. Certainly it is a standard that the genealogical documentary record can't meet. The thing is, though, the procedures and practices of of forensic and genealogical DNA collection and testing are different, and the challenges entirely distinct. > > > > As DNA analysis techniques become more sensitive, we must be careful to > > reassess the probabilities of error, argues Cynthia M. Cale. > > http://www.nature.com/news/forensic-dna-evidence-is-not-infallible-1.18654 > > Stop being dishonest! You are citing an article that has no relevance whatsoever to the type of DNA testing done for genealogical purposes. You would know this if you actually read the essay and understood it, so I am forced to conclude one of three things: you never read it and are just harvesting quotes; you read it but it was so far over your head that you didn't understand it but that isn't stopping you from passing it on; or you know it is irrelevant but you are citing it anyhow, hoping that nobody else will notice. Each of these is dishonest. > > > > Earlier this month, the Texas Forensic Science Commission raised concerns > > about the accuracy of the statistical interpretation of DNA evidence, and > > it is now checking whether convictions going back more than a decade are > > safe. > > Again, not relevant. > > > > Note in particular: "The term 'touch DNA' conveys to a courtroom that > > biological material found on an object is the result of direct contact. > > I don't even want to think about a scenario where you could take a swab of your cheek and get more of someone else's DNA than your own, without knowing it. > > > > How, then can anyone convey with any degree of honesty, > > The irony in that is truly monumental. > > taf ------------------------------------ REPLY: In reference to the Internet, I would suggest the following: {1} Cannabis use linked to gene mutation; dated 24 May 2016 "Scientists from The University of Western Australia have identified how using cannabis can alter a person's DNA structure, causing mutations which can expose them to serious illnesses, and be passed on to their children and several future generations." http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-05-cannabis-linked-gene-mutation.html "In the study published in the journal Mutation Research – Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, researchers assert they've been able to show for the first time how marijuana can be linked to serious illnesses and the implications for future generations, the International Business Times in Australia reports." http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pot-marijuana-changes-dna/2016/05/24/id/730531/ (2) From Drug Enforcement Administration Museum & Visitors Center - Cannabis, Coca, & Poppy: Nature’s Addictive Plants The oldest known written record on cannabis use comes from the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung in 2727 B.C. Ancient Greeks and Romans were also familiar with cannabis, while in the Middle East, use spread throughout the Islamic empire to North Africa. In 1545 cannabis spread to the western hemisphere where Spaniards imported it to Chile for its use as fiber. https://www.deamuseum.org/ccp/cannabis/history.html (3)Cannabis is . . . the most commonly used illegal drug both in the world and the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug) CONCLUSION: Drug use causing additional unnatural cell mutations over time in various population groups, effectively destroys using DNA analysis, as a tool in professional genealogical research applications, past, present or future.

> > The oldest known written record on cannabis use comes from the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung in 2727 B.C. Ancient Greeks and Romans were also familiar with cannabis, while in the Middle East, use spread throughout the Islamic empire to North Africa. In 1545 cannabis spread to the western hemisphere where Spaniards imported it to Chile for its use as fiber. > > Shennong is a myth. therefor, nothing literary can be historically attributed to him