Renton

I don't blame her for taking the money, it doesn't make her guilty. Neither does having an affair at the time (or having shifty eyes ). If her version of events is true, she's had to endure an awful event onl to be branded a murderer afterwards. 47236[/snapback] But shouldn't we hang her just in case?

Sorry Rob, I don't follow. People can always abuse evidence - any evidence, it doesn't lessen the power of DNA fingerprinting though.

Gayfest tbh.

See page 2! (but Renton wasn't happy with that reply! ) 47224[/snapback] I think you will find it was you that pulled me up on the term "exact science"; I was perfectly happy with the term beyond reasonable doubt. And molecular biology, of which DNA fingerprinting is part of, is certainly an exact science.

Absolutely non-existant - I'm a qualified engineer, I only turned to IT after I left university and decided engineering wasn't for me... Anyway, back to DNA, I got a response from him.... 47218[/snapback] Basically what I said then? There are even more sensitive/specific tests, but even so, if you have a positive DNA match and the person had opportunity and motive, I think you can reasonably say that the evidence from this test would be damning. Unless, of course, there was contamination or the police planted it. That's the problem I would have.

Incredible. What a stupid law, can someone explain to me the justification for it? If he did it, he did it. Also, I don't understand how this tallies with the fact he has been arrested, or with Ronnie Biggs for that matter.

Surprised Rob hasn't posted this yet. Naturally, if it is him, I hope he gets life, although I'm not sure what the maximum sentence is for this type of thing.

Yep, my brother did his PhD in it! So your brother knows a fair bit about genetics then. You though... ? 47104[/snapback] I dunno what you crazy Aussies do with your siblings, but we do actually converse from time to time.... 47128[/snapback] About forensic pathology?

FFS. The only people who have identical DNA are identical twins. This is 'O' level standard biology. Otherwise there would be clones of yourself walking down the street. I've already explained why you can never definitely prove two samples are the same - because they don't compare the entire DNA genome which is massive - equivalent to several volumes of the encyclopedia Brittanica. Btw Craig, I used a variety of molecular biology techniques in my PhD as well. I am by no means an expert but I know that I don't have the same genetic code as anyone else! 47055[/snapback] I've never said you've got exactly the same DNA as someone else.... What I am saying is that DNA testing is not conclusive as it is possible for the sample one person gives to match up with a sample that another person gives... Hence why I've said that DNA testing is not 'exact'.... * - remember you were originally talking about DNA profiling rather than a persons entire DNA structure! 47058[/snapback] OK, then we agree. It's still an exact science though, because you can work out the exact probability that the match is down to chance. Whereas the consultant who said those cot deaths could not have been a result of chance and therefore the mother must have killed them was talking out his arse basically.

Aye, I had a look for them but to no avail. Mind you, I did here that those frozen fruit juice drinks they used to stick in the freezer were also really bad for your teeth as they killed the gums or something. And then there was dare devil gob stoppers - probably illegal under EU law now. 47018[/snapback] You dont get out shopping much do you? Have a wander to Morrisons, Wham bars there 10p each. 47044[/snapback] I meant on the site. I've seen them in the shops, and they've definitely shrunk! 47052[/snapback] Not used to searching either are you? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wh...G=Google+Search 47054[/snapback] Well I missed them while browsing. Shoot me.

FFS. The only people who have identical DNA are identical twins. This is 'O' level standard biology. Otherwise there would be clones of yourself walking down the street. I've already explained why you can never definitely prove two samples are the same - because they don't compare the entire DNA genome which is massive - equivalent to several volumes of the encyclopedia Brittanica. Btw Craig, I used a variety of molecular biology techniques in my PhD as well. I am by no means an expert but I know that I don't have the same genetic code as anyone else!

Aye, I had a look for them but to no avail. Mind you, I did here that those frozen fruit juice drinks they used to stick in the freezer were also really bad for your teeth as they killed the gums or something. And then there was dare devil gob stoppers - probably illegal under EU law now. 47018[/snapback] You dont get out shopping much do you? Have a wander to Morrisons, Wham bars there 10p each. 47044[/snapback] I meant on the site. I've seen them in the shops, and they've definitely shrunk!

Exact?? Not a word I'd choose to use when talking about DNA profiling.... It can be used to define the probability that a person has done something, but it cannot be used to prove they have because it simply isn't unique... 47035[/snapback] I'm pretty sure my DNA code is unique like, unless unknown to me I have an identical twin or clone. Do you know much about genetics Craig? Otherwise there's not much point in talking about it. 47038[/snapback] Yep, my brother did his PhD in it! It's what the whole argument about the biometric ID cards is all about. DNA is not 100% unique, like finger-printing, it is widely believed that it is but they can never use it as 100% proof. I'll have to check with him for the exact figures, but the chances of 2 people having the same DNA is somewhere around 1 in a million - it's unlikely that you'd ever find a complete match up, but it's not impossible. That is why they can never use DNA to convict someone - they'll use it to provide 'beyond resonable doubt', but it can never be 100% certain... 47042[/snapback] A person's DNA is unique though, it's what defines us. This is basic biology - ask your brother. The reason there is an element of doubt when two samples of DNA are compared is because they don't compare the entire genome - just a minute section of it. However, I am pretty sure you can establish if two samples are different, or if they are the same to any reasonable degree of doubt. By this I mean one chance in several billion, not million. DNA is not used as the sole evidence to convict someone for the same reasons no single piece of evidence is used to convict someone, including a confession. It would be unsafe to do so as the evidence could be planted. You need to establish other facts as well such as other forensic evidence, opportunity, motive etc. But to suggest molecular biology is not an exact science is nonsense, it is easily the most exact of all the biological sciences. It is much more exact than dermatoglyphics (finger printing), for example.

Exact?? Not a word I'd choose to use when talking about DNA profiling.... It can be used to define the probability that a person has done something, but it cannot be used to prove they have because it simply isn't unique... 47035[/snapback] I'm pretty sure my DNA code is unique like, unless unknown to me I have an identical twin or clone. Do you know much about genetics Craig? Otherwise there's not much point in talking about it.

To be fair, his methodology was so flawed its a disgrace it wasn't picked up sooner. DNA profiling is a much more exact science.

Did you like Everton as well?

Any bets Rob's favourites are black bullets?

yeah, you can buy them in your local newsagent as well, they've just brought em back out. Havent had one yet, scared to in case it ruins the nostalgia. 47011[/snapback] I'm more scared of losing my fillings. Again. 47015[/snapback] Wham Bars were the worst for that like. 47016[/snapback] Aye, I had a look for them but to no avail. Mind you, I did here that those frozen fruit juice drinks they used to stick in the freezer were also really bad for your teeth as they killed the gums or something. And then there was dare devil gob stoppers - probably illegal under EU law now.

the original DNA tests showed no match apparently - so they sent them to the UK who did some "special processing" and "found" a match... maybe.......... 47007[/snapback] So there's a intercontinental conspiracy at work now eh? The original match was inconclusive but more advanced tests done in the UK showed a 'good match' which meant it was 'highly likely' the accused was at the scene. I think it's because they were dealing with very small genetic samples that the original test were not able to show a match. Obviously, I'm relating layman's terms from stuff I've heard on the news as I don't actually understand the science at all 47009[/snapback] Molecular biology. Piece of piss. FACT.

yeah, you can buy them in your local newsagent as well, they've just brought em back out. Havent had one yet, scared to in case it ruins the nostalgia. 47011[/snapback] I'm more scared of losing my fillings. Again.

If you want it more work-friendly, you could always use this.... http://www.toontastic.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php 46957[/snapback] That would be quite handy if it took out smilies as well.

Never knew he was Italian tbh.

Series peaked at Rocky 1 tbh.